It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature

[Garry Routh]

I see Halva has singed up about every communist, socialist, and tree hugger out there. All to say they do not want the election to stole. Who is going to do the stealing? How are they going to do it? Where will they take it once it is stolen?

We have been electing presidents for over 200 yrs. Now in this day of instant everything and high technology these people want us to believe there will be a stolen election. This is too funny. Liberals are panicing. They are getting ready to try and steal this election themselves by putting together some sort of organization to challenge the outcome ttill they win it. So how many recounts can we expect this time, 35 to 40? Count the pennys in a dime...do it a thousand times. Still have ten cents? are you sure some one did not count eleven?

Liberals have no need of history or knowledge of how the American system has been set up by the founding fathers. Kennedy was elected just like Bush was. Remember? No? Try reading. The mantra of the left that Bush stole the election just shows how little they know about the process. But it is their right to be able to illustrate to the rest of us how uninformed they are.

News Flash for liberals: The definintion of a conservative is someone who obeys the law. By the very lable they are not disposed to stealing or lying. They leave that up to the desperate liberals who are such free thinkers that facts, law, and truth just get in the way of how they "feel". If something does not fit their argument, they just make up something. Conservatives do not attack and vandlaize deomcrack headquarters, liberals and free thinkers do that. Ever notice how Kerry and Edwards have to over emphasis their words in their speeches? They have to add that little extra "umph" to make sure you think what ever they say is serious. They embleish because they feel inside that their arugments are not solid enough to cuase one to be conerned from their own weight.

So Halva, have you gotten Castro's signature yet?

Garry Routh

[halva]

Any comments on the first ten pages of this thread Garry Routh?

If you still haven't read them, that means you aren't going to read them.

So, go to the 'general discussion' section of this forum, where there are no entry requirements and you can have the kind of set-piece argument you are trying to start here so as to establish an identity for yourself.

P.S. Hope you and your fellow-Americans enjoy fighting with each other over who has won your presidential elections.

[halva]

Jet exhaust may be adding to global warming
Aircraft contrails create clouds that may contribute to the greenhouse effect, a NASA study reports.

BY DAVE SCHLECK
247-7430

HAMPTON -- Next time you're on a plane, think of this: The plane's exhaust might be adding just enough moisture to the atmosphere to create a cloud and keep it floating.

That cloud could stretch 1,000 miles long and 37 miles wide, depending on the weather and your flight distance.

Add that cloud to all the other clouds produced by airplane exhaust, and it creates a blanket effect - trapping heat that's radiating from the Earth. The end result: warmer temperatures on the surface.

In other words, your flight might be contributing to the greenhouse effect.

A recently published study by NASA Langley researchers concludes that clouds from airplane exhaust, or contrails, contributed to a .5-degree per decade warming trend in the United States between 1975 and 1994.

That might seem like a small amount, but those half-degrees add up over time. Environmentalists fear that global warming will bring about radical changes to weather patterns and agricultural production. Some worry that the polar icecaps could melt and cause the sea level to rise. Scientists vary on their level of alarm over global warming, but most agree that it's worth a serious look.

Greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide are still the main focus of global warning research. But scientists had suspected that contrails might contribute to the greenhouse effect as well, but the NASA study is the first time someone used real weather observations to document temperature change relating to contrails, said Patrick Minnis, a senior research scientist at Langley.

Minnis studied contrails and the feathery white cirrus clouds that develop from contrails. He also studied surface temperatures across the globe to see what, if any effect the clouds were having down below.

To understand his conclusions, you need to know a few facts about contrails, cirrus clouds and global radiation.

Not every flight creates a contrail. The conditions have to be just right, with temperatures of minus 40 degrees or colder at typical flying altitudes of 25,000 to 43,000 feet.

Clear skies cannot hold enough moisture to support a cloud. If a plane comes along, its exhaust can add just enough moisture to the air to condense and freeze, forming a sustainable cloud.

"You're basically turning 'on' a cloud that wouldn't form on its own," Minnis said.

Minnis and researchers at a Hampton-based firm called Analytical Services and Materials used data from global weather stations, the National Weather Service and the National Centers for Environmental Prediction, which collect detailed weather information necessary for a close look at cloud conditions.

"We analyzed data that had been painstakingly collected and analyzed by other people," said Kirk Ayers, a researcher with Analytical Services and Materials.

"...and then painstakingly analyzed again by us," Minnis added.

The moisture levels over the United States did not increase during the study period. But the amount of cirrus clouds increased at a rate of about 1 percent per decade.

"Cirrus clouds can have a net warming or net cooling effect on the Earth, depending on how thick they are," Minnis said. "Cirrus clouds from contrails tend to be thin, and the effect of thin clouds tends to be warming."

After using satellite data to double-check his information, Minnis concluded that air traffic was adding enough contrails to the atmosphere to increase the coverage of cirrus clouds.

He also looked at surface temperatures using a database with 25 years of global weather records and found that temperatures increased in the United States along with the cirrus clouds.

Out of concerns about the environment, the airline industry in Europe is investing in research to reduce contrails, Minnis said.

There are two main options:

Change the propulsion system of planes so water vapor isn't injected into the atmosphere.

Avoid flying in humid areas of the upper atmosphere.

"Basically that would mean flying lower," he said. "But the trade-off there is that the air is thicker, so the plane is less efficient and you burn more fuel."

Bruce Wielicki, a NASA Langley scientist who was one of the first researchers to factor clouds into climate models in the 1970s, said Minnis' study points out how contrails, along with greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide, are factors when studying how humans affect the climate.

"It's part of the story," Wielicki said. "It's not the main driver."

[jayreynolds]

HAMPTON -- Next time you're on a plane, think of this: The plane's exhaust might be adding just enough moisture to the atmosphere to create a cloud and keep it floating.
That cloud could stretch 1,000 miles long and 37 miles wide, depending on the weather and your flight distance. Add that cloud to all the other clouds produced by airplane exhaust, and it creates a blanket effect - trapping heat that's radiating from the Earth. The end result: warmer temperatures on the surface.

Well, Wayne, nice to see you debunking "chemtrails" again.
Thanks, bub.
happy trails!

[jayreynolds]

Reiterating. I understand your frustration. Apparently you can no longer monitor the most important information exchanges and discussions. And there must be so few places nowadays that you can get a hearing for your own raucous voice.

Actually, Wayne, no one could be more frustrated than a "chemmie" trying to prove a hoax true, because it is false and thus can never be proven.


Even if your first choice candidate is 'elected' in the coming US presidential elections, it won't help you noticeably. The globalist plan of triggering massive internal unrest in the United States (legitimating 'international community' interventions) proceeds apace.
Probably an acknowledged Kerry win would be less destabilising for the United States.

US elections have never, and never will, be accompanied by the sort of unrerst common to other nations because our system was designed so well. The American model will eventually be adopted worldwide. Those old bewigged patriots definitely knew what they were doing.


You have failed in everything you were trying to do here other than silencing us (or at least me) on one subject on this one thread.

To the contrary, Wayne, over the past three hundred pages of this forum I have done my utmost to engage you in debate, never asking for you to be silent. For the most part, you have been on-the-run, and now you have silenced yourself on the topic you placed into debate at the outset. During that time you lobbied the board admins to have me silenced, and even discouraged others in your own camp from engaging in debate!

Well, YOU have failed to prevail in debate, YOU have failed to silence me, and YOU have failed to show any proof whatsoever for your cause. Face it, Wayne, no amount of covert 'discussions', even if they actually take place, will ever help your cause. Your cause is false, and can never be made true.

Get over it.
Get out of it.
Get on with life.

[halva]

Well, Wayne, nice to see you debunking "chemtrails" again.
Thanks, bub.
happy trails!

I am a person of my word, Raynolds.

[halva]

Raynolds, you have succeeded in banishing references to chemtrails from this thread, which - as I understand - was your objective. This dispenses you from the need to intervene here at all other than for the purposes of checking that the terms of the agreement you imposed are in fact being respected.

[halva]

Over the past three hundred pages of this forum I have done my utmost to engage you in debate, never asking for you to be silent.

Raynolds the beginning of this thread was not my first contact with you.

My introduction to you some years ago now was in your role as an accuser. You accused me of doing something I did not do and which you doubtless knew I did not do. Accusations of this kind are par fo the course for you, part of the repertoire of strategies in which, it seems, you are trained.

That accusation set the terms of the subsequent claimed 'debate', which since I am still a free citizen and not the occupant of a torture chamber, I am liberty to decline.

Having achieved your objective on this thread, which was not debate but silencing and intimidation, the only reason you can have for continuing to post is that there is no more purposeful activity for you elsewhere.

Confirming my point.

[halva]

I understand your frustration. Apparently you can no longer monitor the most important information exchanges and discussions. And there must be so few places nowadays that you can get a hearing for your own raucous voice.

You have failed in everything you were trying to do here other than silencing us (or at least me) on one subject on this one thread.


This is true.

Unlike your assertions about chemtrails, your views on climate change, the anthropogenic factor in which you say is unproven, are conceivably sincere.

This element of possible sincerity in your outlook distinguishes you from the mainstream of atmospheric and climate scientists and so from people like Patrick Minnis.

It also renders you incapable of forever being able to play climate scientists and alert chemtrail activists off against each other.

You tried to play this divide-and-rule game, which is habitual to you, on this thread also, and you lost in that respect.

Possibly at the time you were assigned your duties your handlers never bothered to tell you that your views on climate change would render you dispensible at some point and that you had a use-by date.

As I said, if you go back to the drawing board and rethink your strategy or you are headed for the knacker's yard.

But of course I don't care if you don't.

[halva]

Nasa aims to move Earth

Scientists' answer to global warming: nudge the planet farther from Sun

Special report: global warming

Robin McKie, science editor
The Observer

Scientists have found an unusual way to prevent our planet overheating: move it to a cooler spot.
All you have to do is hurtle a few comets at Earth, and its orbit will be altered. Our world will then be sent spinning into a safer, colder part of the solar system.

This startling idea of improving our interplanetary neighbourhood is the brainchild of a group of Nasa engineers and American astronomers who say their plan could add another six billion years to the useful lifetime of our planet

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,504486,00.html

[jayreynolds]

This is true.
Unlike your assertions about chemtrails, your views on climate change, the anthropogenic factor in which you say is unproven, are conceivably sincere.
This element of possible sincerity in your outlook distinguishes you from the mainstream of atmospheric and climate scientists and so from people like Patrick Minnis.
It also renders you incapable of forever being able to play climate scientists and alert chemtrail activists off against each other. You tried to play this divide-and-rule game, which is habitual to you, on this thread also, and you lost in that respect.

Wayne, there are no practically no "chemtrail" activists. There are "chemtrail" conspiracy theorists, "chemtrail" hoaxers, and "chemtrail" promoters, but extremely few of you could actually be considered 'activists'. Probably the closest to being a real-live activist would be Carnicom, who is sincerely deluded enough to come close to the definition.

The problem Carnicom has is that he is a deluded fanatic totalitarian ban-meister who practices self-mutilation, digging into his flesh extracting nerve bundles which he falsely believes are "chemtrail" fibers. This delusion puts him beyond the realm of normality and into the twilight zone of lunatic fanatics.

The day Patrick Minnis believes in "chemtrails", pigs will fly about, breaking wind in the stratosphere. You forget perhaps, that he and I have been acquaintances for five years now, perhaps? and don't give me that "climate scientist" crap, Wayne, you've been rebuffed each and every time you've tried to ride on THEIR coattails.

The simple fact is, that you will never get a real scientist or jet pilot on your side, because the 'chemtrail" hoax is preposterous. Deborah knows it, too, which is why she is on the run.

[halva]

I make a general point and apropos of nothing you gossip about Carnicom.

I make another general point and you similarly gossip about Patrick Minnis.

[halva]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1331637,00.html

Climate change 'to reverse human progress'

Press Association
Wednesday October 20, 2004

Global warming threatens to reverse human progress and make international targets on halving world poverty by 2015 unattainable, a study published today said.
The claim comes from charities including Greenpeace, Oxfam and Action Aid who have joined forces, under the banner of the Working Group on Climate Change and Development, to release the report, called Up In Smoke, in London today.

The group's warning follows a summer in which hurricanes Jeanne and Ivan wreaked havoc across the Caribbean and Bangladesh saw its worst flooding for years.

In a world in which global warming is a reality, it says, such severe weather events are likely to become more frequent and extreme - and the poor will be hardest hit.

The group is urging the international community to take urgent action to introduce:


· A global risk assessment of the likely costs of adaptation to climate change in poor countries


· Cuts in emissions of greenhouse gases by industrialised countries of between 60% and 80%, relative to 1990 levels, by the middle of this century. This goes far beyond the targets of the Kyoto protocol on climate change.

The report says the cuts are vital in order to stop climate change running out of control - defined as a rise in global average temperatures of more than 2C (4F) above pre-industrial levels.

· New funding to help poor countries adapt - bearing in mind that rich countries' subsidies to their own fossil fuel industries stood at $73bn (£40bn) a year in the late 1990s.

· Effective and efficient arrangements to respond to the increasing burden of climate-related disaster relief.

· Small-scale renewable energy projects promoted by governments and community groups that can be copied and developed in order to help tackle poverty and reduce climate change.

This move will require political commitment in the form of new funds from governments in all countries and a major shift in priorities by the World Bank and other development bodies, the report says.

· Coordinated local and international plans for relocating threatened communities with appropriate political, legal and financial resources.

The report says the prime minister, Tony Blair, has signalled that he will use the UK's presidency of the G8 nations in 2005 to bring the issues of climate change and Africa - where many of the world's poorest countries are found - to the top of the international political agenda.

Welcoming this commitment, the coalition says an either/or approach to climate change and poverty reduction is not an option: the world must face up to the inseparable challenges of poverty and a rapidly warming global climate.

Andrew Simms, author and policy director of the New Economics Foundation, which organised it, said: "Thousands of people, from the grassroots to Gordon Brown, are aiming to make poverty history, but global warming has been critically overlooked. Like a fire smouldering in the basement it threatens to burn down all they have built up.

"To rescue the situation we need a global framework to stop climate change that is based on equality, and we have to ensure that plans for human development are made both climate proof and climate friendly."

Archbishop Tutu, Nobel Peace laureate and former Anglican archbishop of Cape Town, said: "I urge governments and development and environmental organisations to work together to find sustainable solutions to avert a catastrophe that will exacerbate human suffering to a magnitude that perhaps the world has not yet seen."

The environment secretary, Margaret Beckett, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that Mr Blair would make climate change a priority during Britain's presidency of the G8.

Ms Beckett said: "No one can welcome what the report says, but ... I very much welcome the direction of the report and the way that it is bringing people with these concerns together."

She said she hoped the report would increase pressure on the US to shift its stance on global warming.

"It is true that the present American administration - and the last one - were not prepared to sign up to the Kyoto protocol, but we are moving on without America," she said.

The environment secretary rejected claims that climate change could only be halted by a switch to nuclear power.

The government has not ruled out the future development of nuclear power, but Ms Beckett made it clear that she did not accept the argument that it was a "clean" fuel because it did not produce carbon emissions.

[halva]

Raynolds, you have succeeded in banishing references to chemtrails from this thread, which - as I understand - was your objective. This dispenses you from the need to intervene here at all other than for the purposes of checking that the terms of the agreement you imposed are in fact being respected.

[halva]

Trade in carbon credits takes off

Financial Times, 22 October 2004 - With Russia's parliament due to debate ratification of the Kyoto protocol today and the European Union's emissions trading scheme set to begin in January, a new commodities market is opening, writes Fiona Harvey.

Chilean pig manure carriesa strange allure for the power generation sectors of Japan and Canada. This summer, Canada's Transalta electric utility and Japan's Tokyo Electric Power signed a ground-breaking deal with Agrosuper, Chile's leading pork producer. Pig products hold the key to helping the power companies fulfil their obligations to lower global greenhouse gas emissions and to do their part in slowing down climate change.

Agrosuper is using new technology to collect and eliminate the methane produced by its 100,000 pigs.

Its multi-million dollar agreement with the power utilities - signed in August and brokered by the greenhouse gas brokerage CO2e.com - is the biggest transaction so far under the provisions of the Kyoto protocol on climate change.

It is one of the first examples of the so-called clean development mechanism - designed under the Kyoto protocol to promote project-based emission reduction in developing countries - and forms part of a global move towards the trading of greenhouse gas emissions that many scientists and governments see as the only way to avoid catastrophe from the forces of climate change.

After years of vacillation, Russia now looks likely to ratify the Kyoto protocol, saving it from being shelved. Ratification could come as early as today when the Duma debates the treaty. The Kyoto protocol initiates a system of trading in carbon emissions aimed at encouraging businesses to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases they pump into the atmosphere. With the European Union set to start its own carbon trading scheme in January for member states to meet their obligations under the Kyoto protocol, momentum behind the trade in greenhouse gases is growing. It is also finding a niche in the commodities market and is likely to influence the price of other commodities, such as coal and metals.

Gas emissions such as methane, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, which are blamed for causing climate change, are produced by industrial processes such as the combustion of fossil fuels. The build-up of these gases in the atmosphere traps heat on earth, much as heat is trapped in a greenhouse. This is thought to cause not just the rise in the world's temperatures, but also an increase in the incidence of storms, floods and droughts.

The Kyoto agreement, brokered by the United Nations in 1997, seeks to slow the pace of climate change by reducing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Countries that ratify the protocol agree to set a target for their future emissions, which should by 2012 effectively cut that country's emissions to a level below a benchmark of the greenhouse gases produced in 1990.

But the crucial part of the protocol is its endorsement of a market-based mechanism that will allow countries and industries to reduce their emissions, rather than relying on taxes or other methods of controlling industry. It provides an incentive for companies to invest in carbon-reducing techniques, along with the flexibility for those that are behind in such investment to catch up.

The underlying principle is this: companies in the industries that emit greenhouse gases are allocated a certain threshold for the emissions they produce. Companies that do not use their entire allowance may sell the excess in the form of emission "credits" in the market. Companies that require more than their allowance, either because they have failed to reduce their emissions or because their operations have expanded so fast that they have reached their limit prematurely, can buy more allowances on the market.

A market-based mechanism also helps spur the development of carbon- reducing technologies in developing countries, which are not included in the Kyoto protocol's emissions reduction targets, by allowing for clean development mechanisms, such as the deal between the Canadian and Japanese power utilities and the Chilean pig farm.

In effect, this trading mechanism opens up a new global market: the buying and selling of carbon emissions. Trade in carbon emissions began on a small scale at the beginning of this year and is already seeing nearly 1m tonnes a week traded.

An industry is springing up to serve this offshoot of the commodities market, with carbon brokerages, consultancies, and the commodities desks of banks getting involved in the trade. Louis Redshaw, head of environmental markets at Barclays Capital, says carbon emissions trading is becoming an essential part of general commodities trading: "CO impacts (on) a large number of other commodities we trade in. The electricity price is expected to be influenced by CO allowances and there is a knock-on effect on coal, gas and metals prices. One of the ways you get good at trading commodities is by understanding the drivers of the markets, and CO is becoming a fundamental driver in these markets."

Although trade in carbon emissions has already begun, the Kyoto protocol - widely regarded as the most important international treaty on the environment - will effectively be shelved if Russia refuses to ratify it. The treaty can only come into effect if ratified by industrialised nations responsible for at least 55 per cent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. Because the US has refused to sign up, Russia, which accounts for 17 per cent of global emissions, is needed to reach the 55 per cent threshold.

"Russia's importance in the context of the Kyoto protocol can hardly be overestimated," says Henrik Hasselknippe, analyst at Point Carbon, a consultancy. "It is the largest emitter that has taken on a binding target under the Kyoto protocol, and potentially the dominant seller of allowances and credits in the global carbon market. But its ability to live up to its role depends on building institutions and systems to measure its greenhouse gas emissions and set up emission reduction projects."

Although the treaty now looks likely to be ratified by Russia, the opposition it faced within the country's government shows the depth of the controversy surrounding the Kyoto agreement's requirements. Andrei Illarionov, Mr Putin's economic adviser, warned: "Kyoto will cripple our economy and make our country less able to achieve badly needed economic growth, thereby harming our poorest citizens the most."

Russia is not alone in hesitating to ratify the protocol. Australia has declined to ratify it and George W. Bush, who refused to ratify it in 2001, shows no sign of changing his mind. John Kerry, Mr Bush's Democrat challenger in the presidential race, is unlikely to sign up to it either if elected. Even among the countries that have ratified it, the protocol has not always had an easy passage. The support of countries such as Japan and Canada has at times been lukewarm.

The strongest supporter of the protocol has been the European Union, which has the most advanced plans for implementing curbs on climate change. Even if Russia fails to ratify the Kyoto protocol, the EU will go ahead with its own carbon emissions trading scheme in January.

The scheme will cover industrial installations producing carbon in sectors that are judged to be the most serious emitters. These include oil refineries and iron, steel, cement, glass and pulp and paper factories. The European Commission may expand the scheme to include other sectors, such as chemicals and aluminium, in the second trading phase which covers from 2008 to 2012.

The EU trading scheme will operate on a "cap and trade" basis, by which member states must set an emissions cap for each of the installations covered by the scheme. Each installation will be allocated allowances for the commitment period in question but businesses can appeal against their allocation.

Each installation participating in the scheme must surrender emission allowances equal to the amount of carbon dioxide emitted each year. Businesses that go over their allowances will be fined Euros 40 per tonne.

Although the EU scheme will be independent of any worldwide measure under Kyoto, other countries are expected to join. "It would not make sense for other countries to set up a system which is so different to the EU system (that) it would be incompatible and so unable to link," says Anthony Hobley, senior associate at Baker & McKenzie, a law firm. Elliot Morley, the UK's minister for the environment, says: "There has been interest from other countries already and there is a very good chance of this becoming a global scheme."

Environmentalists criticise the Kyoto protocol as being weak and say that without the US's participation, it provides for a reduction of only 2 per cent in the amount of carbon the world produces, when a cut of 60 per cent would be required to halt global warming. Others argue that the market mechanisms under the protocol give businesses flexibility and incentives to reduce emissions.

[halva]

Peter Koster, chief executive of the European Climate Exchange - a subsidiary of the Chicago Climate Exchange that creates financial products for trading carbon - says: "Businesses understand market-based mechanisms. Without this, it would be much more difficult to encourage businesses to participate in lowering their carbon."

The Kyoto agreement has already resulted in a rise in the number of businesses involved in renewable energy such as wind and solar power, which can help companies reduce their emissions. "This new business sector is made possible by the UK's and now the EU's early embracing of market-based solutions to the climate change issue," says Mr Hobley of Baker & McKenzie.

Mr Morley, the British environment minister, adds: "There is no evidence to suggest that carbon trading is bad for business. Cutting energy costs also helps to increase productivity and competitiveness."

BP, the British-based oil company, is often held up as an example of how reductions can be achieved. The company met its pledge to slash its emissions by 10 per cent from 1990 levels by 2010 eight years early, and at no net cost to the company because of the energy savings.

Although carbon trading has been welcomed by many companies, there is concern about the uncertainty surrounding emission reduction plans in the future. While the haggling continues over the current round of emission allowances, the prospects for future rounds remains unclear.

Andrew Duff, chief executive of RWE Power which has around 10 per cent of UK generating capacity, says: "We don't know the final detail of carbon allocations for the first period of the EU emissions trading scheme which starts in 10 weeks. For the second period - 2008 to 2015 - when most plant begun now would be coming online, we don't even know the allocation rules. Without this information it's impossible to make investment decisions."

Another key concern is how to ensure fairness between companies in countries that participate in the EU scheme and the Kyoto protocol and those that do not. Digby Jones, director general of the CBI, the UK business lobby, spoke for many sections of European industry when he said of Russia's probable ratification: "The real worry is that more significant trading partners (than Russia) are still dragging their feet, in particular the US, China and India. We have got to fight for a level playing field."

Given the difficulty of bringing developing countries into the Kyoto fold without compromising their economic growth, and given the size of the task of reducing carbon emissions by conventional means, some have argued for a more radical approach than carbon trading - an increase in the use of nuclear energy, which produces energy without carbon.

But this is also controversial and as debates over the possible future of nuclear power in countries such as the US and China and in Europe are still far from conclusive, it is likely to be a long time before decisions on the expansion of nuclear power are made. In the meantime, businesses around the world will have to get to grips with what carbon emissions trading means for them. That could include a sudden surge of interest in pig farming.

Business in US starting to rise to challenge

The US has refused to ratify the Kyoto protocol under President George W. Bush, giving its industries no international obligation to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

Nonetheless a surprising amount of effort to reduce carbon levels is taking place, as US-based companies grow more aware of their carbon usage and output in the light of the increasing global activity to reduce emissions. Furthermore, the rising price of oil means that many companies are keen to make efficiency gains from energy-saving techniques.

Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change in the US, says: "I think most businesses here think it is inevitable that we will be in a carbon-constrained world. The only question is whether they try to fight it to the last breath or they move ahead. Many businesses are choosing to move ahead."

General Motors recently announced, in a filing with the US Department of Energy, that it had reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 72 per cent in 13 years. DuPont has achieved a 69 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared with its 1990 levels, according to the Climate Group, a UK-based environmental group, while IBM has reduced its emissions by 65 per cent for the same period. Kodak cut CO emissions by 17 per cent between 1997 and 2003. United Technologies Corporation has cut its CO emissions by 32 per cent since 1997.

It is not only US businesses that are intent on reducing carbon levels. Some states have brought forward plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and even to consider complying with the Kyoto protocol. For instance, in August 2001 the governors of states in the north-eastern New England region of the US and premiers of provinces in eastern Canada signed an agreement for a regional plan jointly to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2010.

California has moved to impose curbs on vehicle emissions and may take further steps that would enable it to comply with the main requirements of the Kyoto protocol. Other states have also indicated willingness to consider the protocol.

Could individual states sign up to carbon trading under Kyoto without federal government ratification of the treaty? The situation would be complex, says Anthony Hobley, senior associate at Baker & McKenzie, the law firm: "They are not sovereign states, so it's difficult to see how carbon trading would work with them under international law."

Whether or not individual states choose this route, emission reduction seems set to gather pace. Some US politicians have warned that, if reduction is not taken seriously, the US will lose out economically as other regions gain expertise in technologies such as renewable energy.

London's International Petroleum Exchange is gearing up to allow carbon futures to be traded on its exchange by the end of the year - just as oil and gas future contracts are now traded - followed by spot trading next year.

"The movement of prices for US carbon has tended to follow the trend in the European market and the market is sensing that there will ultimately be a worldwide market," said Richard Sandor, founder and chief executive of the Chicago Climate Exchange, the world's only private-sector carbon trading exchange, launched last year and involving Ford, Motorola, IBM, DuPont, StoraEnso, ST Microelectronics and the jet engine maker Rolls Royce.

Copyright 2004 The Financial Times Limited
Financial Times (London, England)

Copyright © 2004 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy

[halva]

Andean Glaciers Shrink

Earthweek A Diary of the Planet

By Steve Newman

San Francisco Chronicle October 23, 2004

Ecuador's mountain glaciers are melting at an alarming rate due to global warming, threatening the country's fresh water supplies, according to researchers. Ecuador's Meteorology Institute and France's scientific research institute IRD said that the towering Cotopaxi Volcano has lost 31 percent of its ice cover between 1976 and 1997, and others such as El Altar could lose all of their snow pack during the next 10 - 20 years. Ecuador's capital, Quito, depends on snow-covered mountains for 80 percent of its water supply.

[foot_soldier]

October 24, 2004
ENERGY AND AMERICA'S FUTURE - A 3-PART SERIES
Campaigns fail to focus on energy
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/10/24/MNG4C9FF1L1.DTL

(First of Three Parts)

Gasoline prices are hitting record highs, stocks of winter heating fuel are shrinking and energy costs are slowing the U.S. economy. Yet little of this is being discussed on the campaign trail.

Drowned out by Iraq and the war on terror, one of the most critical problems confronting America's future -- energy -- has barely been featured in the blizzard of television ads, the three presidential debates and the stump speeches of President Bush and Sen. John Kerry.

And when the candidates do bring the subject up, neither of them fully explains how he intends to achieve his stated goals.

Kerry promises "energy independence from the Middle East in 10 years," yet he has not detailed how he would bring about such a colossal shift in the way America gets its energy in such a short period of time.

Bush makes brief mentions of his energy plan, which seeks to increase domestic oil and natural gas production but has been blocked in Congress for two years because of bipartisan concerns about environmental damage.

Meanwhile, consensus is emerging among experts that the country's reliance on foreign oil -- a key driver of American foreign policy -- endangers national security. It also forces Washington to rely increasingly on undemocratic nations like Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil producer, whose role in the war on terrorism remains controversial and which is facing increasing attacks from terrorist groups allied with al Qaeda. The United States is becoming more dependent on Persian Gulf oil, not less, and the trend is virtually guaranteed to continue no matter which candidate wins the White House.

Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan took note of these concerns earlier this month when he warned in a speech that high oil prices could severely damage America's "competitive edge" and even suggested that the effects could be as bad as those following the skyrocketing prices of the 1970s.

Other analysts believe that one reason neither candidate is addressing the issue is because little can be done about it in the prevailing political climate.

"American consumers may not like high gas prices, but there's nothing in the short term that the White House can do," said Robert Ebel, a former CIA analyst who is director of the energy program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

"And for the long term, there is no chance in the current political climate of doing what is necessary by curbing demand, through a large gasoline tax, for example. Have any of the candidates talked about higher (fuel- efficiency) standards in specific numbers? Are Americans prepared to pay a 50- cent-per-gallon gas tax, as an incentive to drive less? No."

Old habits die hard among Detroit's automakers. While Ford and GM have introduced some gasoline-saving hybrid cars, they continue to emphasize larger gas-guzzling models and sport utility vehicles -- because the American public likes them and because the profit margin is higher than on the smaller vehicles favored by their Japanese competitors.

U.S. auto companies and the United Auto Workers union have opposed a tightening of fuel-efficiency standards because they say Japanese firms would derive most of the benefit and American workers might lose jobs. Because Michigan, where the industry is headquartered, is considered a swing state in the presidential campaign, Kerry has dropped his support for mandatory increases in mileage standards (known as the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, or CAFE) favoring instead voluntary improvements.

In 2002, Kerry co-sponsored legislation with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., that would have increased the CAFE standard for autos to 36 miles per gallon by 2015. The measure lost in a close vote, but it has been used by the Bush campaign to tar Kerry as an enemy of the average American driver, despite the fact that Kerry has since backed away from it.

"John Kerry voted to increase gas taxes 10 times," says one recent Bush commercial. The Bush campaign's main Web page is now profiling a "Kerry gas tax calculator" that claims Kerry wants to increase gas taxes by 50 cents. The "calculator" offers to calculate for Web page users how much the tax would cost them, based on their car make and driving habits. In fact, Kerry briefly expressed support for such a tax in 1994 but never introduced or voted for such a bill and does not currently support the idea.

Kerry's defenders, while acknowledging these retreats, say he has a long track record as a champion of energy conservation -- although they wonder why he hasn't highlighted his proposals more.

"Kerry has a pretty bold energy plan that is a substantial departure from where Bush has been," said Bracken Hendricks, executive director of the Apollo Alliance, a coalition of environmentalist and labor groups that is advocating a program of heavy federal spending on conservation and energy technology. "But I have been surprised it has not been as prominent as it could have been in public debate."

Most industry analysts believe Kerry's program will not come anywhere near replacing American dependency on Saudi Arabia and its oil-producing neighbors, which account for 20 percent of U.S. petroleum imports.

"There is no chance that the United States will stop buying Persian Gulf oil," said Fareed Mohamedi, chief economist for PFC Energy, a Washington consulting firm. He points out that while only one-third of the world's current oil production comes from the Persian Gulf, the area, which includes Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran, contains about 65 percent of world oil reserves.

The United States contains only 3 percent of world reserves, and production from other major producers such as Russia are expected to start a permanent decline in about 2010.

Continued below

[foot_soldier]

Continued from above

For their part, Bush and Cheney, both former oil executives, have tried to expand oil and natural-gas drilling in such controversial places as the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge and Otero Mesa in New Mexico.

The Bush administration has cut or attempted to cut many programs for energy efficiency, such as the voluntary Energy Star consumer product-labeling program; successfully opposed attempts by Democrats to increase federal fuel- efficiency standards for new cars; and supported only a small increase in the average fuel economy standard for light trucks. The administration tried to repeal a Clinton-era Energy Department rule increasing the minimum efficiency of residential central air conditioners and heat pumps, but a federal appeals court blocked the move.

Although many advocates of conservation and new energy technology prefer Kerry to Bush, some say both candidates are taking the wrong tack.

"Their energy plans are simply constituency wish lists that balance votes and hand out goodies," said Amory Lovins, CEO of the Rocky Mountain Institute in Snowmass, Colo. "It's a process of hogs at the trough, jostling for subsidies. That's a lousy way to make policy."

In a Pentagon-sponsored study released last month, Lovins proposed a detailed plan to cut U.S. oil consumption by 50 percent by 2025, at a net savings of $70 billion a year. The study, Winning the Oil Endgame, has been praised by some Republicans, including former Secretary of State George Shultz and corporate leaders, including the former chairman of Royal Dutch/Shell, as well as by environmentalists. Lovins' plan would combine corporate initiatives with federal regulations -- but no extra net government spending -- to eliminate U.S. oil use altogether through improved vehicle fuel efficiency and the use of bio-fuels and natural gas.

The plan calls for federal loan guarantees to help U.S. automakers and suppliers invest tens of billions of dollars to make advanced-technology vehicles, especially those using new, ultralight materials such as carbon fiber combined with lightweight steel. Under a "feebate" scheme, the federal government would impose fees on the purchase of gas-guzzling vehicles and grant rebates to customers buying energy-saving models.

While these futuristic ideas may seem pie in the sky, they are likely to get broader attention if energy prices continue rising.

Many analysts estimate that as much as 25 percent of the current price of oil is a "terror premium" in response to fears that attacks may interrupt world supplies at any moment. In addition, the red-hot economies of China and India are expected to keep sucking up ever-increasing amounts of the world's oil. For these reasons, some analysts say, crude oil prices are likely to stay high for the foreseeable future, almost certainly above $40 per barrel and possibly over $60, far more than the 1990s average of about $20.

While neither presidential candidate appears to be paying much attention to the effects of such a scenario, it certainly has caught the attention of Greenspan.

"Elevated long-term oil futures prices, if sustained at current levels or higher, would no doubt alter the extent of, and manner in which, the world consumes oil," he said in a speech Oct. 15.

Greenspan expressed particular concern about the consequences of continued oil dependency for U.S. competitiveness.

"Much of the capital infrastructure of the United States and elsewhere was built in anticipation of lower real oil prices than currently prevail or are anticipated for the future,'' he said.

"Unless oil prices fall back, some of the more oil-intensive parts of our capital stock would lose part of their competitive edge and presumably be displaced, as was the case following the price increases of the late 1970s." END Part 1

Energy and America's future

-- Today: A big issue is overshadowed on the campaign trail.
-- Monday: The promise and problems of the new holy grail -- natural gas.
-- Tuesday: A bumpy road for fuel-efficient vehicles.

[Garry Routh]

I doubt Halva would know mother nature if she saw it. Is it the trees?, water? Animals? The thing the liberals love to worship and call "mother nature" is physics. Liberals like to put a face on it. This nurturing sweet mother that will save us all. Let halva have a child and then throw it out in the woods and let this sweet mother help raise it. It will be animal food. Those lovely and furry little animals liberals love to protect, like "rescuing" a sea turtle. They want to help the poor turtle. Meanwhile they are depriving some other animal a meal of that turtle because that is just the way sweet mother nature is. But not a liberal. Let that other animal starve! They want to save a turtle!

It is all the touchy-feely nature of tree huugers. Animal life is more important than human. Some years ago a mother of two was killed by a moutain lion as she jogged. The animal was killed by rangers. Money was raised for the motherless...the lion cubs got 7 to 1 more money to help raise them than the human children got. That is liberals.

In my professon we deal in absoulute fact and numbers. This mother nature is a cruel assembly of natural behavor. I would suggest halva read the Greenland Project Report to get some idea of how violent her mother is.

Garry Routh

[halva]

NI 'set for energy crisis'

A campaign to get Northern Ireland households to save energy and the environment is to be launched.

A report has said the year 2050 could see more flooding, decimation of the farming industry and the spread of diseases unless we cut back.

Noel Williams of the Energy Saving Trust said more than a quarter of the harmful carbon dioxide emissions which cause climate change come from the energy used in homes.

The report - Forecasting the Future - is being launched as Energy Efficiency Week gets under way on Monday.

It said Northern Ireland's "addiction to fossil fuels" was leading toward a climate change crisis.

Mr Williams said: "Forecasting the Future paints a disturbing picture of what could happen to the environment if we don't act today.


This can be as simple as turning thermostats down by one degree, replacing ordinary lightbulbs with low energy ones or even walking to the shops instead of taking the car
Noel Williams
Energy Saving Trust

"Without a drastic reduction in our energy use, emissions of carbon dioxide (C02) - one of the leading contributors to climate change - could have disastrous results for Northern Ireland.

"It's imperative that households in Northern Ireland become more aware of the energy they use in their homes and act now to reduce C02 omissions.

"This can be as simple as turning thermostats down by one degree, replacing ordinary lightbulbs with low energy ones or even walking to the shops instead of taking the car."

Meanwhile, Belfast Energy Efficiency Advice Centre has teamed up with the Energy Saving Trust, NIE, Phoenix Gas and the Housing Executive to draw attention to the need to save energy in winter.

It said each home in Northern Ireland produced at least six tons of carbon dioxide from energy used.

Siobhan Purnell, marketing manager at the Belfast Advice Centre, said: "We are holding an Open Day at the Advice Centre on May Street, Belfast this Friday 29 October.

"Every visitor will receive a free home energy check with information on the many grants that are available in Northern Ireland and the first 100 visitors will receive a free low energy light bulb.

"We want everyone to be aware of energy efficiency and how simple steps can make a big difference."


Story from BBC NEWS:

[halva]

Garry Routh, if you can get Raynolds to join you in a general cross-the-board diatribe against liberals, tree-huggers, climate change activists, etc. that would be the ultimate in distractions and would suit my purposes perfectly.

He already has zero credibility in the circles he is trying to incite further against chemtrails activists. With your help he could discredit himself even further.

Go to it. Turn this thread into kindergarten playtime.

[halva]

Further message to G. Routh. You have been put on my ignore list so I am no longer able to read your messages on this thread. This ignore list is a valuable facility available to all members here and I recommend others to make use of it to remove from their attention provincial imbeciles like G. Routh who cannot heed good advice to remove themselves to other threads if they insist on frequenting the Arianna online forum.

Of course Raynolds can always be ignore-listed also.

[DvdGStwrt]

Wayne, there are no practically no "chemtrail" activists. There are "chemtrail" conspiracy theorists, "chemtrail" hoaxers, and "chemtrail" promoters, but extremely few of you could actually be considered 'activists'. Probably the closest to being a real-live activist would be Carnicom, who is sincerely deluded enough to come close to the definition.


Actually that is not completely true. While there are those who do latch on to the Chemtrail band wagon to promote NWO, UFO, HAARP and other personal agendas, there are people who are actively trying to find a way to address the issues without sounding like a nut job. Hard to do considering that one gets a lot of flak attacks and no real journalist no real politician wants to touch the subject due to the wild speculations and the attached "stigma" of "chemtrails".

Due to the negative connections people are having to out smart the system and find ways to address and promote investigations of certain places through other means. We may not be able to say that a certain lab is producing the technology of "chem-trails" but we can pursue through environmental impact and safety regulations the handling of materials which can be considered dangerous - a blanket investigation which tracks many things including radioactive materials, asbestos and other known hazardous materials. THIS is being done and actively pursued by so called "Chemtrail Activists" who remain as quiet on the subject as possible owing to the heat of the subject.

Others are attempting to run investigation on 'Contrails', another way to broach the subject addressing environmental concerns caused by the "normal" contrail (A different word that is not loaded, does not come with the stigma of Chemtrails it is a "safe" word). Others are questioning the low passenger lists on jumbo jets and the need for even more planes in the skies when the passenger demand is lower than what the carriers claim. Questions are being asked, people are attempting to change things, people are addressing related issues attempting to get to the core of the "Chemtrail Conspiracy" as it is called.

Others are pursuing the environmental issues which cause Radiatively Active Gases (RAGs) to be released into the atmosphere. Others are questioning the thousands of "experimental" cloud seeding projects being pursued by military and private corporations where various materials are being dumped (sprayed) into the atmosphere by planes. Others pursue it as a game of the Rights of the People against the Rights of the Government to pursue experiments on the unsuspecting public. All are careful attempts to circumnavigate the loaded word "chemtrails".

There is a group who have been actively attempting to get air samples, unfortunately the expense and the laws about flying are such that one can't reasonably fly behind a jet plane - especially a MILITARY jet and collect samples from their "exhaust" (Please note the quotes on that). All ground based air samples are pooh-poohed and are said to be indicative of ground based pollution and can not be used to reflect anything being injected into the upper atmosphere.

The True Activist you have yet to have a real discussion with, You may have met a few, but instead of engaging them in conversation and find out about that, you immediately step onto you soap box and call them all manner of things. If an activists gets treated like this by you, imagine the difficulties of getting scientists, journalists and politicians to pursue Chemtrails - they will not simply because the topic is to hot and could easily be career suicide to pursue - not because it doesn't exist, but because of the way it has been abused and is readily assimilated by the other factions who pursue it as a means to a diabolical end. It is the heat of the subject, the attached symbolisms (NWO, UFO, Mind Control, etc) which make it difficult to pursue the matter as is. Thus no you will not hear of "Chem trail" Lobbyists and Chemtrail Activists seeking out political, scientific and journalistic lines of inquiry into Chemtrails.

Due to these difficulties and others, the real chemtrail activist wears a different hat and is pursuing related but not loaded lines of inquiry.

[halva]

Note today's prediction by former presidential adviser John Dean that the 2004 US presidential elections foreshadow a 21st century American civil war.

If anyone was expressly setting out to discredit the existing global political system and the monopolized media to whose tune it dances (in the same way that it appears a systematic two-pronged effort is underway to discredit the United States political system - or rather force its bankruptcy into universal attention) there could be no better way to do it than by means of existing official policies on 'chemtrails', which make it compulsory for politicians and journalists to slit their own throats, requiring the population to deny the evidence of its senses and common sense and so sacrificing the very last shred of their credibility.

Of course this might seem like a reintroduction of the chemtrails subject, which I have agreed to avoid and encourage others on this thread to avoid also.

Let me then stress that the above is merely by way of explanation of why I am no longer talking about chemtrails on this thread.

More or less adhering to a strategy of the kind that David Stewart alludes to.

[gaiacomm]

FYI

http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/102504/bus_16981479.shtml

[halva]

Under direct order from the NSA I will not be posting here again, Goodbye...

Gaiacomm has received permission from the NSA to give Raynolds more evidence that he is not Lance Haubrick, and quite properly so.

[foot_soldier]

Emissions from aviation could annul CO2 target
http://www.acidrain.org/AN3-03.htm#aviatin_UK

The UK government will be unable to meet its climate targets if it fails to enact measures to control emissions from aircraft, says the Institute for Public Policy Research (ippr) in a report issued in May.1 Building new runways to accommodate more flights would only make things worse.

The government has set an ambitious target to cut the country’s overall emissions of carbon dioxide by 60 per cent by 2050. But by then the expected emissions from aviation alone would effectively breach that target (see chart above). The number of people flying in and out of UK airports is forecast to have almost trebled by 2030, and freight to have grown at an even faster rate.

Emissions from international flights do not call for any action under the Kyoto protocol. In its report the ippr recommends including the carbon-dioxide emissions from aircraft in an international system for emissions trading, with a global cap on the total level of emissions. As a start, the proposed European emissions-trading regime could be made to include emissions from aircraft.

Other recommendations:

-- Auctioning take-off and landing slots at airports, and earmarking the money so raised for improvements in public transportation, including airport links and high-speed rail.
-- Congestion charging on roads in the vicinity of major airports such as Heathrow, and again earmarking the income for improvements in public transportation.

1 The sky’s the limit: policies for sustainable aviation. By Simon Bishop and Tony Grayling. For details see www.ippr.org.uk

[jayreynolds]

Gaiacomm has received permission from the NSA to give Raynolds more evidence that he is not Lance Haubrick, and quite properly so.

So now the NSA announces it's orders on messageboards?

Sorry Lance, more of these self-serving "press releases" won't make a bit of difference.
Everybody knows that whatever anyone submits to these websites, they print. All one has to do is make a submission by e-mail.
"Career Track reports significant promotions, appointments and personnel changes; and significant elections or appointments to business-related organizations. Photographs should be clearly labeled and will be used as space permits, but cannot be returned. Send information to Heather Lovejoy c/o the Times-Union, Career Track, P.O. Box 1949, Jacksonville, FL 32231; fax to (904) 359-4090 or e-mail to businessjacksonville.com."

[halva]

I have a suspicion that it's just a new phase of tactical deployment of the alternative Raynolds identity.

Given the difficulties that Mr. Hyde has been in recently, Dr. Jekyll is due to make his triumphal reappearance.

[jayreynolds]

Actually that is not completely true. While there are those who do latch on to the Chemtrail band wagon to promote NWO, UFO, HAARP and other personal agendas, there are people who are actively trying to find a way to address the issues without sounding like a nut job. Hard to do considering that one gets a lot of flak attacks and no real journalist no real politician wants to touch the subject due to the wild speculations and the attached "stigma" of "chemtrails".

WRONG. Plenty of real journalists politicians, scientists and meteorologists have taken on and debunked your hoax. NONE of the above back you up because once looked into, it is obvious that no such a thing as "chemtrails" exists. I see that this post contains no more proof than any of your others, fagboy, and indeed is full of disclaimers and always more vague assertions.

Shows just how weak your idiot arguments are.


Due to the negative connections ..blah blah blah

I really can't do better than my old barium hoax debunking buddy chem11, so here is what he says about the part YOU, David G. Stewart, have played in setting those "negative connections".
READ WHAT IS BEING PUBLICLY SAID ABOUT YOU, DAVID, AND REALIZE THAT THEY SIMPLY AREN'T BUYING YOUR BULLSHIT, AND EVEN BLAME IT ALL ON YOU!


I've got kind of a hang-up when it comes to people that lie to me. It's been my experience that people who lie about the 'little things' are more likely to lie about the big things.
What I do know is that the Ba information that DS and DS provided is highly unreliable. I do know that they published the claim that people opposed to the geoengineering program are directly responsible for the events of 09\11\01. Because David Stewart admitted to fabrications doesn't make me a 'supporter' of anyone. I've never 'supported' the Deep Shield material and I can't think of anyone else besides yourself who is beating this dead horse to an unrecognizable pulp.

The material was designed to discredit the geoengineering hypothesis and get ppl to dismiss the subject without checking the facts or further investigation. People were asking questions and doing there own research ... then here comes Deep Shield and Monica Lewinsky and chemtrail opponents hijacking jets and flying them into the WTC...
It was, in my opinion, the most clever piece of true disinfomation ever foisted upon the CT community.

This entire soap opera is based on facts not in evidence. There is no evidence that deep shield existed outside of the confines of "deep shield dave's" imagination, no evidence that if he did exist, that he committed suicide, no evidence that he worked at LLNL, no evidence that if he did he was even slightly interested in disclosing factual information (in fact, just the opposite). No evidence of anything other than that this was just what the vast majority of people exposed to the material decided it was; nonsense.

For the last and final time, you could erase every last particle of Ba from the face of the earth and we'd still be gifted with horizon-to-horizon aerosol trails and technoclouds. It is, at this stage of the game, damn near criminal to continue telling people barium is the active and primary ingredient; it isn't...

Do I need to throw in some weird-as# fiction about Monica Lewinsky to capture your attention or make a point? Would my telling you that this information was sent to me by a dead scientist from Lawrence Livermore make it sexy enough for you to comprehend?

Sorry, but the Deep Shield material is half lies (the half that matters) told by an admitted liar. You know where the genie can put the bottle.

And I'll tell you something else; John Reynolds is not my enemy.

The Deep Shield material in no way influenced my thinking on the atmospheric engineering hypothesis, other than to confirm that someone was trying to discredit it by association with obvious absurdities.
http://chem11.proboards2.com/index.cgi?board=Fight&action=display&num=1097483256



SEE, WAYNE, IT IS YOU, DEBORAH STARK(aka 'footsoldier') AND ALL HER CO-HOAXERS, AND MOST RECENTLY YOUR BUDDY STEWART WHO ARE BEING BLAMED FOR DISCREDITING THE "CHEMTRAIL" HOAX, NOT ME.

[gaiacomm]

So now the NSA announces it's orders on messageboards?

Sorry Lance, more of these self-serving "press releases" won't make a bit of difference.
Everybody knows that whatever anyone submits to these websites, they print. All one has to do is make a submission by e-mail.
"Career Track reports significant promotions, appointments and personnel changes; and significant elections or appointments to business-related organizations. Photographs should be clearly labeled and will be used as space permits, but cannot be returned. Send information to Heather Lovejoy c/o the Times-Union, Career Track, P.O. Box 1949, Jacksonville, FL 32231; fax to (904) 359-4090 or e-mail to businessjacksonville.com."


FYI

www.gaiacomminternational.com

[halva]

SEE, WAYNE, IT IS YOU, DEBORAH STARK(aka 'footsoldier') AND ALL HER CO-HOAXERS, AND MOST RECENTLY YOUR BUDDY STEWART WHO ARE BEING BLAMED FOR DISCREDITING THE "CHEMTRAIL" HOAX, NOT ME.

Raynolds I haven't noticed Chem 11's Hollywood ratings hitting the heights since he got the seal of approval, or should I say kiss of death, from you.

Not that I rejoice at that.

[halva]

To repeat myself (it seems that this is what we are all doing): if Chem 11 is 'not your enemy' why don't you apply to join his forum, and see what happens.

[halva]

More Action Needed to Tackle Climate Change - Supermarkets Told

By Jamie Lyons, Political Correspondent, PA News


Supermarkets should clear their shelves of environmentally-damaging products, Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett said today.

Ms Beckett said businesses and shoppers had to do more to tackle climate change.

She said shoppers should demand environmentally-friendly goods.

“I challenge supermarkets to raise their game by only selling products that minimise environmental damage in their production and use,� she said.

In a speech to the Environment Agency in Birmingham, Ms Beckett said industry and consumers were working to reduce environmental damage. But they were not doing enough.

The minister said being environmentally-friendly did not mean being less competitive. Firms could save billions of pounds by taking action.

She said firms were saving £1,000 per worker by signing up to Government green schemes.

And by adopting better waste minimisation, businesses could save £2 billion to £3 billion a year.

Ms Beckett said £284 million over three years from the landfill tax would be recycled to help firms moving away from landfill.

She added: “I believe that sustainable development depends on long-term changes in the behaviour of individuals, companies, communities and the public sector in relation to energy use, travel, consumption and production, waste, and health.

“Some of these changes are happening already. The best businesses recognise that they can maximise their long-term returns to shareholders by minimising their negative environment impacts; that through responsible action they can become more competitive, not less. Individuals buy fair trade goods, organic products and invest their savings sustainably. But this is clearly not sufficient.�


Latest News:

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm

[halva]

Britain faces crisis from climate change
Mon 25 October, 2004 04:23

By Jeremy Lovell

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain faces a multi-billion pound flood catastrophe from climate warming unless people have a radical lifestyle change, an energy watchdog says.

The Energy Saving Trust (EST) said on Monday Britain could face damage to two million homes and 200 billion pounds of assets from flooding due to rising sea levels as early as 2050.

"Without a drastic reduction in the UK's energy consumption, emissions of carbon dioxide - one of the leading contributors to climate change - could have disastrous results for the UK," EST chief executive Philip Sellwood said.

"Every time a light is switched on or a video is left on standby, carbon dioxide is emitted from a power station into our atmosphere, causing damage to the environment," he added.

The trust, set up by the government to promote responsible energy usage following the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, said Britain emitted 536 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) each year of which one-third was due to energy usage in homes.

It said the average home was responsible for six tonnes of CO2 emissions a year -- of which one-third could be saved by a switch to energy efficient lifestyles.

This in turn could carve 10 percent off the national total -- equivalent to emissions from 30 coal-fired power stations.

"It is imperative that we become more aware of the energy we use in our homes and reduce our carbon dioxide emissions," Sellwood said.

"This can be as simple as turning thermostats down by one degree, replacing ordinary light bulbs with low energy ones or even walking to the shops instead of taking the car," he added.

KYOTO TREATY

The report said climate change could alter the entire face of Britain, with warmer winters spelling the end of several species of plants and trees which need a winter cold snap, and summer droughts burning green pastures to brown.

It came just days after the Russian parliament finally ratified the Kyoto climate change treaty aimed at cutting CO2 emissions by 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.

The treaty -- first agreed in 1997 but held in limbo by the refusal in 2001 of key polluter the United States to sign up -- will now come into effect.

Critics say the treaty is too little, too late. But the government's chief scientist David King said recently that as it was the only game in town it had to be made to work.

Britain leads the way in cutting CO2 emissions and creating energy efficient technology, experts say. But scientists and environmentalists have warned for years that a radical change in lifestyles was also necessary.

The south of England is most at risk from rising water levels as the polar ice caps melt and extreme weather events like storms increase.

An indication of the rising threat is the number of times the Thames Barrier has had to be used to prevent London from flooding in the 20 years since it was built.

Barrier manager Andy Batchelor told Reuters it had been used 88 times since it was commissioned -- with more than 60 of those instances in the past decade, and anticipation that it might be needed as much as once a day by 2100.

[halva]

Of course Kyoto is not the only game in town. There is another game called the European Social Forum (and the World Social Forum and other regional social forums).

[halva]

Reiterating.



If anyone was expressly setting out to discredit the existing global political system and the monopolized media to whose tune it dances, there could be no better way to do it than by means of existing official policies on 'chemtrails', which make it compulsory for politicians and journalists to slit their own throats, requiring the population to deny the evidence of its senses and common sense and so sacrificing the very last shred of their credibility.

Of course this might seem like a reintroduction of the chemtrails subject, which I have agreed to avoid and encourage others on this thread to avoid also.

Let me then stress that the above is merely by way of explanation of why I am no longer talking about chemtrails on this thread.

[halva]

US elections have never, and never will, be accompanied by the sort of unrerst common to other nations because our system was designed so well. The American model will eventually be adopted worldwide. Those old bewigged patriots definitely knew what they were doing.


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1024-01.htm

Published on Sunday, October 24, 2004 by the lndependent/UK

Portrait of a Country on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown
With only nine days to go and the polls showing Bush and Kerry still neck and neck, the result is once again likely to turn on the minutiae of the voting system. But this time the whole country seems poised to descend into post-election chaos. Andrew Gumbel reports on the traumatizing effects of this bitter campaign and how, as the world's most powerful democracy talks of exporting freedom to Iraq, it is at risk of becoming an object of international ridicule

by Andrew Gumbel

No need to wonder if this year's US presidential election is headed for another meltdown: the meltdown has already started. The voting machines have already begun to break down, accusations of systematic voter suppression and fraud are rampant, and lawyers fully armed and ready with an intimate knowledge of the nation's byzantine election laws have flocked to court to cry foul in half a dozen states.

Nine days out from election day, we don't yet know whether the state-by-state arithmetic will lead to a post-election stalemate similar to the 36-day battle for Florida in 2000. It is, of course, possible that the margins of victory in the 50 states will be wide enough to avert the worst - even if overall conditions are likely to fall short of the usual definition of a free and fair election.

Given the nail-bitingly close numbers in the opinion polls, however, Election 2004 could just as easily produce a concatenation of knockdown, drag-out fights in several states at once, making the débâcle in Florida four years ago look, in retrospect, like the constitutional equivalent of a vicarage tea party.

Last week saw the start of early voting in Florida and a clutch of other states, and with it came a plethora of problems. In three heavily populated counties - around Tampa, Orlando and Fort Lauderdale - the network connection used to verify voter identifications broke down on the first day, creating hours of delay. In Jacksonville, where poor ballot design in 2000 knocked out the votes of 27,000 poor, predominantly black, predominantly Democratic voters, the county elections supervisor chose the first day of polling to resign, citing ill health. He had come under fire for failing to make early voting available in the city's African-American neighborhoods - something his interim successor is now going some way to remedy.

Elsewhere, there were computer breakdowns during early voting in Memphis. Pre-election testing of electronic machines in Riverside County, California, and in Palm Beach County, Florida, led to multiple computer crashes. Elsewhere, machines have manifested problems handling basic addition - especially when asked to display instructions in a language other than English. Several county administrators have chosen simply to skip the non-English language part of the test.

In Nebraska, dead people were found to have applied for absentee ballots. In Ohio, a representative of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People was found to have offered crack cocaine to a known drug addict in exchange for completed voter registration forms, which he duly submitted in the names of Mary Poppins, Janet Jackson and Jeffrey Dahmer, the notorious cannibal serial killer.

This is just the beginning. The Kerry campaign alone has signed up 10,000 lawyers around the country to oversee registration and absentee ballot procedures, keep tabs on computer voting companies, collect stories of alleged disenfranchisement or irregularities at the polls, and watch state elections officials with hawk-eyed attention for every ruling that might be construed as having a partisan, rather than a public interest intent.

"The lawyering won't start the day after the election," said Kendall Coffey, a Democratic Party lawyer in Miami who was deeply involved in the 2000 fiasco. "It's already under way." Florida Congressman Robert Wexler, who is deep in litigation with his state government over the failure of Florida's electronic voting machines to produce an independent paper trail, concurred. "The dangers are limitless," he said. "They are limited only by the inventiveness of those who would tamper with the system and create havoc."

It beggars belief that the world's most powerful democracy should find itself in this hole for the second time in a row - becoming an object of international ridicule, scorn and not a little alarm, even as the country's leaders talk idealistically about exporting American freedom and democracy to Afghanistan, Iraq and beyond.

After the last fiasco everyone from President Bush down vowed to fix the system and ensure another Florida could never happen. But three big things went wrong. First, the new generation of computer touchscreen machines - brought in at dizzying speed and at even more dizzying cost to replace the discredited old punch-cards - turned out to be poorly programmed, unverifiable, prone to all manner of failure and susceptible to undetectable foul play.

Secondly, the Bush administration dragged its feet about enacting funding its own new election laws. As a result, most states won't have their electoral procedures fully updated and coordinated until the next presidential election in 2008. That, in turn, is opening up furious arguments about the ill-defined rules for provisional ballots, absentee ballots, ID card requirements at polling stations and other seemingly esoteric bureaucratic niceties that could have a huge impact on turnout - especially among the poorer, less educated classes who have traditionally been ignored, if not excluded, by the two major parties.

Thirdly, the political leadership allowed itself to be deluded into thinking that the dysfunctions of the US electoral system were purely a matter of technology. Fix the machines, the thinking went, and everything else will be fine. What should have been glaringly obvious in 2000, and is even more glaringly obvious now, is that the failures of the electoral process were a direct result of the ferocity of broader political battles. The blithe incompetence of local election officials and their wonky machinery were side-effects of these battles, not the cause.

In 2000, much of the agony of Florida could in fact have been avoided if the parties had agreed to a state-wide manual recount - as happened in an equally close, but amicably resolved, Senate race in Washington state that year. It was the high stakes of the White House, not the messy accumulation of hanging, dimpled and pregnant chads, that sparked the crisis. And we know the stakes are infinitely higher this time, in what has been called the most important US election in memory.

[halva]

There has been nothing to match the current passions in American politics since the Civil Rights era and the Vietnam War. Campaigns have never been dirtier, or more intensely fought or more expensive. Both major parties have vowed to do whatever it takes to win, and each has accused the other of engaging in out-and-out cheating.

The whole country - never mind the woefully inadequate electoral system - is now living on the edge of a nervous breakdown. Little wonder, then, if many are predicting some sort of collapse on 2 November. "Only a miracle, it strikes me, can prevent this election from descending into post-election chaos," John Dean, the Watergate-era White House counsel who knows a thing or two about electoral dirty tricks, wrote last week.

What has been striking is the sheer nastiness of the fight. In Oregon, Pennsylvania and Nevada - all swing states - a Republican political consulting group called Sproul & Associates has been accused of passing itself off as a non-partisan or even a Democratic civic organization to collect voter registration applications outside libraries and supermarkets. In at least two instances now under criminal investigation, company employees have been accused of processing the applications of declared Republican voters while throwing the forms marked Democrat into the nearest rubbish bin. Sproul, which has received more than $600,000 (£330,000) from the Republican National Committee, has denied ever endorsing such practices. Still, the discarded voter registration forms have been paraded on television for all to see.

In Ohio and Florida, it is the Republican secretaries of state - who oversee elections - who have been accused of putting partisan preference above their solemn civic duties. Ohio's Ken Blackwell won points from voting rights activists earlier in the year when he chose not to go ahead with a massive state-wide buy of electronic voting machines. Since then, however, he has tried to insist that all voter registration forms be submitted on 80lb stock paper - a ruling struck down by the courts after he was accused of blatantly attempting to suppress the votes of likely Democrats.

He has also tried to make life harder for provisional voters, saying their ballots will be recognized only if they show up at exactly the right precinct. This too was struck down in court because it was deemed likely to suppress votes - especially among transient students and low-income workers. But Secretary Blackwell has continued to implement the policy in defiance of the court order, prompting a harsh rebuke from the judge.

In Florida, Secretary of State Glenda Hood has been repeatedly accused of doing the political bidding of the man who appointed her - Governor Jeb Bush, the President's brother. Her more recent exploits include directing county supervisors to throw out registration forms where applicants have signed a statement declaring they are US citizens but have forgotten to check a citizenry box elsewhere on the form. This, too, is seen as a vote-suppressing mechanism. It, too, is now in the courts.

Secretary Hood has also been waging a months-long campaign to ban what limited manual recounts the electronic voting machines permit. Her initial ruling was struck down by the courts, but now she has come up with a staggeringly devious rewrite. The state will now permit analysis of the computerized machines' internal audit logs in the event of a close race, she said, but if there is any discrepancy the county supervisors are to go with the original count. In other words: we will do recounts, but if the recounts change the outcome we will disregard them.

Secretary Hood's actions illuminate the real attraction of the electronic voting machines in the states where they have been introduced. They may work no better than the old punch-card machines - studies suggest they fail to record as many votes as their predecessors. In the absence of an independent paper trail, how- ever, all evidence of problems is hidden away in the binary code of an electronic black box and is, to all intents and purposes, invisible.

This raises intriguing and troubling questions about what a post-election contest might look like. One can reasonably anticipate - based on past experience - an avalanche of stories about voters turned away from polling stations, told they are on a felons list even if they have no criminal record, or kept waiting for hours because of technical glitches. No doubt people will tell some of those thousands of lawyers how they pressed the screen for one candidate, only to have the other's name light up.

The problem is, even if lawyers for the losing candidate are able to prove that the system failed, they will find it very difficult to talk specific numbers and demonstrate that enough votes were lost to alter the outcome.

How the courts will react to this hypothetical state of affairs is anybody's guess. They could accept the given election results, however flawed. They could allow the arguments to rage until December, when the electoral college is supposed to meet, or even into the new year, when an undecided election would be thrown into the House of Representatives.

Or they could be trumped, once again, by the Supreme Court. The most disconcerting possibility is that the highest court in the land could remove the electoral process from the voters altogether and turn it over to the state legislatures. Technically, they can do this under Article II of the Constitution, which offers no automatic right to vote. We know from the deliberations in 2000 that two, possibly five, of the nine justices have doubts whether the people should be the ultimate arbiters of presidential elections - a strict, literal reading of the Constitution that no modern Supreme Court countenanced before the current crop of ultra-conservatives. "After granting the franchise in the special context of Article II," the majority declared in its Bush vs Gore ruling, "[the state] can take back the power to appoint electors."

Were this scenario to play out it would leave the fate of many of the electoral battlegrounds in the hands of Republican-controlled state legislatures (in Florida and Ohio, for starters), who would promptly hand the election to George Bush. Talk about a nightmare scenario - which is why every elections official and every "small d" democrat in the land is praying it won't get that close.

© Copyright 2004 lndependent/UK

[halva]

What would those 'bewigged patriots' have thought of all this?

And what were the real motives of those who expended so much energy to get these machines adopted in the USA?

http://www.flashpoints.net/jhu_analysis_of_diebold_election_voting_system.htm l

[jayreynolds]

My man Wayne, you've run up six pages of spam in no time. Must not be anything new in your "chemtrail" hoax at all, eh?

The Ladbrokes odds-makers are seldom wrong on US elections, in my experience.
Guess who's favorite to win?

Just so those of you in Yerp(and elsewhere) can understand why Bush won fair and square in 2000, take a look at this map:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/002678.html

[jayreynolds]

From: "halva_gr" <halva@h...>
Date: Thu Oct 28, 2004 2:12 am
Subject: German TV meteorologist provokes nervous laughter
Chief German TV meteorologist and pseudo-celebrity Joerg Kachelmann
was on a talk show (Johannes Kerner Show) on October 19th on ZDF
German state television. About 5 minutes into the show he jokingly
(and absolutely out of the blue) started talking about chemtrails,
stating that thousands of Germans erroneously believe that the USA
are poisoning Germany via chemtrails. Of course, he said, these
people are mostly neonazis and anti-semites. Everybody on the show,
for some reason or other had a good laugh, and the show changed
subjects as quickly as the chemtrail "feature" had been introduced.

For those understanding spoken German:

http://www.zdf.de/ZDFmt/mediathek/0,3496,MT-2204966,00.html
================================================
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chemtrailtrackingusa/message/116662
================================================
What the hell did you expect them to say, Wayne? Forget Liakopoulos?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=juden+chemtrails&btnG=Google+Search

[halva]

I told you Raynolds that I am no longer posting on this thread on the subject of chemtrails.

[halva]

Worries over rising carbon dioxide emissions

Mark Milner
Wednesday October 27, 2004
The Guardian

Carbon dioxide emissions will be almost 40% higher by the end of the decade than they were in 1990 despite growing use of renewable energy, the International Energy Agency said yesterday.

It predicted world energy demand will rise by 60% between now and 2030, with two-thirds of the increase coming from developing countries. Although the agency said energy resources will be able to meet demand until 2030 it warned that countries in Europe, Asia and North America will become increasingly reliant on supplies of oil from the Middle East.

The IEA forecast of increasing dependence on Middle East oil came as Sadad al-Husseini, a former director of the Saudi oil company Aramco, warned that American projections of his country's production capacity were "a dangerous overestimate".

He told Channel 4 news: "Yes the kingdom has huge reserves - 260bn barrels - but they are finite.

"So the faster you use them, the more you deplete them."

According to the IEA's World Energy Outlook the rise in global energy demand will require investment of $16 trillion between 2003 and 2030.

Although renewable energy sources will be the fastest growing sector, they will still account for only 2% of world demand by 2030.

Gas demand will double and coal will rise by 50%. Oil consumption will increase by 1.6% a year to 90m barrels a day in 2010 and 121m barrels a day by 2030. Nuclear power will grown only slightly.

"These trends are, however, not unalterable. Our analysis shows that more vigorous government action could steer the world on to a markedly different energy path," said Mr Mandil.

The IEA's alternative policy scenario shows energy demand 10% lower and carbon dioxide emissions 16% lower.

"Achieving a truly sustainable energy system will depend on technological breakthroughs that radically alter how we produce and use energy," said Mr Mandil.

Even so, energy imports and emissions would still be higher in 2030 than today and would still be growing.

[jayreynolds]

Of course, he said, these
people are mostly neonazis and anti-semites. Everybody on the show,
for some reason or other had a good laugh, and the show changed
subjects as quickly as the chemtrail "feature" had been introduced.
THIS IS THE SORT OF ANTI-SEMITISM RIFE AMONG CHEMMIE BELIEVERS IN GERMANY. THEY ARE ALL NEO-NAZIS AND IDIOTIC PEOPLE.

http://www.bfed.info/

HERE IS A ROUGH MACHINE TRANSLATION, SEE JUST WHAT SORT OF DISCREDITATION WAYNE HALL HAS BROUGHT UPON HIS FELLOW CHEMMIES BY BRINGING THIS SORT OF PEOPLE INTO THE TENT. NO WONDER THEY ARE LAUGHED AT BY METEOROLOGISTS WORLDWIDE.
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.bfed.info/&prev=/search%3Fq%3Djuden%2Bchemtrails%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D% 26ie%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DG

[jayreynolds]

I told you Raynolds that I am no longer posting on this thread on the subject of chemtrails.

It is quite pleasing to me that you should be asking me whether there is anything new rather than telling me that there is not.

So what you are saying, then, Wayne, is that you feel free to discuss news about how German chemmies are identified with racists, on a chemmie messageboard, but are afraid to mention or discuss it here.

Looks like no one over there at chem-cultusa really gave a damn, anyways.
and my buddy Chem11 isn't responding to your idiocy anymore.
http://chem11.proboards2.com/index.cgi?board=Discussion&action=display&num=1098927065

October used to be a big month for "chemtrails", way back when. The hoax is at it's ebb, Wayne. They've heard it all before, the empty promises of 'breakthroughs' that never come, the indigancies when rational people don't buy into the hoax, the endless reptition of obviously false crap debunkable by high school science, the lies, the money-grubbing ways.

Above all, Wayne, it's becoming clear that those acquainted with you have had enough of you, as well. They're just not buying into it anymore.
Get over it.

[halva]

I told you, Raynolds, that I am no longer posting on this thread on the subject of chemtrails.

There is no way that you can influence what I post elsewhere, either in places where you can see it, like Megasprayer, or in places where you presumably can't.

[jayreynolds]

I told you, Raynolds, that I am no longer posting on this thread on the subject of chemtrails.

There is no way that you can influence what I post elsewhere, either in places where you can see it, like Megasprayer, or in places where you presumably can't.

Wrong, Wayne.

By confronting you here, I am able to counter with fact, logic, and commentary whatever you post elsewhere. That's why you are forced to stay here, trying in vain to spread enough darkness to shut out the light of truth.

Ain't gonna happen, bub.

I know damn well liars prosper when their acts are not confronted by truth, and fail miserably when truth has a chance to shed light on the darkness. Only a tiny light is sufficient to dispell darkness, and drive it into the back corners of existence. You aren't fooling anyone anymore, Wayne. No furtive e-mail 'activism' or posts on some inner sanctum member's only forum can ever promote the hoax.

It's over.
Get over it.
Get out of it.
Get on with life.

[halva]

You are not confronting me here. You are confronting yourself.

[halva]

To elaborate on the previous point: your strategy consists in asserting the opposite of what you know.

But there is quite a lot that you don't know.

[foot_soldier]

ARCTIC CLIMATE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/acia.php

Update: Information about the ACIA (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment) International Scientific Symposium on Climate Change in the Arctic, to be held in Reykjavik, Iceland on 9-12 November 2004, is available at the symposium web site: http://www.amap.no/MiscTempFiles/ACIA-Symp.htm.

Introduction:

The ACIA is a four-year project of the Arctic Council* that started officially in the third quarter of 2000 and is expected to be completed by the end of 2004. The funding of ACIA is through support by each of the eight arctic-rim nations. The U.S. is the lead country for the ACIA, providing financial support, through NSF and NOAA, to the ACIA Secretariat at UAF. Contributions from other arctic countries, as well as from the UK, have also been secured, with each country supporting the involvement of its citizens in the ACIA, and also by making in-kind contributions, such as local costs of hosting meetings and workshops.

*The Arctic Council is a high-level intergovernmental forum that provides a mechanism to address the common concerns and challenges faced by the arctic governments and the peoples of the Arctic.

Objectives:

Climate variability and change and, more recently, notable increases in ultraviolet (UV) radiation, have become important issues in the Arctic over the past few decades (IPCC, 2001; Serreze et al., 2000; Weller, 2001 a, b; Weller et al, 1999). It has become imperative to examine possible future impacts on the environment and its living resources, on human health, and on relevant economic sectors. ACIA is expected to produce useful information for the nations of the arctic region, their economy, resources, and peoples. The assessment will be open and transparent, and the review of its conclusions is intended to be credible and rigorous; also, the degree of uncertainty of the conclusions will be made clear. Figure 1 illustrates the expected warming of the Arctic derived from a composite of five computer models.

Three major volumes will be completed by the end of 2004; they are a peer-reviewed scientific volume, a synthesis document summarizing results, and a policy document providing recommendations for coping and adaptation measures. The eighteen chapters of the scientific volume of the assessment with their respective lead authors (in brackets) are as follows:

Final chapter titles and numbers for the ACIA scientific report.

I: Climate Change and UV Change in the Arctic

1 The Arctic System (H. Huntington and G. Weller, USA)
2 Arctic Climate System and its Global Role (G. McBean, Canada)
3 Indigenous Perspectives on Climate Change (H. Huntington and S. Fox, USA)
4 Future Changes of Climate (V. Kattsov, Russia; E. Källén, Sweden)
5 Atmospheric Ozone and UV Radiation (A. Tanskanen, Finland; B. Weatherhead and A Stevermer, USA)

II: Impacts on the Physical and Biological Systems of the Arctic
6 Cryospheric and Hydrologic Variability (J. Walsh, USA)
7 Terrestrial Ecosystems (T. Callaghan, Sweden)
8 Freshwater Ecosystems (F. Wrona, T. Prowse and J. Reist, Canada)
9 Marine Systems (H. Loeng, Norway)

III: Impacts on Humans in the Arctic
10 Hunting, Herding, Fishing, Gathering (M. Nuttall, Canada)
11 Principles of Conservation (M. Usher, UK)
12 Wildlife Management and Conservation (D. Klein, USA)
13 Fisheries and Aquaculture (H. Vilhjalmsson, Iceland; A.H. Hoel, Norway)
14 Forests, Land Management, Agriculture (G. Juday, USA)
15 Human Health (J. Berner, USA; C. Furgal, Canada)
16 Infrastructure (A. Instanes, Norway)

IV: Future Steps and a Synthesis of the ACIA
17 Assessing Vulnerabilities (J. McCarthy and M. Martello, USA)
18 Summary and Synthesis (G. Weller, USA)

ACIA is working closely with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The ACIA will fit between the third and fourth IPCC assessment, and will contribute to the fourth assessment.

[halva]

Raynolds, if you are going to keep posting here, would you judge that the latest Bin Laden video will work more to the electoral advantage of Bush or Kerry?

Some predicted a 'November surprise' arrest of Bin Laden to boost Bush's ratings. Unless something unexpected occurs, it looks as if the opposite is happening.

What is your explanation for this?

[jayreynolds]

Raynolds, if you are going to keep posting here, would you judge that the latest Bin Laden video will work more to the electoral advantage of Bush or Kerry?

Some predicted a 'November surprise' arrest of Bin Laden to boost Bush's ratings. Unless something unexpected occurs, it looks as if the opposite is happening.

What is your explanation for this?

Well, Wayne, Bin Laden is a deluded agent of satan, a mass murderer like Saddam was. He is under the delusion that his threats will have influence over the election or the policies of America. This is much the same delusion Japan had in undertaking their attack on Pearl Harbor. History has shown that Americans respond poorly to such actions, and rally against whomever they perceive as making such threats. Satan leads his minions into such strong delusions because he enjoys seeing them laboring under ever more tortuous lies.
He has similarly brought your people under the delusion of "chemtrails", and forces you to repeat the most audacious lies, keeping you in the darkness he hopes to spread.

Bush has run his campaign chiefly on security issues, and counter to Bin Laden's wishes, his video helps keep the War On Terrorism firmly on the minds of Americans. Just as 9/11 was a colossal blunder on Bin Laden's part(Did he really think we would lay down and surrender?), so was this latest action. He has reopened the wound and re-awakened the sleeping giant, tipping the election towards Bush.

Bin Laden has also now freely admitted that he organized and implemented the 9/11 attacks.
In doing so, he has debunked freaks like you who have for years claimed that NO ARAB TERRORISTS WERE INVOLVED, THAT NO PLANE STRUCK THE PENTAGON, AND THAT THE MOSSAD WAS BEHIND IT ALL.

What is your explanation for this?

[foot_soldier]

October 26, 2004
Iraq sulphur fire breaks records
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3955005.stm

A fire at an Iraq chemical plant has caused the largest recorded man-made release of sulphur dioxide, experts say

The fire, which broke out on 24 June 2003, produced more of the polluting gas than most volcanic eruptions.

On average it generated about 21,000 tonnes of sulphur dioxide a day, which is half the daily emissions of the gas produced by the United States.

The plume of smog was detected by a Nasa satellite, the researchers say in Geophysical Research Letters.

Giant fire

The fire, which was probably started deliberately, broke out at the Al-Mishraq state sulphured plant near Mosul. It burned for almost a month.

Scientists monitored the blaze using satellite images. They calculated that a total of around 600,000 tonnes of sulphur dioxide was released by the fire.

To put that figure in context, the giant eruption of the American volcano Mount Saint Helens in 1980, belched out about one million tonnes of sulphur dioxide.

Although the team, from the University of Maryland in Baltimore, believe the fire will not have a long-lasting environmental impact, they say the fire caused about $40 million of damage to local crops - along with respiratory problems in local people.

The scientists used two instruments to collect the data - the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer and Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer - which are located on Nasa's Earth monitoring satellites, Terra and Aqua.


The sulphur dioxide plume can be seen as a white haze on the map. The smog trailed for a further 1000 km through Iran and down to the Persian Gulf. Red squares show the highest sulphur dioxide concentrations, blue the lowest. Credit: NASA / University of Maryland Baltimore County

[halva]

Well, Wayne, Bin Laden is a deluded agent of satan, a mass murderer like Saddam was. He is under the delusion that his threats will have influence over the election or the policies of America. This is much the same delusion Japan had in undertaking their attack on Pearl Harbor. History has shown that Americans respond poorly to such actions, and rally against whomever they perceive as making such threats. Satan leads his minions into such strong delusions because he enjoys seeing them laboring under ever more tortuous lies.
He has similarly brought your people under the delusion of "chemtrails", and forces you to repeat the most audacious lies, keeping you in the darkness he hopes to spread.

Bush has run his campaign chiefly on security issues, and counter to Bin Laden's wishes, his video helps keep the War On Terrorism firmly on the minds of Americans. Just as 9/11 was a colossal blunder on Bin Laden's part(Did he really think we would lay down and surrender?), so was this latest action. He has reopened the wound and re-awakened the sleeping giant, tipping the election towards Bush.

Bin Laden has also now freely admitted that he organized and implemented the 9/11 attacks.
In doing so, he has debunked freaks like you who have for years claimed that NO ARAB TERRORISTS WERE INVOLVED, THAT NO PLANE STRUCK THE PENTAGON, AND THAT THE MOSSAD WAS BEHIND IT ALL.

What is your explanation for this?

I've never said or thought that Mossad was behind it all, but I have tended to assume that Bin Laden was an ace up Bush's sleeve. It seems the situation is more nuanced.

Ruppert's analysis still seems sound.

[gaiacomm]

Bush beats Kerry for President!

[halva]

What is this Gaiacomm? Another of your prophecies or merely an indication of how you are going to vote?

[Yaak]

Save the Mosquitoes!

"Protesters gathered around the nation today to save the lowly mosquito. The Million Mosquito March was held in defense of the insect which protesters say ‘cannot speak for itself’! Protesters gathered at the Mall in Washington and in State capitols across the nation."

more:
http://www.freedomnet.cnchost.com/tom/writing/mosquito/save_the_mosquitoes.htm

Is there any mention of this thread in Ariana's new book, "Fanatics and Fools"

[halva]

Bush has run his campaign chiefly on security issues, and counter to Bin Laden's wishes, his video helps keep the War On Terrorism firmly on the minds of Americans..... He has reopened the wound and re-awakened the sleeping giant, tipping the election towards Bush.


Unlike the Stalinists here in Greece, who were non-committal, both factions of the reformed ex-(Euro)Communists agree with this assessment, i.e. that Bin Laden's intervention works in favour of Bush.

But they would have said the same thing if Bush had staged a 'November Surprise', arresting Bin Laden just before the election.

So it is difficult to see what their political assessments are really based on, or what lies behind them other than an unwillingness to perceive anything positive in Bin Laden or believe anything other than that Bush and Bin Laden are objective allies. What sacrilege to admit that Bin Laden might in this instance be working more for their man John Kerry.

It is quite frequent for the ex-Eurocommunists' political judgements to be hypocritical, deluded or just plain wrong.

Something I am sure Raynolds would not dispute even when, as now, he agrees with them.

[foot_soldier]

October 31, 2004

US must act over climate says Queen
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1340279,00.html

The Queen has made a rare intervention in world politics to warn Tony Blair of her grave concerns over the White House's stance on global warming.

She is understood to have asked Downing Street to lobby the US after observing the alarming impact of Britain's changing weather on her estates at Balmoral in Scotland and Sandringham in Norfolk. The revelation gives an unusual glimpse into the mind of the monarch, who normally strives to stay above politics.

Further evidence of the Queen's views on global warming will be seen this week when she opens one of the most high-profile conferences ever staged in Europe on the issue. She is keen for this to be interpreted as a symbolic and political statement.

The Berlin summit will come a day after the US presidential elections and its outcome will dictate the tone of key climate talks. George Bush's administration has remained hostile to international attempts to reduce emissions of climate change gases.

'There has been dialogue between Downing Street and Buckingham Palace on all issues relating to climate change including the US position and the latest science. She is very keen to get involved,' said one of the UK's most eminent experts on climate change, who agreed to speak to The Observer on condition of anonymity.

He added: 'From her own observations on the climate she has become worried like the rest of us. She has made it clear she wants to raise the importance of the issue.'

In addition to her own fieldwork, the Queen was inspired by briefing papers supplied by Blair's chief scientist, Sir David King - who has described the threat of climate change as greater than global terrorism - and John Schellnhuber, research director of the Tyndall Centre, where Britain's pioneering work on global warming is conducted.

During this week's conference, Tony Blair, using a live video link, will hail a new Anglo-German alliance to persuade other countries, including the US, to reduce the impact of global warming.

Schellnhuber, who this week will receive a CBE from the Queen for his work on climate change, added that the identity of the next President of the US, the planet's biggest polluter, would dominate discussions.

'If John Kerry wins, there might be a better chance of an open dialogue, there might be a feeling we can start again. If Bush wins, then we will have to wait and see,' added the former chief scientist to the German government.

Environmentalists believe that the Queen's intervention is likely to prove crucial, particularly as Blair has promised to make climate change a key issue at the G8 group of major industrial nations next year.

Among those present for the Queen this week will be Sir David King, Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, who sounded a fresh warning only last week about the perils of climate change.

Bush has provoked international condemnation by refusing to ratify the Kyoto protocol, the international treaty to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Russia's recent decision to sign the treaty has isolated the US on an issue described by Blair as the greatest environmental threat to the planet.

Both Downing Street and Buckingham Palace refused to comment last night, in keeping with the convention that Prime Ministers do not disclose the content of conversations with the Queen.

She is known to take an active interest in her weekly audiences with her Prime Ministers, for which she is carefully briefed: after decades on the throne, her political insights are said to rival those of senior diplomats. The conversations take place without private secretaries present and are traditionally never disclosed by either side - although the Queen did once admit that her most enjoyable audiences had been with Winston Churchill.

On the rare occasions that the Queen does express a forceful personal opinion on political issues, protocol dictates the Prime Minister should raise it on her behalf with the appropriate head of state or minister - but discreetly, without compromising her. It is extremely rare for her views to become public.

By contrast, Prince Charles has lobbied increasingly openly on political issues, often firing off handwritten letters - nicknamed 'black spider memos' in Whitehall because of his writing - direct to ministers on subjects ranging from complementary medicine to hunting.

[foot_soldier]

September 15, 2004

U.S. trying to ice report on global warming, Senate told

By JOAN LOWY
Scripps Howard News Service
http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=CLIMATEIMPACTS-09-15-04

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration is trying to bury an international report that contains recommendations on addressing the dramatic impacts of global warming on the people of the Arctic, an Arctic leader told a Senate panel Wednesday.

State Department officials are blocking the release of one of two reports that were to be presented to government ministers from eight Arctic nations at a meeting on Nov. 9 in Reykjavik, Iceland, Sheila Watt-Cloutier of northern Quebec in Canada told the Senate Commerce Committee. She chairs the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, which represents native people of the region.

Four years ago, the United States and other nations launched the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, the most comprehensive regional look at the impacts of global warming ever undertaken. More than 300 scientists participated in the project.

The results are contained in two reports _ a scientific analysis and another report outlining policy recommendations _ that were to be presented at the November meeting, Watt-Cloutier said.

The science report will still be presented, but the United States has succeeded in blocking the release of the policy report at the meeting and is attempting to bury its recommendations in a "bureaucratic" report that will be sent to the governments of the countries involved at a later date, Watt-Cloutier said.

In its current draft form, the policy report notes that the Arctic region is especially susceptible to the impacts of global warming and that there is a limit to how much the people there can adapt to the changing climate, said Terry Fenge, a Canadian representative to the circumpolar conference. The policy document urges a reduction in the heat-trapping greenhouse-gas emissions that are fueling climate change, he said.

"It's politics," Watt-Cloutier said. If the United States were to accept and follow the recommendations, then it "would have to change U.S. policy. They would have to sign the Kyoto Protocol and the rest of it. It's short-term thinking pressured by (industry)," she said. The protocol is an international climate-change treaty.

The other nations participating in the climate assessment _ Canada, Russia, Iceland, Norway, Finland, Denmark and Sweden _ want the policy recommendations released, but are being overruled by the United States, Watt-Cloutier said.

Sally Brandel, the U.S. Arctic representative, did not respond to a request for comment.

Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, told Watt-Cloutier that she would look into the situation.

Scientific studies show that the effects of climate change have been especially powerful in the Arctic and are having a devastating effect on the region's wildlife and native people, who rely on hunting and fishing to survive.

One of the scientific assessment's conclusions is that many of the region's species that depend on sea ice _ such as polar bears, seals, walrus and some birds _ will decline and may become extinct as the result of climate change, Watt-Cloutier said.

"We find ourselves at the very cusp of a defining moment in the history of the planet," she said. "The Earth is melting and we must all come together to do the right thing to address climate change."

On the Net: www.acia.uaf.edu/

[foot_soldier]

October 31, 2004

Report Sounds Alarm on Pace of Arctic Climate Change
Warmth, Glacial Melt Linked to Humans; Wide-Ranging Effect on Environment and Industry Forecast

By Juliet Eilperin and Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writers
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12360-2004Oct30.html

Excerpts:

The most comprehensive international assessment of Arctic climate change has concluded that Earth's upper latitudes are experiencing unprecedented increases in temperature, glacial melting and weather pattern changes, with most of those changes attributable to the human generation of greenhouse gases from automobiles, power plants and other sources.

The 144-page report is the work of a coalition of eight nations that have Arctic territories -- including the United States, which has hosted and financed the coalition's secretariat at the University of Alaska.

The findings, which reflect four years of study, confirm earlier evidence that the Arctic is warming far more quickly than the earth overall, with temperature increases in some northern regions exceeding by tenfold the average 1 degree Fahrenheit increase experienced on Earth in the past 100 years.

"For the past 30 years, there's been a dramatic increase in temperature and a decrease in the thickness of ice," said Robert W. Corell, a senior fellow with the American Meteorological Society and chairman of the Arctic climate impact assessment group, which produced the report.

Those changes are already having practical impacts, including a reduction in the number of days each year that the tundra is hard enough to be driven on or drilled safely for oil. They can be expected to have even greater impact in the near future, the report predicts, in terms of agriculture, wildlife ranges for terrestrial and marine plants and animals, and global shoreline flooding because of increases in sea level caused by melting ice.

Warming could benefit certain sectors, the report said, by easing marine shipping and improving access to offshore oil and gas resources in the Arctic.

The report is scheduled to be released Nov. 9, but its summary findings were reported yesterday by the New York Times.

( ... )

It is not entirely clear why the Arctic is warming much more quickly than other areas. One factor is probably albedo, or the heat-reflecting value of ice. Once icepacks melt and that reflective power is lost, temperature increases can accelerate more quickly than while icepacks are intact.

Scientists have found that melting icepacks are more porous than previously believed, a factor that speeds their melt rate once melting begins.

Of particular concern is the rate of melting of Greenland's ice, Corell said. Scientists have estimated that a total melt of that icepack would increase global sea levels by more than 25 feet.

[foot_soldier]

October 28, 2004

EXPERTS: NEW ENGLAND’S FALL COLORS COULD VANISH
IN 100 YEARS DUE TO UNCHECKED GLOBAL WARMING

Same Climate Shifts Ruining Regional Maple Syrup Industry
Could Erase Autumn Forest Colors; Big Changes Ahead
If Boston’s Weather Becomes Like That of Richmond or Atlanta
http://www.ems.org/nws/2004/10/29/experts_new_engl

BOSTON, MA ///October 28, 2004/// As the fifth disappointing New England fall color display in as many years draws to a close, experts are warning that the region’s once glorious autumnal forest leaf displays could disappear altogether in as little as 100 years if global warming continues on its current path. A University of New Hampshire professor said that climate-related factors already undercutting such traditional New England industries as maple syrup production also could end up making New England fall colors a thing of the past.

Barrett Rock, professor of natural resources, University of New Hampshire, said: “Just 40 or 50 years ago, New England and New York produced about 80 percent of the world’s maple syrup, compared to 20 percent in Canada. Now, that ratio has been reversed as the optimal sugar maple growing and tapping conditions have shifted north to areas that are still cold enough in the fall and winter for optimal production. Unfortunately, this was only the leading edge of the wedge of what New England is likely to see in terms of forest-related changes. While you can’t definitively link one or two isolated weather incidents to global warming, you can stand back and see an emerging pattern that suggests strongly that some of the things that define New England – such as its fall color display – are going to disappear if global warming continues unchecked.�

Rock noted that projections set out three years ago in the New England Regional Assessment (NERA) of expected climate change impacts appear to have been right on track or even a bit on the conservative side. The NERA report forecasts a 100-year shift in present temperatures of 6-10 degrees over 100 years. The severity of what might seem at first to be an innocuous climate change shift may been seen in that a six degree change in Boston’s 30-year-average temperature would result in the same 30-year-average temperature now experienced by residents of Richmond, VA. A shift of 10 degrees in the 30-year-average temperature for New England over 100 years would result in the current 30-year-average temperature experienced in Atlanta, GA., in the deep South. While the Atlanta extreme is the worst-case scenario for Boston, the still difficult to imagine notion of Richmond-like weather is considered a middle-of-the-road scenario for the region in just 100 years.

Such expected climate changes in New England would simply mean an acceleration of significant weather-related changes that already are underway and have been for some time, the experts said.

Adam Markham, executive director, of the nonprofit Clean Air-Cool Planet, which has offices in Portsmouth, NH and New Canaan, CT., said: “As with the rest of the country, we are experiencing a long-term warming trend. On average, New England has warmed by almost one degree since 1895. Winters have warmed more than summers, and the greatest warming has been in New Hampshire, Vermont and Rhode Island. Annual precipitation for the region as a whole has increased, especially in southern New England, where the change has been more than 25 percent over the last century. More rain is falling in intense storms than in the past. On the other hand, there has been a significant decrease (15 percent) in snowfall in northern New England since 1953. Snow is lying on the ground 7 days less than it was 50 years ago and the ice comes off lakes a few days earlier now than 100 years ago.�

Frank Smith, senior fellow, Civil Society Institute, which is located near Boston in Newton, MA., commented: “When you start talking about a New England without fall colors and maple syrup production, that’s when global warming gets very real very fast for people. We don’t want to be alarmist about this; hysteria and fear do not lead to problem-solving. But facing hard facts, with the knowledge that there are steps that can make a difference will get things moving. The wisest course of action is to start changing things now. To do less is to be both reckless and irresponsible. This is the message we want to send to business leaders and elected officials: If you think of climate change as just a vague theoretical abstraction that will only have an impact on your great grandchildren, you need to realize that the time to do something about global warming is now.�

In New England, climate change is a significant threat to the forest and alpine ecosystems of the most important public lands in the region, including Acadia National Park, the Allagash Wilderness Waterway, Baxter State Park, the White Mountains National Forest, and the Mount Washington State Park. The experts highlighted the following ways that New Englanders are likely to see changes in relation to New England fall colors and other aspects of regional forests: (continued below)

[foot_soldier]

(continued from above)

* Decline of fall colors long before temperatures rise dramatically. Why have recent fall color displays in New England been so underwhelming? The reasons for the disappointing leaf colors are many, but among them are longer growing seasons and the lack of repeated fall frosts – including at least one or two well-timed “hard� frosts – needed to kill the chlorophyll in the leaves and cause the desired brilliant color display, such as the bright reds that once were common among the region’s sugar maples. As falls become warmer and arrive later, the traditional and reliable fall color displays of 20 or even just 10 years will become fewer and farther between.

* Loss of birds that keep tree-attacking pests in check. According to the American Bird Conservancy and the National Wildlife Federation, a great many species of birds in New England will be affected by climate change. For example, several species of wood warbler are expected to extend their ranges northwards, perhaps by hundreds of miles, while disappearing at the southern edges of their current ranges. Five species, including the bay-breasted warbler and Cape May warbler are predicted to disappear from New England entirely. These birds help to keep spruce budworm outbreaks in check by consuming millions of larvae during the breeding season. If they are pushed northwards many forests could become much more vulnerable to insect pests. A study of 35 North American warbler species showed that 20 percent of them have already shifted their ranges an average of 65 miles northwards during the last 25 years.

* Rise of insects and less attractive “Southern� fauna. With fewer birds present to hold down the population of insects, such pest species as the spruce budworm and the gypsy moth will do greater damage to sugar maples, oaks and other hardwood forest staples. The unbalanced ecosystem could see more trees die and go unreplaced, thus reducing the beauty of the region’s forests in fall. On the other hand, global warming could tend to favor opportunistic, fast-moving and adaptable species. In keeping with the emergence of a more Richmond- or Atlanta-like climate, such species as purple loosestrife, garlic mustard, Tartarian honeysuckle and Morrow honeysuckle are some of the troublesome non-native species that are predicted to benefit as others decline or disappear. While birds may be able to shift north to colder climes, trees cannot make such radical changes in their territories. It is estimated that most trees can “migrate� no more than 20-25 kilometers over the span of 100 years, which will leave sugar maples and other hardwood forest trees far behind more northern climates as New England heats up.

* Long-term damage to trees from extreme weather incidents. The heavier rainfall expected with climate change will make for shorter displays of fall colors, as leaves are knocked to the ground. But a much graver problem arises with such extreme incidents as the 1998 ice storm that resulted in extensive damage to trees in New England. Broken tree limbs and other branches do more than inflict short-term damage that can be repaired, they also leave trees vulnerable to potentially devastating blight outbreaks that can stunt or kill substantial numbers of trees in a season. Summers, such as the one seen in 2004, that had an above average number of cloudy and rainy days also cause oak “mast� (acorns) to flourish, which in turn feed rapidly expanding populations of mice and deer that are hosts to tick infestations that can pose health threats to humans. (continued below)

[foot_soldier]

(continued from above)

* Decline of remaining New England maple syrup production. New England and New York produce approximately 75 percent of the dwindling amount of maple syrup that is still produced in the US today. For Vermont, it is a more than $100 million industry with over 2,000 mainly family-owned sugar producers. There is a very short time in the year when conditions are right for sugar production. Sugar bushes need a prolonged period of temperatures below 25 degrees to convert starch to sucrose and to get high sugar content in the sap. A freeze/thaw cycle of cold nights and warm days (above 38-40 degrees) is required to get the sap moving. When the nights no longer freeze the season is over. Sap once flowed during late February and early March. Sugarmakers are reporting that their season is starting earlier and earlier. Traditionally, in much of Vermont, tapping coincided with Town Meeting Day (the first Tuesday in March). But this is changing, and during the last decade approximately a quarter of Vermont’s sugar production has occurred before Town Meeting Day. With such a short window of opportunity, the decision on when to tap the trees is critical to successful production. Tap too early and you risk “drying out� the tree prematurely, but tap too late and you miss some of the best sap runs. By making the beginning of the season more unpredictable and increasing temperature fluctuations, global warming will make the decision on when to tap far tougher and less profitable for New England syrup producers.

* Loss of forest jobs and fall-related tourism. There are parts of the United States where “fall colors� are synonymous with New England. Without sugar maples, the autumn experience in New England would be radically different and of much less economic value to the region. Fall-foliage tourism accounts for 20-25 percent of total annual tourism in Vermont and Maine. NERA estimated that a 50 percent drop in fall foliage tourism could result in approximately 20,000 job losses. Additionally, higher summer temperatures and increased pollution from road traffic will likely contribute to greater ground-level ozone formation with the effect of reducing forest productivity and harming commercial tree species like red spruce and white pine. More than 300,000 people in New England and New York are employed in the forestry and forest products sector. Milder winters will likely increase the vulnerability of commercial forests to insect pests including eastern spruce budworm, gypsy moth and pear thrips. Any economic losses are likely to disproportionately affect smaller, non-industrial private landowners. More than 250,000 private forest landowners are likely to be affected in New England alone.

For more about global warming in New England go to http://www.cleanair-coolplanet.org/information/implications.php, http://cleanair-coolplanet.org/information/saveoursyrup.php and www.necci.sr.unh.edu. You also can learn more about global warming at http://www.ResultsForAmerica.org.

ABOUT THE GROUPS

Results For America (http://www.ResultsForAmerica.org) is a project of the Civil Society Institute, which is based in Newton, Massachusetts. The mission of CSI is to serve as a catalyst for change by creating problem-solving interactions among people, and between communities, government and business, that can help to improve society. You may visit Civil Society Institute on the Web at http://www.CivilSocietyInstitute.org. RFA seeks to shape and tap the tremendous amount of community-level knowledge, experience and innovative action that could solve America's problems in four key areas, including the environment.

Clean Air-Cool Planet works with colleges and universities, corporations, and cities and towns from Maine to New Jersey to help them find ways to reduce greenhouse gases and inspire others to do the same. Founded in 2000, CA-CP has offices in Portsmouth, NH and New Canaan, CT. Visit CA-CP on the Web at http://www.cleanair-coolplanet.org.

The Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space (EOS) at the University of New Hampshire (UNH) is a multidisciplinary scientific research institute dedicated to understanding the integrated behavior of the Earth and its surrounding universe. Established in 1985, the Institute has become a world leader in the fields of space science, terrestrial ecosystems, oceanography, atmospheric science and global climate change. The Institute may be found online at http://www.eos.sr.unh.edu/. END

[halva]

The article from the Guardian on Queen Elizabeth's stance on global warming is unexpected and something of a new departure for a newspaper that has spent the last decade and more encouraging British and Commonwealth (small-r) republicans and apparently trying to bring down the British monarchy.

This must be the first positively oriented article on the monarchy the Guardian have published since the fall of the Berlin wall.

[gaiacomm]

Bush beats Kerry for President!

[halva]

Save the Mosquitoes!

"Protesters gathered around the nation today to save the lowly mosquito. The Million Mosquito March was held in defense of the insect which protesters say ‘cannot speak for itself’! Protesters gathered at the Mall in Washington and in State capitols across the nation."

more:
http://www.freedomnet.cnchost.com/tom/writing/mosquito/save_the_mosquitoes.htm

Is there any mention of this thread in Ariana's new book, "Fanatics and Fools"

"There is one group of creatures for whom global warming is a boon. Of all of the systems of nature, one of the most responsive to temperature changes is insects. Warming accelerates the breeding rates and the biting rate of insects. It accelerates the maturation of the pathogens they carry. It expands the range of insects, allowing them to live longer at higher altitudes and higher latitudes. As a result, climate change is fueling the spread of a wide array of insect-borne diseases among populations, species and entire ecosystems all over the planet.

These diseases already passing from ecosystems to people - and the World Health Organization now projects that millions of people will die from climate-related diseases and other impacts in the next few decades....

Mosquitoes, which historically could survive no higher than 1,000 meters, are now spreadking malaria, dengue and yellow fever at elevations of 3,200 meters - to populations that have never before been infected and carry no immunity to those diseases.

Mosquitoes are spreading West Nile virus - and not only - throughout expanding geographical areas (as of June, 2003, West Nile virus had surfaced in 24 states within the U.S.). They have also spread the disease to more than 230 species of birds, animals, humans and other insects.....

According to an article in Scientific American, 'Diseases relayed by mosquitoes, such as malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever and several kinds of encephalitis, are among those eliciting the greatest concern as the world warms. Mosquitoes acquire disease-causing organisms when they take a blood meal from an infected animal or person. Then the pathogen reproduces inside the insects, which may deliver disease-causing doses in the next individuals they bite.

Mosquito-borne disorders are projected to become increasingly prevalent because their insect carriers, or 'vectors' are very sensitive to meteorological conditions.

Mosquitoes proliferate faster and bite more as the air becomes warmer. At the same time, greater heat speeds the rate at which pathogens inside them reproduce and mature. At 68 degrees Fahrenheit, the immature P. falciparum parasite takes twenty-six days to develop fully, but at 77 degree Fahrenheit it takes only thirteen days...

As whole areas heat up, mosquitoes could expand into formerly forbidden territories, bringing illness with them. Further, warmer nighttime and winter temperatures may enable them to cause more disease for longer periods in the areas they already inhabit...

Intensifying floods and droughts resulting from global warming can each help trigger outbreaks by creating breeding grounds for insects whose dessicated eggs remain viable and hatch in still waters...

These insects can flourish even more if climate change or other processes (such as habitat destruction) reduce the populations of predators that normally feed on mosquitoes...

Malaria is reappearing north and south of the tropics. The U.S. has long been home to Anopheles mosquitoes, and malaria circulated here decades ago. By the 1980s mosquito-control programs and other public health measures had restricted the disorder to California.

Since 1990, however, when the hottest decade on record began, outbreaks of locally transmitted malaria have occurred during hot spells in Texas, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, New Jersey and New York (as well as in Toronto). These episodes undoubtedly started with a traveler or stowaway mosquito carrying malaria parasites. But the parasites clearly found friendly conditions in the U.S. - enough warmth and humidity - and plenty of mosquitoes able to transport them to victims who had not traveled.

(from 'Boiling Point', by Ross Gelbspan [Basic Books 2004], 'Snapshots of the Warming No. 5)

[halva]

Raynolds, who is more useful to George W. Bush, Osama Bin Laden or the mosquitoes?

[gaiacomm]

Iran will sell oil to China instead of America

*** The US government has made too many enemies. The life-blood of the
American way of life, oil, now threatens to be diverted to other countries
instead. The US will take military action to prevent Iran from feeding
China while America, the world's most oil-hungry economy, faces rapid and
fatal starvation when oil supplies peak in less than 20 years time. The
oil producing countries have the power to destroy America, and they may be
waking up to the fact. America is the most powerful nation in history, but
every great civilization must come to an end. ***

"China's oil giant Sinopec Group has signed a $70 billion oil and
natural gas agreement with Iran, which is China's biggest energy deal with
the No. 2 OPEC producer. "

Source: CRI News, China.

[gaiacomm]

Bush is my HERO!

[halva]

Aren't you going to say anything to the point until the election result is decided, Gaiacomm?

We might be waiting a while for that.

And then again we might not.

[gaiacomm]

Bush beats Kerry for President!
The votes are being counted in America and so far today Bush is far enough ahead in the count to call it a victory today but America must wait until the final count on Tuesday Nov. 2.

[gaiacomm]

US deploys satellite jamming system
(Agencies)
Updated: 2004-11-01 12:16


The U.S. Air Force quietly has put into service a new weapon designed to jam enemy satellite communications, a significant step toward U.S. control of space.


The so-called Counter Communications System was declared operational late last month at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, the Air Force Space Command said on Friday in e-mailed replies to questions from Reuters.

The ground-based jammer uses electromagnetic radio frequency energy to knock out transmissions on a temporary and reversible basis, without frying components, the command said.

"A reversible effect ensures that during the time of need, the adversary's space-based capability to threaten our forces is diminished," said Capt. Angie Blair, a spokeswoman. "Following the time of need, the space-based capabilities used by the adversary can return to its original state."

The device appears to have been put into service considerably earlier than had been projected by the Air Force as recently as February.

At that time, a long-range planning document, dubbed the Transformation Flight Plan, said such a system would let the United States by 2010 "deny and disrupt an adversary's space-based communications and early warning" of attack.

U.S. military control of space is one of four missions spelled out under a national space policy adopted by former president Bill Clinton in 1996. The goal is to make sure U.S. forces have unhindered access to space and space-based services and to deny an enemy any similar benefits.

The U.S. military has experimented with a range of "antisatellite" (ASAT) weapons, including lasers, to knock out enemy craft by destroying them or damaging their sensors.

Theresa Hitchens, vice president of the private Center for Defense Information in Washington, welcomed the new system on the ground it would not create debris that could threaten global use of space and would not destroy satellites, only jam them temporarily.

"Unfortunately, it seems we are not going to limit our quest for 'space control' to benign systems," she said, citing the danger of a space arms race.

The deployment was disclosed without fanfare late last month at a technical conference of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics in San Diego, California.

The system is operated by the 76th Space Control Squadron, a unit created in 2001 to explore technologies for controlling space, Brig. Gen. Larry James, vice commander of the Space and Missile Systems Command told the conference.

The Air Force Space Command, in its e-mailed replies, said the system was built from off-the-shelf commercial equipment, and made up an antenna, transmitters and receivers that can be loaded into a trailer and moved from place to place.

Three such systems had been delivered since late last year, the command said. The program's budget for fiscal 2005 totaled $6.2 million, according to the Congressional Research Service.

The primary integrator was Northrop Grumman Corp.'s . Mission Systems business unit in Redondo Beach, California, said Joe Davidson, a Space and Missile Center spokesman.

Citing "operational security" concerns, military officials declined to discuss how the jammer worked but equated it with traditional Air Force electronic warfare weapons that have been used since World War 2 to deceive, disrupt, deny, degrade or destroy targets.

[foot_soldier]

.....The device appears to have been put into service considerably earlier than had been projected by the Air Force as recently as February.....
Yeah, no shit.

Just another "thought exercise" quietly off the drawing board.

[gaiacomm]

Bush beats Kerry for President!


Bush beats Kerry for President!

[halva]

Rich snap up cheap flights
By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent

THE boom in air travel is caused largely by a rich minority taking several foreign holidays a year, according to figures released yesterday.
Poorer people tend either not to fly at all or to make only one trip abroad each year, despite a glut of low-cost flights.

The figures from the Civil Aviation Authority undermine the Government’s argument that airports must be allowed to expand so that less affluent families can continue to enjoy the benefits of air travel.

Even low air fares are failing to tempt the poorest section of society to fly. A smaller proportion of them took to the skies last year than in 2002.

Those in social groups D and E, which cover low-skilled workers and people on benefits, took only 6 per cent of the total flights last year, despite making up 27 per cent of the population. At the opposite end of the scale, the As and Bs, the professionals and senior managers who make up 24 per cent of the population, took 40 per cent of the flights.

The total number of flights topped 200 million for the first time and is on course to grow to 500 million by 2030.

The Government has proposed constructing new runways at Stansted, Heathrow, Birmingham and Edinburgh to accommodate this expansion. Ministers claim that the average return air fare will rise by more than £100 unless new runways are built.

John Spellar, the former Aviation Minister, who was responsible for the December White Paper on air travel, said last year: “Flying enables substantial numbers of people to go on holiday overseas in a way that previous generations could only dream about.�

Yet the CAA’s figures, based on 180,000 interviews at airports, revealed that even at Stansted, where low-cost airlines account for nearly all the flights, the average income of British passengers was more than £47,000.

EasyJet, which cut its average ticket price last year by 9 per cent to £86, said that the CAA survey confirmed its own finding that the rapid growth in budget airlines was being fuelled by people with very high disposable incomes who book dozens of trips a year.

“We have at least 1,000 people who fly every week from London to their second homes in Nice, Malaga, Palma and Barcelona,� an EasyJet spokesman said. “There is a misconception that budget airlines are used mainly by people on lower incomes. If you look in the airport car park at Luton, you will find it full of BMWs and Mercedes.�

More than 177,000 English households have a second home overseas, an increase of 14 per cent since 2002, according to a survey by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Second homeowners take an average of six return flights a year. By contrast, half the population does not fly at all, and another 25 per cent take only one trip abroad in a year.

John Stewart, chairman of ClearSkies, which campaigns against airport expansion, said: “The CAA’s figures show that the massive expansion in air travel planned by the Government will almost entirely benefit the rich. The absence of any tax on aviation fuel or VAT on air tickets amounts to a £9 billion subsidy for the better off to enjoy their jet-setting lifestyle.�

Mr Stewart said that the CAA survey also challenged the Government’s claim that airport expansion was necessary to help British companies to do business overseas. Leisure air travel is growing three times faster than business air travel and last year accounted for 77 per cent of all flights.

[foot_soldier]

Link for the above-posted article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1340566,00.html

[foot_soldier]

Re: Iran will sell oil to China instead of America
The following two articles may be of interest in addition to the above-referenced:

February 06, 2004
US dissuades Sinopec from bidding in Iranian oil-field - China/the US/Iran, an energy game
http://english.people.com.cn/200402/06/eng20040206_134117.shtml

March 10, 2004
UPI Energy Watch
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/energy-tech-04r.html

***

Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict
Michael T. Klare
Interview - May 2001
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/energy-tech-04r.html

June 2002
Oil Moves the War Machine by Michael T. Klare
http://www.progressive.org/June%202002/klare0602.html

Since its inception, the Bush Administration has launched two great foreign policy initiatives: a global war against terrorism, and a global campaign to expand American access to foreign oil. Originally, each possessed its own rationale and mode of operation. As time has passed, however, they have become increasingly intertwined, so that today the war on terrorism and the struggle for oil have become one vast enterprise.

The underpinnings of the Bush foreign policy can be found in the national energy policy paper of May 17, 2001, known as the Cheney report. This report became infamous for two reasons: Cheney wouldn't release the names of the people he consulted for it, and the report recommends drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But these controversies distracted attention away from the gist of the report, which is spelled out in chapter eight, "Strengthening Global Alliances." There, the report "recommends that the President make energy security a priority of our trade and foreign policy."

The report says the United States will become increasingly reliant on foreign oil. At present, we obtain about half of our petroleum from foreign sources; by 2020, imports will account for two-thirds of U.S. consumption, the report predicts. From this, it draws two conclusions: The United States must maintain good relations with Saudi Arabia and other oil producers in the region, and the United States must diversify oil suppliers around the world. "Middle East oil producers will remain central to world oil security," it says, but "our engagement must be global." This means developing close ties with major suppliers in all oil-producing areas, including the Caspian region, Africa, and Latin America, which the report calls "high-priority areas."

The Administration was already poised to act on this policy when Arab hijackers struck New York and Washington on September 11. These plans were then put aside, as the White House concentrated its attention on efforts to immobilize Al Qaeda and to topple the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. By December, however, the Administration was ready to focus again on the security aspects of growing U.S. dependence on imported oil..... (continued)

[foot_soldier]

September 15, 2004

Full text: Blair's climate change speech
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1305090,00.html

(Speech given by the prime minister on the environment and the 'urgent issue' of climate change)

[halva]

John Spellar, the former Aviation Minister, who was responsible for the December White Paper on air travel, said last year: “Flying enables substantial numbers of people to go on holiday overseas in a way that previous generations could only dream about.�

Has British official policy on air travel changed since last year?

[gaiacomm]

Bush wins for President!

[halva]

How did you vote, patriot Gaiacomm?

[gaiacomm]

How did you vote, patriot Gaiacomm?


I voted for neither Kerry or Bush because they are both idiots! Same pigs different farm!

But Bush will win because that is the way it is! And I will support either idiot in the role of President. Kerry is a bit smarter than Bush but still the same pig!

[gaiacomm]

God even voted for Bush. Kerry does not really believe in God he believes in the Pope and the Pope is not God but an old man that is surrounded by men who like little boys!

[halva]

Phew!

[hoot]

I might be guilty of that hateful crime of scaremongering, but have to post this. Do a stock chart for GBX[The Greenbrier Companys]. Up about 500% from 4.80$ to 25.00$ in the last two years in this dead market. They have the contract to make all the comfy white box cars with shackels that are to be used to transport the unpreparded to those nice FEMA camps. One of my favorite NWO stock pics! What's yours?////// I've been gone for a while,out making my fortune; where's jr ?

[Yaak]

Hoot, you said regarding GBRX, "They have the contract to make all the comfy white box cars with shackels that are to be used to transport the unpreparded to those nice FEMA camps." Do you have any links or hard data on the white box cars (other than Conspiracy Theory web sites)? Same question for FEMA camps?

Two years ago I witnessed, what appeared to be, portable jail cells being transported by flatbed semis eastward on I10 in TX, NM and AZ. It was a disturbing sight. I do not believe they were zoo cages.

[halva]

God even voted for Bush. Kerry does not really believe in God he believes in the Pope and the Pope is not God but an old man that is surrounded by men who like little boys!

What was God's reasoning in voting for Bush, Gaiacomm?

[halva]

Is there any chance that Kerry will balk ad infinitum and not recognize a Republican win? There are so many factors that could be drawn on if one wanted to take this view. The registration irregularities, the uncheckable Diebold etc. voting machines.

And there is the recent precedent of Yugoslavia, where Milosevic won his last election but this was disputed by the opposition, over the head of the country's electoral authorities, followed by an intervention of 'civil society', backed by 'the international community' and media, bringing Kostunica to power in a 'popular revolution'.

'The international community' seems to be in the mood for disputing the US 'election result', in the context of pursuing its own national-sovereignty-smashing globalist project, but how far they are prepared to tough it out in the case of the USA remains to be seen.

Probably not very far, but who knows, they might surprise us.

[gaiacomm]

What was God's reasoning in voting for Bush, Gaiacomm?

Because Bush our new President is a God fearing man!

I told you Bush would win! Would you like to know more?

[halva]

I would really be more interested in getting comments on the posting immediately above the preceding one, which has to do with likely political moves rather than metaphysical speculation.

Of course if you had made some REALLY clever metaphysical comment.........

[gaiacomm]

Is there any chance that Kerry will balk ad infinitum and not recognize a Republican win? There are so many factors that could be drawn on if one wanted to take this view. The registration irregularities, the uncheckable Diebold etc. voting machines.

And there is the recent precedent of Yugoslavia, where Milosevic won his last election but this was disputed by the opposition, over the head of the country's electoral authorities, followed by an intervention of 'civil society', backed by 'the international community' and media, bringing Kostunica to power in a 'popular revolution'.

'The international community' seems to be in the mood for disputing the US 'election result', in the context of pursuing its own national-sovereignty-smashing globalist project, but how far they are prepared to tough it out in the case of the USA remains to be seen.

Probably not very far, but who knows, they might surprise us.


Kerry is finished and Bush won the election. As for disputes...well that is already expected. As for democarcy well the greeks did a somewhat better job at that management. As for the international community at large well they will still remain second to none!

[halva]

I have the impression that it is on 'the international community's' agenda to make a fuss.

The e-voting issue gives more than enough ammunition if they want to use it. But perhaps the plan is just to make a small fuss, or a middle-sized fuss. Not a big fuss as in Yugoslavia. Not yet, anyway.

[gaiacomm]

I have the impression that it is on 'the international community's' agenda to make a fuss.

The e-voting issue gives more than enough ammunition if they want to use it. But perhaps the plan is just to make a small fuss, or a middle-sized fuss. Not a big fuss as in Yugoslavia. Not yet, anyway.


Yes, you are right!

Bush has finally won again! Now the battle begins!

[Insurrectionchemistry]

Hi All,

Sounds like four more years of some of the biggest Texas size whopper lies on the environment to protect the polluting Texas oil environment thugs.

Bush's good luck charm was spending the final nite in Texas, home of the hate that killed JFK. Initials of JFK, from New England, and Catholic---Kerry would be far too truthful for the Texas thugdom.

Religious Evangelism parted the waves for the four more years of lies to wash over Americans on health denial, denial of environment problems magnitudes, and real freedom for Americans.

Texas religion causes a lot of problems in America as the Mega-Churches of Texas omit the issues of the anti-Christ and how very closely he resembles George W Bush. Texas mega-Churches that can't seem to tell there is a huge dialectic between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament.

W stands for War and the God of the Old Testament.

Insurrectionchemistry

[halva]

Of course George W. Bush is also allegedly environment conscious on his own personal property, his ranch, etc.

This initiative by the Tyndall Centre/Sir David King milieu towards the British monarchy could amount to more than gimmickry if accompanied by a daring policy towards the most advanced sectors of 'public opinion'. It cannot substitute for such a policy.

Addressing meetings of schoolchildren is something one does AS WELL AS, not INSTEAD OF, having a serious policy.

WH

Queen to give royal approval to fight global warming

31.10.2004
By GEOFFREY LEAN
The Queen, in an unprecedented initiative, will this week throw her weight behind international attempts to combat global warming.

During her state visit to Germany she will, for the first time, publicly signal her concern about the possibility of a catastrophic heating of the planet by opening a meeting in Berlin that is planning the next steps in the worldwide effort to head it off.

This will bring into the open a largely unnoticed greening of the monarch, which has already produced some measures to make Buckingham Palace more environmentally friendly.

Senior Buckingham Palace sources said yesterday that they could not remember a previous occasion when the Queen had opened a conference on such a sensitive international issue on a state visit.

She is augmenting a strong family tradition. Prince Philip was one of the world's earliest green campaigners, and has long been one of the one of the most influential figures in the green movement, helping to found the World Wildlife Fund more than 40 years ago, and then serving as its international president.

Top government officials say that, in private, the Queen has been increasingly struck by the mounting scientific evidence that the world is heating up. She has quietly been putting her concerns into practice in Buckingham Palace over the past few years.

Skylights have been double-glazed following a comprehensive audit to see how the giant building could cut down on energy waste. More radically, two combined heat and power plants - which greatly increase energy efficiency by producing both electricity and hot water for heating - have been installed. Water-saving "hippo" plastic containers have been placed in the tanks of the royal lavatories, paper and glass are recycled, and the Queen's most used Bentley car runs on LPG.

Wednesday's conference - an invitation-only meeting of ministers, industrialists, top scientists and officials from Britain and Germany - could prove to be one of the most important ever held in the urgent battle to mitigate, and adapt to, climate change.

Chaired by Klaus Topfer, Germany's former environment minister who now runs the United Nations Environment Programme, it comes at a particularly crucial time.

This month, after years of wrangling, it became clear that the Kyoto Protocol will finally come into effect - despite President Bush's vigorous efforts to kill it - when Russia resolved to ratify it.

But the treaty has always been seen as only a small first step. Tony Blair, who will address the conference by video, has made working out the next international measures a top priority for his presidency of both the EU and the G8 group of the world's most powerful countries next year, and wants Wednesday's meeting to come up with concrete proposals.

To underline her concern, the Queen will also accompany German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder to a parallel session of young people to hear their concerns about increased flooding due to climate change.

- INDEPENDENT

[foot_soldier]

Welcome, insurrectionchemistry.

***

U.S. Wants No Warming Proposal
Administration Aims to Prevent Arctic Council Suggestions

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 4, 2004; Page A13
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23541-2004Nov3.html

The Bush administration has been working for months to keep an upcoming eight-nation report from endorsing broad policies aimed at curbing global warming, according to domestic and foreign participants, despite the group's conclusion that Arctic latitudes are facing historic increases in temperature, glacial melting and abrupt weather changes.

State Department representatives have argued that the group, which has spent four years examining Arctic climate fluctuations, lacks the evidence to prepare detailed policy proposals. But several participants in the negotiations, all of whom requested anonymity for fear of derailing the Nov. 24 report, said officials from the eight nations and six indigenous tribes involved in the effort had ample science on which to draft policy.

The recommendations are based on a study, which was leaked last week, that concludes the Arctic is warming much faster than other areas of the world and that much of this change is linked to human-generated greenhouse gas emissions. The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment -- produced by a council of nations with Arctic territory that includes the United States, Canada, Russia and several Nordic countries -- reflects the work of more than 300 scientists..... (continued)

***

On the subject of "policy" - we still don't have an energy policy in the U.S. as that seems to be Missile-Dick Cheney's private project. Energy and climate-change issues are real to this administration only to the extent that the fossil fuel conglomerate is allowed, without interference, to micro-manage not only public perception on these matters but such R&D as they deem beneficial to their agenda.

And as of today the 51% of the American public who would just as soon see climate change and related issues relegated to the trash bin are going to get exactly what they voted for - permission to remain in denial for another four years. After all, who knows more about denial than an ex-alcoholic?

My disgust is without limit tonight.

I do not support the current administration in any way, shape or form. There is no "fresh start" about to materialize here. It will be more of the same, only amplified 10-fold since they now don't have to worry about being re-elected.

[jayreynolds]

My disgust is without limit tonight.

Tough Luck, Deborah.
Get over it.
Your disgust is my pleasure. Now, when are you going to finally come back to reality
and join forces with Chem11 and me to debunk the "Chemtrails over America" barium hoax.
You know it's always been a hoax, but when will you finally expose the deception, who, what, where, when, and lastly, why?

reality 2 U!

[halva]

Raynolds I knew you wouldn't be able to restrain the vampire in yourself when you saw Deborah expressing emotion.

What would you say, then, what swung it for Bush: Diebold and their voting machines, Osama or those mosquitoes that Yaak was telling us about?

And by the way, if it was Bin Laden, how can it be explained that both arresting Bin Laden and failing to arrest Bin Laden yield the same result of increased support? What would have to be done to Bin Laden or what would Bin Laden have to do in order for Bush to lose support because of it?

[gaiacomm]

Raynolds I knew you wouldn't be able to restrain the vampire in yourself when you saw Deborah expressing emotion.

What would you say, then, what swung it for Bush: Diebold and their voting machines, Osama or those mosquitoes that Yaak was telling us about?

And by the way, if it was Bin Laden, how can it be explained that both arresting Bin Laden and failing to arrest Bin Laden yield the same result of increased support? What would have to be done to Bin Laden or what would Bin Laden have to do in order for Bush to lose support because of it?


Bin-Laden will never be captured by Bush or anyone else. He is a Folk Hero now and is honored by so many people worldwide for standing up to an oppressor. Plus the Bin-Laden family will not allow it...so the fate of Saddam and Iraq!

[halva]

Tough Luck, Deborah.
Get over it.
Your disgust is my pleasure. Now, when are you going to finally come back to reality
and join forces with Chem11 and me to debunk the "Chemtrails over America" barium hoax.
You know it's always been a hoax, but when will you finally expose the deception, who, what, where, when, and lastly, why?

reality 2 U!

By the way Raynolds did you catch up with Chem 11's views on the German weatherman you think is such an admirable anti-Nazi?

http://chem11.proboards2.com/index.cgi?board=Discussion&action=display&num=1098927065

Try and post at your friend Chem 11's forum to put him straight.

[Insurrectionchemistry]

Oh My,

You all have the greatest of the Texas campaigners on this forum. The biggest oil and chemical industry hack from the Texas hearland is right here.

Was he down there on the Ranch with Bush as one of his election nite good luck charms? You know W really appreciates all your efforts to keep this stuff quiet, so he won't have to answer those embassing questions that persons like Arianna might pose to the public at large.

Hey Blog-ster, who ya working for this month---the Texas big oil types with CO2 problems, or the Dupont chemical types that spewed their fluorides problems across the planet, or the aluminum industry airliner types?

I guess you all know that the Bush clones all think that information made public on how jet planes are a severe problem for the envrironment is a national security problem--aka -- might put them out of business type problem.

insurrectionchemistry

[Yaak]

halva pondered, "What would you say, then, what swung it for Bush: Diebold and their voting machines, Osama or those mosquitoes that Yaak was telling us about?"

I would say it was the pus-head, slime-ball, stupid, worthless, lying, flip-flopping idiot that the Democrats ran that got Bush re-elected.

[foot_soldier]

.....I guess you all know that the Bush clones all think that information made public on how jet planes are a severe problem for the environment is a national security problem -- aka -- might put them out of business type problem.....

insurrectionchemistry
Yeah, we know.

[Yaak]

Here’s something for the chemmies to worry about:

The airline industry is one trillion+ dollars per year strong. It is not going to allow itself to be reduced. So, what to do about all of those embarrassing clouds it’s causing. The simple, cheap solution is to add more chemicals, of course; chemicals/de-icers to either prevent ice crystal formation or to cause their sublimation.

So, what do we have now? Invisible chemtrails. There is clear blue sky where I am right now. I wonder how many invisible chemtrails are hovering above me. Run chemmies, run. Don your tin-foil beanies and find cover.

[jayreynolds]

By the way Raynolds did you catch up with Chem 11's views on the German weatherman you think is such an admirable anti-Nazi?
http://chem11.proboards2.com/index.cgi?board=Discussion&action=display&num=1098927065


"Neo-Nazi's? In all my years I've never once come across a neo-Nazi even vaguely interested in aerial spraying and geoengineering."

Well, there's the followers of Ernst Zundel:
http://zgrams.zundelsite.org/pipermail/zgrams/2002-March/000239.html

Then there's those "Pilt" people I mentioned before:
http://www.piltpress.com/news/content/view/485/48/

Oh, and "Stormfront":
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:EuRY6vx8vlwJ:www.stormfront.org/archive/t-146201UNDERSTANDING_THE_GLOBAL_THREAT.html+stormfr ont+chemtrails&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
http://www.stormfront.org/archive/t-88949

Not just organizations, but many many individuals within your people's chem-cult are neo-nazis:
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:D5cBzENeArEJ:www.dowz.net/letters/18may03.html+%22national+vanguard%22+chemtrails&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

But don't argue with me, take it up with William Thomas' consort "Erminia Cassani", she can tell you all about it:
http://www.rense.com/general2/chemps.htm

To put it simply for you, Wayne, Chem11 is known to lie quite a bit, he knows all of this neo-nazi connection already, despite his denial.

[halva]

What a pity for you that "your friend" is so unlikely ever to read these things you post here and considers me insane for still exposing myself to contact with you.

[halva]

As for you, Yaak, I have agreed to be silenced by Raynolds on the issue of chemtrails on this forum. One more mention of chemtrails or chemmies by you here and you will go the same way for me as the other peabrain who was posting here trying to start arguments about climate change without having the vaguest clue about the overall dynamics of the (non-)discussion on this thread. You will be ignore-listed.

[Yaak]

As for you, Yaak, I have agreed to be silenced by Raynolds on the issue of chemtrails on this forum. One more mention of chemtrails or chemmies by you here and you will go the same way for me as the other peabrain who was posting here trying to start arguments about climate change without having the vaguest clue about the overall dynamics of the (non-)discussion on this thread. You will be ignore-listed.

You go right ahead and ignore me, Halva. That's basically what I do with you. When I see your name on a post anywhere, I know it's going to be some non-sensical, unintelligable, unproveable, gibberish.

[gaiacomm]

President George W. Bush once again has proved that breaking the Ten Commandments of the Bible is all right as long as God does not call you on it. Evangelical Christians are lost sheep in the search for their FAITH and have fallen into despair. They did not elect or vote for GW…it was just one of those things…that happened on the way to the White House.

Bush has already broken two Laws and that is “Thou shall not Kill, Thou shall not lie�.
The Law of the Bible should punish him. But man will not punish him until he has passed over to the other side and then he will be judged and sentenced.

Oh yes, one more point: Judge not lest you be judged, for you will be judged by the standards you yourself shall apply!

I never thought that an idiot could rule the United States of America, the most supposed Super Power of the world! Nero or Caligula could do better.

[jayreynolds]

As for you, Yaak, I have agreed to be silenced by Raynolds on the issue of chemtrails on this forum. One more mention of chemtrails or chemmies by you here and you will go the same way for me as the other peabrain who was posting here trying to start arguments about climate change without having the vaguest clue about the overall dynamics of the (non-)discussion on this thread. You will be ignore-listed.

Oh, man, Wayne, I'm sure you've got him quaking in his boots! ROTFLMAO

[jayreynolds]

".....I guess you all know that the Bush clones all think that information made public on how jet planes are a severe problem for the environment is a national security problem -- aka -- might put them out of business type problem.....insurrectionchemistry"


Yeah, we know.

Deborah, there is no 'national security' issue regarding jet aircraft pollution or contrails. The research is right out there in plain view, at more than one NASA website, on the USAF site discussing the "chemtrails" hoax, and at the EPA website. They even asked for public comments pursuant to new airplane emissions regulation. I doubt if any chemmie, especially fake activists like yourself, made any effort to comment at all, did you?

[foot_soldier]

Once again, jayreynolds takes the liberty of imposing upon another's response the unfortunately limited parameters of his own extremely literal interpretation. He is always so sure he knows exactly what to manipulate for the purpose of achieving his desired objective.

[foot_soldier]

November 4, 2004
Food Shortages Threaten Antarctic Wildlife
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/antarctic-04s.html

Antarctic whales, seals and penguins could be threatened by food shortages in the Southern Ocean. Numbers of Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba), a shrimp-like crustacean at the heart of the food chain, are declining. The most likely explanation is a dramatic decline in sea-ice. The results are published this week in the journal Nature.

Sea-ice is a vital feeding ground for the huge number of krill in the Southern Ocean. The new research shows that krill numbers have dropped by about 80% since the 1970's. Less sea-ice during the winter is likely to be the cause and may explain declines seen in several species of penguins.

Lead author Dr Angus Atkinson from British Antarctic Survey, says: "This is the first time that we have understood the full scale of this decline. Krill feed on the algae found under the surface of the sea-ice, which acts as a kind of 'nursery'."

"The Antarctic Peninsula, a key breeding ground for the krill, has warmed by 2.5°C in the last 50 years, with a striking decrease in sea-ice. We don't fully understand how the loss of sea-ice here is connected to the warming, but we believe that it could be behind the decline in krill."

The implications are commercial as well as scientific, as the Southern Ocean is a valuable resource for fisheries. Thousands of tourists are also attracted to Antarctica to enjoy the spectacular wildlife, most of which feed on krill.

By knowing how the environment affects this unique food web, we can predict how it will respond to future change.

[foot_soldier]

Gaiacomm, why don't you run for president?

[halva]

Raynolds, in your list of entities with a history of Nazi and Fascist sympathies, you forgot the British Royal Family. Why?

Speech given by Her Majesty The Queen

in Zeughaus, State Banquet, 2. November

Check against delivery!

Thank you, Mr President for your warm words of welcome.

Each time I return to Berlin I marvel at the changes. When I came last I saw the restoration of the Reichstag and tomorrow I shall see how British architects are helping to remould Museum Island. Britain's part in Berlin's re-emergence as one of the world's great cities is a source of pride for me.

Berlin symbolises the remarkable achievement of German re-unification; the British contribution to your skyline also symbolises the reconciliation between our two countries. My admiration for your achievements is not limited to Berlin. The reconstruction of the Frauenkirche in Dresden is an inspiration to us all. I recall in particular the moment at Windsor Castle in 1998 when Prince Philip and I stood beside President and Frau Herzog to see the new orb and cross for the first time. At the Berlin Philharmonic tomorrow night we shall renew our support for this cause so full of powerful symbolism.

And in remembering the appalling suffering of war on both sides, we recognise how precious is the peace we have built in Europe since 1945. It is difficult for someone of my generation to over-emphasise this. And one of the bedrocks of that peace has been the partnership between our two countries within NATO and the European Union which grew so successfully out of the need to address together the challenges of the post war world.

We owe it to those who built that partnership to continue the process into the twenty-first century: to learn from history not be obsessed by it; to look beyond simplistic stereotypes to realise how often we share the same outlook; above all to recognise the way in which that vital partnership of the post-war years has evolved - and continues to evolve - into a mature and enduring friendship for the twenty-first century. I hope that this State Visit to Germany can highlight one or two of the ways this is happening - looking to the future in our bilateral relations, in Europe and meeting the global challenges ahead.

Mr President, stereotypes wither when human contacts flourish, and we should continue to encourage our young people to know more about each others' countries. I am pleased that our two governments are actively looking at new ways to promote these contacts and I hope to see something of this whilst I am here.

As part of this young Germans may realize that one legacy of Britain's history is our diversity; we regard it as a strength. We believe the same is true for the European Union. Britain and Germany have long advocated enlargement of the Union, as vital for Europe's prosperity and security. Both our countries also recognise that Europe's enlargement alone will not guarantee our future prosperity; we need to find new ways to ensure Europe remains competitive. I look forward to seeing how we are working together in the fields of commerce, science and technology to achieve this.
At a global level one new and urgent challenge we face together is climate change. Tomorrow I shall be present at the opening of the German-British conference on this subject at the British Embassy. I am pleased that Britain and Germany are leaders in Europe on this issue. The presentation I saw by young British and German students today underscored how important this issue is to the next generation.

This is what our twenty-first century relationship means, working together in friendship - instinctively, quietly and effectively - in our common interests and for our children's future. I hope that my visit helps us all to recognise it. And speaking for myself as I have witnessed in my own lifetime our progress from war to peace, from partnership to friendship, I believe we should celebrate it too.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I ask you to rise and drink a toast to the President and the people of Germany.

[halva]

Speech given by Her Majesty The Queen

in Cecilienhof, Potsdam, 3 November 2004

Check against delivery!

Mr Minister-President, Ladies and Gentlemen

Thank you for your kind words of welcome and it is a great pleasure to be in Potsdam again. My visit here in 1992 was the first time I had seen the new Federal States. I said then how much I admired the determination of the people in the East as they faced a difficult transition.

On my return today I would like to pay tribute to all that you have achieved. Multi-party democracy and the rule of law are firmly established again, and so too is the free market economy. Of course challenges remain. We both are facing the need to continue the process of economic reform, which is never easy. I am pleased that Britain continues to play an active role in promoting Brandenburg's prosperity. This is not new, as my visit this afternoon to the former Crown Estate at Bornstedt will remind us. A hundred years ago my great, great aunt and her husband developed the Crown Estate into a model of English gardening. In the early nineteenth century British know-how helped to enrich the agricultural landscape here.

Today I shall see how a British company, Rolls Royce Aeroengines, is helping to enhance the area's reputation as a location for high-technology industry. Other major British companies have also invested here, drawn by the skills of the people of Brandenburg and their readiness to embrace new technologies.

Mr Minister President, This morning I opened a conference on climate change at the British Embassy involving leading British and German scientists, politicians, and others. The conference is evidence of British and German leadership in the field of climate change which has its roots in the close co-operation already existing between the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and the Tyndall Centre in Britain.

Ladies and gentlemen, to celebrate the many links between our two countries, I ask you to join with me in a toast to our host, the Minister-President, and the people of Brandenburg.

[halva]

Speech given by Her Majesty The Queen

in Landtag, Düsseldorf, 4 November 2004

Check against delivery!

Mr Minister President, Mr Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen

This is the last day of my visit to your country. On the first evening in Berlin I spoke of how in my lifetime I have seen the relationship between our two countries evolve from war to peace and from partnership to the enduring friendship of today.

Certainly we should not lose sight of the past, nor of the scale of human suffering on both sides during the Second World War. Nobody of my generation needs reminding of that. I know that many of you in Düsseldorf and elsewhere in Germany have had recent cause to remember. But we have travelled a very long way in the last sixty years and so much of what has been achieved has been done together.

When I first came to Düsseldorf in 1965 I was immediately struck by the warmth here for the United Kingdom and by the appreciation for how Britain had helped in the years immediately following the war. Britain established a framework of government and institutions which played an important part in re-establishing democracy. This included the state parliament, in which we find ourselves today, and the process which created the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia.

And Britain's relations with this part of Germany go back much further. I was fascinated to see in the lobby of this building a copy of the marriage document between Henry VIII and Anne of Cleves. Florence Nightingale studied here. British capital funded the coal mines which used deep-mining technology developed in Britain.

As has happened in Britain, many of those coal mines have closed as we have both adapted to globalisation, but the Rhine-Ruhr remains an economic powerhouse for Germany and Europe. I am pleased to note that some 300 British firms have chosen this Federal State as the base for their German operations. Equally, companies from this region have not been slow to set up shop in the United Kingdom. Some 3,000 German firms have taken this step and this investment provides no fewer than 350,000 jobs in the United Kingdom.

Mr Minister President, Mr Speaker, mutual investment, scientific exchange and commercial cooperation is now so ingrained between North Rhine-Westphalia and the United Kingdom that we must be careful not to take it for granted. This is the sure sign of the strength of our relationship. I leave Germany this afternoon at the end of this visit with a real sense of opportunities ahead for those in both our countries who can grasp them. I depart with renewed confidence in the deep friendship between our two countries so crucial to us both in the twenty-first century ahead. I leave also grateful to you all for the warmth of the welcome I have been given everywhere.

[halva]

How can it be explained that both arresting Bin Laden and failing to arrest Bin Laden yield the same result of increased support? What would have to be done to Bin Laden or what would Bin Laden have to do in order for Bush to lose support because of it?

Raynolds, this amounts to the question of what demands you as a citizen make of your government.

If, for some purpose you have not articulated or formulated, you continue to insist on posting on this thread, could you kindly answer this question?

[halva]

Once again, jayreynolds takes the liberty of imposing upon another's response the unfortunately limited parameters of his own extremely literal interpretation. He is always so sure he knows exactly what to manipulate for the purpose of achieving his desired objective.

Also, Deborah, rather than embarking on discussion again with Raynolds, I would suggest that you ignore-list him.

I had been under the impression that you were already doing this.

[halva]

Note Arianna's assertion that 'the election was not stolen'.
http://www.ariannaonline.com/columns/column.php?id=742

Truly it is better that the allegation the election was stolen come from outside the United States and from people in the US who are not supporters of either of the two main parties. In that sense I agree with Arianna.

[Insurrectionchemistry]

Oh come on Halva,

We all know JR's big game is to hold back the "Second Coming" associations, just like all those Mega-Churches in Texas help the Bush thugs accomplish said same. Church goers are just about all GOP types---they all do what they are told.

Then there are those Dang Democrats, those free thinkers not hindered by bogus concepts from religion. They all think GWB is the anti-Christ.

JR's biggest fear is the public will begin to associate all those Chemtrail fluffy "white clouds" with the issues pertaining to Jesus forecasts for the End-Times. JR's just can't seem to dismiss that jet fuels contain a lot of sulfur that reacts with alumium additives to the jet fuels to make alumium alum, which soaks up a huge amount of H2O to make for cloud seeding. Simple science. Real simple science.

All those Texas Mega-Churches down there in JR's land of Texas are into much the same by playing big games with the "War on Communism," which must have the church whip those ugly communist types that don't like religion controlling the state.

JR would cast about that his brain is ten times bigger than everyone else's here, but just keep in mind that JR's neural network is 99.99999 percent pure fat. I understand that happens when one lives in Texas and follows the GOP diet plan of high doses of oil, high CO2 for warming, and fluoride for high octane petrol.

IS

[jayreynolds]

JR's just can't seem to dismiss that jet fuels contain a lot of sulfur that reacts with alumium additives to the jet fuels to make alumium alum, which soaks up a huge amount of H2O to make for cloud seeding. Simple science. Real simple science.


Ok, I'll bite.
Show me the chemistry.

What aluminum additives are in jet fuel, how and where do they react to form alum, and how, where, and in what quantity does the alum "soaks up a huge amount of H2O to make for cloud seeding"?

You've made the contention, buster, now back it up.

[jayreynolds]

What would you say, then, what swung it for Bush: Diebold and their voting machines, Osama or those mosquitoes that Yaak was telling us about?


well, Wayne, one problem you "diebold conspiracy" people have is that hundreds of US counties, such as my own in a democrat stronghold, still use paper ballots. If the machine voters were rigged to vote bush, the counties using paper ballots could not be similarly affected, and the result would be a checkerboard effect. Such is not the case, however.

View the county-by county map and you will see that a clear victory has been won:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm

[halva]

I'm not going to do any such check, Raynolds. Our people with the requisite expertise are examining the situation and are going to report in due course. And I am not proposing to be one of the propagandists of the "we wuz robbed" thesis. There are plenty of other volunteers, both in the US and abroad.

[Insurrectionchemistry]

Halva,

You do know that the mechanism for chemtrails is right in the pages of Hawley's Condensed Chemical Dictionary. Just look up the compound called "aluminum sulfate" or aluminum alum. This is the first transitional compound formed from the nano chemistry of using aluminum for cloud seeding.

The atmosphere is loaded with sulfuric acid due to sulfur in jet fuels and coal burning, and when one adds a catalyst like nano particles of aluminum then reactions tend to happen with these acids. The huge surface areas of nano particle methods make them hugely and rapidly efficient toward these acid reactions in air drift. Partial reactions even go towards HF reactions from coal burning, which helps to remove the most damaging global warming release, or HF.

The rest is real simple, once the Al-S compound is formed it goes to pick up 18 water molecules and becomes a larger seeding particle. Hugely efficient for making lots of puffy white clouds to reflect the IR and counter the CO2 effects

The Al catalytic effect was first noted from Al based solid fuel rocket engines.

The Texas based fat head chemistry methods prevent people from admitting to such simple chemical reactions, and even to admitting they are part of the bigger story for the "Second Coming" alert.

Foolish people these Texas JR's (Ewing clones), sitting on their little make believe ranches trying to command respect but getting none. Like ranchers with no cattle to tend.

IS

[gaiacomm]

Gaiacomm, why don't you run for president?

I will as soon as I can get the Republican council to accept me. I would run on the Republican ticket. I am over 35 years old a US born citizen and that is all that is needed to qualify for the President according to the Constitution. 2008 will be the year! You already have an idea of what I think....just scan the internet....and then there is 4g wireless with gaiacomm.....

[Insurrectionchemistry]

Well Judah,

If this is really YOU out there. It would be indeed good for America to have a Jewish president. Then America could go down with Israel in the last conflagration called the End-Times. America is already going down in economic ruin over this Jewish nonsense anyways, why not a little faster to ease the pain.

Even better a Jew that claims to know atmospheric aerosol sciences and denies the issues around Christ. Wow, such promise you offer.

I am sure America would become even more satan oriented than it already is. We could all become merchants for old clothes or something more useful. Maybe pundits for the old temple. Yeah, that's it.

Such a Master Plan, such genius!!!

IS

[gaiacomm]

Well Judah,

If this is really YOU out there. It would be indeed good for America to have a Jewish president. Then America could go down with Israel in the last conflagration called the End-Times. America is already going down in economic ruin over this Jewish nonsense anyways, why not a little faster to ease the pain.

Even better a Jew that claims to know atmospheric aerosol sciences and denies the issues around Christ. Wow, such promise you offer.

I am sure America would become even more satan oriented than it already is. We could all become merchants for old clothes or something more useful. Maybe pundits for the old temple. Yeah, that's it.

Such a Master Plan, such genius!!!

IS


Thank you for your response but some people think that I am lance. Anyway I am not Jewish but I have a hebrew name. I would not run under the jewish star of David but under the banner of
God/Allah! And yes forgot the 4G wireless system. Being the president is a tough job... but should not be managed by an idiot like Bush!

[gaiacomm]

Global Warming knowledge!

http://unfccc.int/resource/cfc_guide.pdf

[whitemajikman]

Gaia,while your still kicking around the gloal warming issue......

do you have any answers to these very real questions.......which are based on the facts......

Halva can even try to respond to this......

To infer a connection between man emissions of CO2 and warming
is not an easy jump for the scientifically minded

- First, you have to prove that the increase in CO2 is caused by humans - the venting of CO2 by volcanoes and geysers and other natural sources (and also the natural absorption or sinking of CO2) is a estimate that defies error analysis.

- Second, the elevation of CO2 needs to be shown to be historically real, but there were no analytical tools to measure even crudely thousands of years ago - the best work has been done with ice samples, but there is a great problem with how to calibrate such measurements. What size should the error bands be?

-Third, there has to be a model that can predict the past (only then can we start guessing about the future) including the temperatures in the upper atmosphere. Any model that can't fit past data has to be called wrong.

- Fourth, as this is an open system where we can't build several earths and vary only one constant, any conclusion at best is still just a theory - a educated guess - it is not scientific fact. Science is more than looking scientific, just because things are measured to several decimal points it means naught when there is no control or false logic.

- Fifth, to look at the past temperatures honestly, one would have to show no past periods of higher temperature. We don't have accurate records of solar output from the past and we don't know long term historic variations that are possible. Explaining the small drift (less than what appears to be the noise in the system) is much better accomplished with a solar output theory - yet even this theory fails to be more than a theory for those who seeking the truth.

- Six, one really has to subtract the effects of variations of solar output, and changes in land use (irrigation) from any temperature trends. There are no antiquate models to do this with at this time.

All six of the above points remain serious problems

I remember reading a news article when I was in 5th or 6th grade by "scientists" that predicted that we were going into a new ice age because of man made pollution. I thought it was true and worried about it for years - and followed every global climate article I got my hands on - until I realized they didn't have any way to truly support the claims they were making. Some of these same people are in the global warming business now.

Supporters of global Warming will say, "I've know of hundreds of scientists with diverse political backgrounds (from all over the world) that have come to the same conclusion", but taking polls on the opinion of people who's income is tied to the existence of a problem is not science. A poll of the best scientists of the year 1400 would have put the earth rather than the sun at the center of our solar system. There is a quite different out come from poll of other scientists about global warming.

http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm

WMM

[whitemajikman]

Also Deep Shield, is a hoax ,for your information.....

How do I know this.....well let's just say I know whom Deep Shield was.......

And now that the election is over, She has returned to her Job in Langley,Virginia.

And has not I repeat Not commited Suicide.......

If she did it would have been a shame ,especially with those fine leg's of hers......


WMM

[gaiacomm]

Gaia,while your still kicking around the gloal warming issue......

do you have any answers to these very real questions.......which are based on the facts......

Halva can even try to respond to this......

To infer a connection between man emissions of CO2 and warming
is not an easy jump for the scientifically minded

- First, you have to prove that the increase in CO2 is caused by humans - the venting of CO2 by volcanoes and geysers and other natural sources (and also the natural absorption or sinking of CO2) is a estimate that defies error analysis.

- Second, the elevation of CO2 needs to be shown to be historically real, but there were no analytical tools to measure even crudely thousands of years ago - the best work has been done with ice samples, but there is a great problem with how to calibrate such measurements. What size should the error bands be?

-Third, there has to be a model that can predict the past (only then can we start guessing about the future) including the temperatures in the upper atmosphere. Any model that can't fit past data has to be called wrong.

- Fourth, as this is an open system where we can't build several earths and vary only one constant, any conclusion at best is still just a theory - a educated guess - it is not scientific fact. Science is more than looking scientific, just because things are measured to several decimal points it means naught when there is no control or false logic.

- Fifth, to look at the past temperatures honestly, one would have to show no past periods of higher temperature. We don't have accurate records of solar output from the past and we don't know long term historic variations that are possible. Explaining the small drift (less than what appears to be the noise in the system) is much better accomplished with a solar output theory - yet even this theory fails to be more than a theory for those who seeking the truth.

- Six, one really has to subtract the effects of variations of solar output, and changes in land use (irrigation) from any temperature trends. There are no antiquate models to do this with at this time.

All six of the above points remain serious problems

I remember reading a news article when I was in 5th or 6th grade by "scientists" that predicted that we were going into a new ice age because of man made pollution. I thought it was true and worried about it for years - and followed every global climate article I got my hands on - until I realized they didn't have any way to truly support the claims they were making. Some of these same people are in the global warming business now.

Supporters of global Warming will say, "I've know of hundreds of scientists with diverse political backgrounds (from all over the world) that have come to the same conclusion", but taking polls on the opinion of people who's income is tied to the existence of a problem is not science. A poll of the best scientists of the year 1400 would have put the earth rather than the sun at the center of our solar system. There is a quite different out come from poll of other scientists about global warming.

http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm

WMM


Well, I do what I can to not ad to the polluted environment by walking and riding a bike when I can. I don't eat meat and I grow most of my food. I filter water and other items to get the best and I use home remedys for medicines and other natural methods. I conserve where I can.

But I am just one of many that try to help save the planet. As for the others well the only way to stop that abuse is to shut down the violators completely and cahnge our technology.

[foot_soldier]

11/5/2004
Asia’s great oil hunt
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_46/b3908044.htm

As China's economy expands, so does its thirst for oil, gas, coal, and electricity. Today, China accounts for 12.1% of the world's energy consumption. That's second only to the U.S., at 24%, and up from 9% a decade ago. China's whole modernization strategy is based on access to abundant supplies of energy. Its hungry basic industries such as steel, aluminum, and chemicals devour electricity and coal. A mushrooming middle class consumes growing quantities of heating oil and gasoline. By 2010 analysts expect some 56 million cars, minivans, and sport-utility vehicles to be rolling on China's highways -- more than twice the number today. By 2020 the country's demand for oil will nearly double, to 11 million barrels a day, natural gas consumption will more than triple, to 3.6 trillion cubic feet annually, and coal use will grow by 76%, to 2.4 billion tons a year, according to a U.S. Energy Dept. forecast.

That means China will play a key role in influencing global oil prices and energy investment flows -- not to mention climate-destabilizing carbon dioxide emissions. "There is going to be a huge increase in consumption across the region, and especially in China," says Edu Hassing, an energy analyst at the Asian Development Bank.

With China consuming ever more oil, it risks developing an ever-greater dependency on foreign vendors of crude. For the security-obsessed Chinese, that's pretty scary. Right now, though, it's hard to see how the Chinese will avoid the same fate as the U.S., which is uncomfortably dependent on oil states such as Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela. Just a decade ago, China was a net exporter of oil, but now it imports 40% of its crude as output declines at the big northeastern fields near Daqing and Liaohe. What about developing new sources at home? China is sitting on potentially rich reserves in the high, dry deserts of the far west, but gas and oil there lie much deeper than in the northeast and will cost far more to get out of the ground. And given the country's primitive pipeline and transportation networks, moving it to the coastal cities that need it will be a challenge….. (continued)

11/4/2004
Beijing gasping for clean air
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/11/04/china.olympics.reut/index.html

BEIJING, China (Reuters) -- China's capital, host of the 2008 Olympics, is in "a state of emergency" because of air pollution and one of the city's biggest polluters will slash production till the end of the year, state media said Thursday.

Improving air quality is key to the city's drive to be ready for the 2008 summer Games, and visiting International Olympic Committee officials have seen the air quality at its worst over recent days.

The capital has set a clean air target for 2004 of 227 days but has fallen well short of this.
"With 40 more days of clean air still needed, we are in a state of emergency," the Beijing Morning Post quoted a notice issued by the Beijing Environment Protection Bureau as saying.

The notice urged companies and factories to "strive hard to grab blue skies," the newspaper said.

By the end of October, Beijing had registered only 187 blue-sky days, meaning it needed clear air in 40 of the last 61 days of 2004 to meet the mark, the newspaper said….. (continued)

[whitemajikman]

Well, I do what I can to not ad to the polluted environment by walking and riding a bike when I can. I don't eat meat and I grow most of my food. I filter water and other items to get the best and I use home remedys for medicines and other natural methods. I conserve where I can.

But I am just one of many that try to help save the planet. As for the others well the only way to stop that abuse is to shut down the violators completely and cahnge our technology.


No Real solutions can come from an Industry(Global warming research) which both promotes The dangers of Global Warming and at the same time has it's hands out for research grants from the very people whom are responsible in the eyes of the researcher's as the culprit's.....

Either Global warming Exist's in the context we have been told....

Or it doesn't.......

But one thing is for certain pollution of any kind is slowly taking it's toll on human genetic's......

And is a Real danger To Life........

Also I think Global warming is a natural occurence that has happened many times over the life -span of the earth.......

And this time is no exception......

But Take into consideration,how much money is involved on both sides of the debate,and ask yourself if either side is willing to give up it's funding,and concede........

even if their was a complete and honest explanation, no one is willing to bite the hand that feeds them.............

especially with the amounts involved.......

so what you have is two opposing forces which will never relent, unless there is a global catastrophe beyond our scope of understanding......

And even then.......

The blame game will be at the focus of everyone's attention........

Instead of the facts.......

WMM

[jayreynolds]

You do know that the mechanism for chemtrails is right in the pages of Hawley's Condensed Chemical Dictionary. Just look up the compound called "aluminum sulfate" or aluminum alum. This is the first transitional compound formed from the nano chemistry of using aluminum for cloud seeding.

The atmosphere is loaded with sulfuric acid due to sulfur in jet fuels and coal burning, and when one adds a catalyst like nano particles of aluminum then reactions tend to happen with these acids. The huge surface areas of nano particle methods make them hugely and rapidly efficient toward these acid reactions in air drift. Partial reactions even go towards HF reactions from coal burning, which helps to remove the most damaging global warming release, or HF.

The rest is real simple, once the Al-S compound is formed it goes to pick up 18 water molecules and becomes a larger seeding particle. Hugely efficient for making lots of puffy white clouds to reflect the IR and counter the CO2 effects

HMMMMMMMMM, let's see.
Fixation on HF(hydrogen flouride), "end times","anti-christ", aluminum.
WELL, WELL, WELL. IF IT ISN"T THAT QUACK "JIM PHELPS"!

WELCOME, JIM, INDEED! THIS IS GOING TO BE SOME FUN!

Just in case someone isn't familiar with this chemmie nutcase, he has a complete rundown on his webpage:
http://www.doewatch.com/jimphelps.html

Jimbo has claimed to have invented both haarp and chemtrails, BTW, so he should be able to talk the science.

So, Jim, you said, "jet fuels contain a lot of sulfur that reacts with alumium additives to the jet fuels to make alumium alum, which soaks up a huge amount of H2O to make for cloud seeding. Simple science. Real simple science."

Now, I get the part about jet fuel containing a small amount of sulfur, but aren't aware of any "alumium additives to the jet fuels". Since you seem so well informed about this, tell us EXACTLY what the chemical formula for the additive is and what form of aluminum is put into jet fuel, then tell us EXACTLY how the chemical reaction goes to produce the alum before combustion, during, or after. I'd be particularly interested in how this takes place in the gas turbine, because I was formerly employed as a gas turbine engineer for the General Electric company. Don't worry about me not understanding the chemical formulas or stoichiometry, this is, after all, my field of study and expertise.

I'm sure this will be no problem, since, after all, you said it was "simple science", right?

[whitemajikman]

11/5/2004
Asia’s great oil hunt
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_46/b3908044.htm

As China's economy expands, so does its thirst for oil, gas, coal, and electricity. Today, China accounts for 12.1% of the world's energy consumption. That's second only to the U.S., at 24%, and up from 9% a decade ago. China's whole modernization strategy is based on access to abundant supplies of energy. Its hungry basic industries such as steel, aluminum, and chemicals devour electricity and coal. A mushrooming middle class consumes growing quantities of heating oil and gasoline. By 2010 analysts expect some 56 million cars, minivans, and sport-utility vehicles to be rolling on China's highways -- more than twice the number today. By 2020 the country's demand for oil will nearly double, to 11 million barrels a day, natural gas consumption will more than triple, to 3.6 trillion cubic feet annually, and coal use will grow by 76%, to 2.4 billion tons a year, according to a U.S. Energy Dept. forecast.

That means China will play a key role in influencing global oil prices and energy investment flows -- not to mention climate-destabilizing carbon dioxide emissions. "There is going to be a huge increase in consumption across the region, and especially in China," says Edu Hassing, an energy analyst at the Asian Development Bank.

With China consuming ever more oil, it risks developing an ever-greater dependency on foreign vendors of crude. For the security-obsessed Chinese, that's pretty scary. Right now, though, it's hard to see how the Chinese will avoid the same fate as the U.S., which is uncomfortably dependent on oil states such as Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela. Just a decade ago, China was a net exporter of oil, but now it imports 40% of its crude as output declines at the big northeastern fields near Daqing and Liaohe. What about developing new sources at home? China is sitting on potentially rich reserves in the high, dry deserts of the far west, but gas and oil there lie much deeper than in the northeast and will cost far more to get out of the ground. And given the country's primitive pipeline and transportation networks, moving it to the coastal cities that need it will be a challenge….. (continued)

11/4/2004
Beijing gasping for clean air
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/11/04/china.olympics.reut/index.html

BEIJING, China (Reuters) -- China's capital, host of the 2008 Olympics, is in "a state of emergency" because of air pollution and one of the city's biggest polluters will slash production till the end of the year, state media said Thursday.

Improving air quality is key to the city's drive to be ready for the 2008 summer Games, and visiting International Olympic Committee officials have seen the air quality at its worst over recent days.

The capital has set a clean air target for 2004 of 227 days but has fallen well short of this.
"With 40 more days of clean air still needed, we are in a state of emergency," the Beijing Morning Post quoted a notice issued by the Beijing Environment Protection Bureau as saying.

The notice urged companies and factories to "strive hard to grab blue skies," the newspaper said.

By the end of October, Beijing had registered only 187 blue-sky days, meaning it needed clear air in 40 of the last 61 days of 2004 to meet the mark, the newspaper said….. (continued)



What's your Point......

This has been known For the last two decades........

Also you fail to point out India in your C and P........

Which is a bigger threat than china......

There are no Real-World solutions..........

None that are viable ,and in the realm of possibility.......

Oil will continue to be our fuel of choice until it's gone.......

or have you not been paying attention......

to the Global dependance ......

WMM

[whitemajikman]

HMMMMMMMMM, let's see.
Fixation on HF(hydrogen flouride), "end times","anti-christ", aluminum.
WELL, WELL, WELL. IF IT ISN"T THAT QUACK "JIM PHELPS"!

WELCOME, JIM, INDEED! THIS IS GOING TO BE SOME FUN!

Just in case someone isn't familiar with this chemmie nutcase, he has a complete rundown on his webpage:
http://www.doewatch.com/jimphelps.html

Jimbo has claimed to have invented both haarp and chemtrails, BTW, so he should be able to talk the science.

So, Jim, you said, "jet fuels contain a lot of sulfur that reacts with alumium additives to the jet fuels to make alumium alum, which soaks up a huge amount of H2O to make for cloud seeding. Simple science. Real simple science."

Now, I get the part about jet fuel containing a small amount of sulfur, but aren't aware of any "alumium additives to the jet fuels". Since you seem so well informed about this, tell us EXACTLY what the chemical formula for the additive is and what form of aluminum is put into jet fuel, then tell us EXACTLY how the chemical reaction goes to produce the alum before combustion, during, or after. I'd be particularly interested in how this takes place in the gas turbine, because I was formerly employed as a gas turbine engineer for the General Electric company. Don't worry about me not understanding the chemical formulas or stoichiometry, this is, after all, my field of study and expertise.

I'm sure this will be no problem, since, after all, you said it was "simple science", right?


As always Jimbo is talking out of his ass.........


While your at it Jay ask him to explain this explanation taught in every university or higher learning centre in the world........


3.2. Aerosol Emission and Formation in Aircraft Plumes

Aircraft jet engines directly emit aerosol particles and condensable gases such as water vapor (H2O), sulfuric acid (H2SO4), and organic compounds, which lead to the formation of new, liquid (volatile) particles in the early plume by gas-to-particle conversion (nucleation) processes. Other gas-phase species and charged molecular clusters (chemi-ions, or CIs) are also generated at emission, including nitric acid (HNO3) and nitrous acid (HNO2). Emission and formation of H2SO4 depend on fuel sulfur content, or sulfur emission index [EI(S)], and the conversion fraction of fuel sulfur to H2SO4. Formation of HNO3 and HNO2 depends on reactions of nitrogen oxides (NOx = NO + NO2) with hydroxyl radicals (OH). Particle formation depends on mixing of exhaust gases with ambient air, plume cooling rate, plume chemistry, and ambient aerosol properties. Soot particles formed during fuel combustion and emitted metallic particles constitute the solid (nonvolatile) particle fraction present in exhaust plumes. Under certain thermodynamic conditions, emitted water vapor condenses and freezes to form water-ice particles, thereby producing a condensation trail (contrail). These line clouds evaporate rapidly if the ambient humidity is low but may change the size and chemical composition of the remaining liquid aerosol particles. If the humidity is above ice saturation, contrails persist and grow through further deposition of ambient water.

An invisible aerosol trail is always left behind cruising aircraft. Aerosol and contrail formation processes in an aging plume determine the number, surface area, and mass of particles that are formed per mass of fuel consumed. Exhaust particle properties change in the presence of a contrail. Exhaust particle morphology and surface properties and aircraft-induced perturbations of background aerosol surface areas (Section 3.3) are of central importance for ozone changes caused by heterogeneous chemical reactions (Chapters 2 and 4). Particle number and freezing probability are key for the formation of ice (cirrus) clouds after passage of an aircraft in a region where otherwise no clouds would form (Section 3.4). Finally, aviation-produced aerosol can directly or indirectly influence the radiation budget of the atmosphere (Section 3.6 and Chapter 6). For recent reviews see Schumann (1996a), Fabian and Kärcher (1997), Friedl (1997), and Brasseur et al. (1998).

The following subsections provide a description of volatile aerosol precursors and the formation of volatile aerosol particles, a characterization of emitted soot and metal particles, a review of contrail and ice formation, and a discussion of the mutual interactions between these particle types. Comments on reducing the impact of aerosols are given in Section 3.7.4.

3.2.1. Volatile Aerosol Precursors
3.2.1.1. Water Vapor
Water vapor is present in aircraft exhaust in known amounts because the emission index is specified by the stoichiometry of near-complete fuel combustion (Chapter 7). Water vapor concentrations of a few percent at the engine exhaust nozzle far exceed the concentrations of other aerosol precursor gases. Ambient water vapor also participates in aerosol processes, with concentrations that vary widely depending on flight altitude and meteorological processes. Because of its abundance and thermodynamic properties, water vapor participates in nearly all aerosol formation and nucleation processes (e.g., Pruppacher and Klett, 1997).

3.2.1.2. Sulfur Species
Aviation fuels (kerosene) contain sulfur in trace amounts. In the current world market, the sulfur content—hence the EI(S)—of aviation fuels is near 0.4 g S/kg fuel or 400 parts per million by mass (ppm; 1 ppm = 0.0001%), with an upper limit specification of 3 g S/kg (Chapter 7). Of importance for the formation of plume aerosol is the partitioning of sulfur at the engine exhaust nozzle into sulfur dioxide (SO2) and fully oxidized sulfur S(VI) compounds, sulfur trioxide and sulfuric acid (S(VI) = SO3 + H2SO4). Most fuel sulfur is expected to be emitted as SO2 based on combustion kinetics and some observations (Miake-Lye et al., 1993, 1998; Arnold et al., 1994; Schumann et al., 1998). However, a fraction of the SO2 can be converted into S(VI) by gas phase chemical reactions with OH, oxygen atoms (O), and H2O inside the engine. The fractional conversion depends on details of combustion conditions, turbine flow properties, blade cooling effects (Chapter 7), and mixing (Chapter 2). Further oxidation can occur in the plume, where the rate-limiting step is thought to be oxidation of SO2 by OH to form SO3 (Stockwell and Calvert, 1983) or liquid-phase reactions of SO2 with H2O2, O3, metals (Jacob and Hofmann, 1983), or HNO3 (Fairbrother et al., 1997). Once SO3 is formed, the gas-phase reaction with emitted H2O to form H2SO4 is fast (< 0.1 s) under plume conditions (Reiner and Arnold, 1993; Kolb et al., 1994; Lovejoy et al., 1996). Gaseous H2SO4 and HSO4-(H2SO4)n (mostly with n = 1,2) ion clusters have been observed in jet exhaust (Frenzel and Arnold, 1994; Arnold et al., 1998a,b).



Figure 3-1: Aerosol and contrail formation processes in an aircraft plume and wake as a function of plume age and temperature.

The chemical lifetime of exhaust OH in the early jet regime is determined by reactions with emitted NOx and by OH self-reactions, the latter leading to the formation of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) (Kärcher et al., 1996a; Hanisco et al., 1997). Measurements indicate OH exit concentrations below 1 ppmv (Tremmel et al., 1998). For an OH concentration of 0.5 to 1 ppmv at the engine’s nozzle exit plane and without SO3 emissions, the OH-induced pathway alone yields about 0.3 to 1% S-to-H2SO4 conversion in the plume (Miake-Lye et al., 1993; Danilin et al., 1994; Kärcher et al., 1996a). Model calculations indicate overall S(VI) conversion fractions in the range of 2 to 10% for various supersonic and subsonic jet engines (Brown et al., 1996a; Lukachko et al., 1998; Chapter 7), consistent with some earlier SO3 measurements behind gas turbines (e.g., CIAP, 1975; Hunter, 1982).

3.2.1.3. Chemi-ions
A large number of chemi-ions (CIs) are expected to be present in aircraft exhaust because ion production via high-temperature chemical reactions is known to occur in the combustion of carbon-containing (not necessarily sulfur-containing) fuels (e.g., Burtscher, 1992). In the jet regime, some recent models indicate that CIs effectively promote formation and growth of electrically charged droplets containing H2SO4 and H2O (Yu and Turco, 1997). In addition, CIs may contribute to the activation of exhaust soot. Positive ions include H3O+ and organic molecules like CHO+, C3H3+, and larger molecules (Calcote, 1983), whereas the free electrons rapidly attach to other molecules to form negative ions with sulfate and nitrate cores. Measurements of positive CIs in exhaust plumes are not available, and only very few in situ measurements of negative CIs are available to date.

Arnold et al. (1998a) measured a total negative CI concentration of 3 x 107cm-3 (about 3 x 1015/kg fuel) at plume ages of around 10 ms in the exhaust of a jet engine on the ground, consistent with approximately 109 cm-3 at a plume age of 1 ms (Yu et al., 1998).

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/034.htm#3212

The Rest of the article can be found here........



As always Jimbo will not even attempt to Explain how he is right and Science is wrong...........

WMM

[halva]

Insurrection chemistry you see what you have unleashed with your posting.

This thread has passed through a number of such previous periods of chaos.

All that is required is the tiniest encouragement and the swarm of cretins that cling to Raynolds' muddy boots leap to the mistaken conclusion that there is after all a role for them in this life and elbow each other aside in their eagerness to get their voices heard.

Think carefully about your objectives. What are your aims in posting here?

If you want scientific discussion of anything related to aerosol spraying in the atmosphere, go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ama_lahi and apply to participate.

Raynolds initially intervened here in order to prevent me talking to Arianna and her supporters about chemtrails. Having finally conceded to Raynolds that I cannot prove that chemtrails exist and undertaken therefore to cease asserting on this thread that they do, I - in collaboration above all with footsoldier - have tried to turn this thread into a notice board for information on climate change.

If you are a friend I truly ask your assistance in trying to return the thread to that status, because any other role for it is just a total waste of time and energy.

[jayreynolds]

Raynolds initially intervened here in order to prevent me talking to Arianna and her supporters about chemtrails.

Wayne, nothing could be further from the truth and you know it. Early on I encouraged you to write or call Arianna and publish her take on the "chemtrails" hoax. If memory serves me correctly, and it almost always does, I even pointed you and your friends towards her scheduled appearances, some of which have taken place in their hometowns.

YOU, on the other hand, opened this thread with apublic call for "open and honest debate".
But once I won the debate, which was about page 2, you have been on the run, and now think you can just order all your people around like a little emperor!


Having finally conceded to Raynolds that I cannot prove that chemtrails exist and undertaken therefore to cease asserting on this thread that they do, I - in collaboration above all with footsoldier - have tried to turn this thread into a notice board for information on climate change. If you are a friend I truly ask your assistance in trying to return the thread to that status, because any other role for it is just a total waste of time and energy.

I don't think Jim Phelps is willing to go down under your boot heels, Wayne, but maybe he really is your bitch. Let the man answer, if he's got the balls.

[Insurrectionchemistry]

Hi Halva,

You do appear to have a lot of time and energy into this Arianna Forum, and you are one person that I do respect for those efforts.

I was just taking note of all these hostiles you seem to have attracted here to attempt to convince the Arianna folks that all these Chemtrials are all in folks minds. Just a little experiment to gather some information here. One never takes the time to speak with such self aggandized pundit "fools," only to talk around them.

Chemtrails methods are real technologies, real simple science that is in use everyday around the little planet. Just the industry types don't want the tree huggers to know how badly things have deteriorated. Especially, when Arianna will write a book on the subject or be a guest on talk shows and shake up America's awareness.

Hi Arianna's folks--see any smoke lately on your Forum?

The fluoride problems are extreme in seriousness, and companies like DuPont are the prime culprits, going all the way back to the Manhattan Project. The Govt. also protects DuPont because of its alliances with the Manhattan Project. And some of that protection sets up these disinformation campaigns like this one.

I can always tell when these industry types are in total freaked out fear of being exposed for what they have done. It shows up with situations just like we all see here.

JR and several of these others are industry shills, here to deride the truth.

Keep telling the truth Halva, I yield to your wish and advice per this Forum threat that you began.

IS

[halva]

Early on I encouraged you to write or call Arianna and publish her take on the "chemtrails" hoax. If memory serves me correctly, and it almost always does, I even pointed you and your friends towards her scheduled appearances, some of which have taken place in their hometowns.

For the fiftieth time Raynolds I have to explain to you that the methodology I pursue, and have pursued for a long time now, does not consist in quixotically attempting to take the chemtrails subject into the political space of others who have been rendered afraid of it as a result of the single-minded activity of so many state agencies and so many Jay Reynoldses. It consists in developing a political space into which such people - including those with the politics of Arianna Huffington, can be invited. This space has to be carefully prepared and as systematically policed against the incursions of people like you as the private councils of the powers that be are policed against the incursions of people like us ("us" denoting the non-debunkers on this thread).

Posting here on chemtrails was admittedly quixotic on my part, given that there is no hope of getting Arianna's moderators to throw you out. But it was worth attempting, and the space that we have acquired here is likewise worth defending, even at the expense of remaining silent about chemtrails.

And the higher-quality debunker-free space exists and is expanding despite your best efforts.

Having said that, may I now ask you to explain why, as I have satisfied the only practically feasible demands that you can possibly have, i.e. shutting me up about chemtrails on this thread, you are still posting here?

[whitemajikman]

Hi Halva,

You do appear to have a lot of time and energy into this Arianna Forum, and you are one person that I do respect for those efforts.

I was just taking note of all these hostiles you seem to have attracted here to attempt to convince the Arianna folks that all these Chemtrials are all in folks minds. Just a little experiment to gather some information here. One never takes the time to speak with such self aggandized pundit "fools," only to talk around them.

Chemtrails methods are real technologies, real simple science that is in use everyday around the little planet. Just the industry types don't want the tree huggers to know how badly things have deteriorated. Especially, when Arianna will write a book on the subject or be a guest on talk shows and shake up America's awareness.

Hi Arianna's folks--see any smoke lately on your Forum?

The fluoride problems are extreme in seriousness, and companies like DuPont are the prime culprits, going all the way back to the Manhattan Project. The Govt. also protects DuPont because of its alliances with the Manhattan Project. And some of that protection sets up these disinformation campaigns like this one.

I can always tell when these industry types are in total freaked out fear of being exposed for what they have done. It shows up with situations just like we all see here.

JR and several of these others are industry shills, here to deride the truth.

Keep telling the truth Halva, I yield to your wish and advice per this Forum threat that you began.

IS


"Oh ,Halva I Yield To your wish " ......what kind of Manly talk is that....?

You guy's crack me up............

I am just wondering.....?


Do you do the mounting or does He.......?

In other words which ones the bitch.........YOU or HIM.........?

All Flattery aside.................


Read your Little "Suck up" Post to Halva a few times.............

And then come back and tell me WHY you are such an Easy Target for Ridicule........


WMM

[whitemajikman]

And as for you Halva(Wayne Hall)..........

Your prior Association With END Speaks volumes of why you are a fanatic........

They were to be your role model in life........

And you are still using their strategies..........



Wayne Hall is a Greek citizen born in Australia, graduate of the University of Sydney, teacher and freelance translator in Athens. In the nineteen eighties he was a member of European Political Disarmament, the non-aligned British-based anti-nuclear-weapons movement. In the late nineteen eighties he joined the editorial board of the Greek ecological magazine Nea Ecologia. He was a founding member of ATTAC-Hellas, Greek section of the international citizen's movement ATTAC and is married and has one son.


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

E.P. Thompson and European Nuclear Disarmament (END): A Critical Retrospective
By Peter Baehr


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

One of the more bewildering aspects of modern times is the speed with which the recent past is consigned to ancient history. The Cold War - a concept that must now be patiently explained to puzzled undergraduate students of politics - is little more than a decade away,(1) yet already it seems to have assumed the status of a glacial age. Moreover, it is not only the Cold War that is becoming a distant memory. So too are the social movements and political organizations that sought to confront it. In this essay in political retrieval, I reexamine critically the programme of one such organization whose twentieth anniversary coincides with the millennium: European Nuclear Disarmament (END).(2) Today, END offers the political scientist a case study of the relationship between ideas and politics(3) and offers the citizen a chance to reflect on an area - foreign and security policy - far removed from everyday experience. I begin by locating the origins and rationale of END, and then proceed to reconstruct the theory of the Cold War that informed its activity. Since this theory was most powerfully formulated by E. P. Thompson - a founding member of END and, at least initially, its most influential voice - I give his version pride of place. Next, I deal with END's wider 'dealignment' strategy to advance beyond the Cold War and with the many criticisms to which it was subjected. A final section seeks to assess END's significance in the events of 1989, which signalled the collapse of the geo-political system END had been forged to oppose and of END itself soon afterwards.

END: origins and rationale
The expression 'European Nuclear Disarmament' is almost calculated to confuse. It has two meanings. Broadly, it refers to the West European social movementthat, from 1980 to 1989, agitated against weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons, and sought to link through its campaign issues peace, civil rights, and ecological welfare. When we think of this movement we recall, inter alia, its demonstrations in the capital cities of Europe, its nonviolent direct actions against nuclear bases, and its conferences. But second, European Nuclear Disarmament has a more restricted meaning. Abbreviated in the acronym END, it refers to a political organization, centred round a group of British socialist intellectuals, whose objective was to provide a theoretical analysis adequate to, and a geo-political strategy appropriate for, the social movement referred to previously.(4) Though both social movement and political organization had a common proximate origin - each was precipitated by the heightened state of anxiety that accompanied the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO's) nuclear modernisation decision of December 12th 1979 (see Johnstone: 1984) and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan on December 27th - it is END the organization, its political theory, and strategy, that is my primary concern here.

END first attracted public attention with the issuing, on 28 April 1980, of an "Appeal for European Nuclear Disarmament" (in Thompson and Smith 1980: 223-226), launched under the auspices of the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation. The Appeal was a British initiative, bringing together leading members of such organizations as the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), the International Confederation for Disarmament and Peace, and Pax Christi; the historian and political activist E. P. Thompson was responsible for preparing a first draft in early 1980. Circulated to various interested parties in many parts of Europe for comment and appraisal, the Appeal was then rewritten following "a meeting in London in April 1980 at which French, British, West German and Italian supporters were present" (Coates 1980: 240). Signatories included, among others, Roy Medvedev, the historian who was to become a Soviet parliamentarian, JirÃ* Dientsbier (founding member of VONS [Committee for the Defence of the Unjustly Persecuted] and later foreign minister of Czechoslovakia), András Hegedús, a former Hungarian prime minister, György Konrád, the Hungarian political writer, and Egon Bahr, spokesperson on disarmament for the SPD.

Essentially, the Appeal offered a warning and a call to action. Opening with the words "We are entering the most dangerous decade in human history," it sought to alert public opinion to the impending calamity of a third world war. The Appeal asked its readers to consider how the growing sophistication of nuclear weapons technology, itself encouraged by Cold War hostility, was making a limited European nuclear engagement thinkable. "The increasing spread of nuclear reactors and the growth of the industry that installs them" was another menace to peace, the Appeal contended. Moreover, the combination of a wasteful, spiralling arms race, economic recession, and the declining public accountability of the security state also appeared to the authors of the Appeal to presage catastrophe. To meet this emergency, the Appeal urged the creation of a nuclear weapons-free zone "from Poland to Portugal," a halt to the production of Soviet SS 20s, a reversal of NATO's policy to deploy cruise and Pershing II missiles in Western Europe, ratification by the US Senate of the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT) II, and a mass movement concerned with advaninge what would come to be called "détente from below:" that is, a range of direct, citizen initiatives to enhance communication and deepen trust between individuals and institutions of East and West Europe (in Thompson and Smith: 223).

Behind these convictions lay a particular picture of global confrontation, of, in a phrase, the Cold War. The Cold War in this usage referred only secondarily to those periods of heightened tension dramatized by such events as the shooting down of the U-2 spy plane in May 1960, the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, or the missile attack on the Korean jumbo jet KAL-007 in September 1983. Principally, the 'Cold War' denoted the post-Yalta division of Europe into polar politico-military blocs, dominated by the United States and the Soviet Union, and represented by the antagonistic alliances of NATO and the Warsaw Pact, respectively. The détente of the Brezhnev/Nixon-Carter era was entirely consistent with the Cold War thus defined. Indeed, détente, rather than strained confrontation, represented the quintessence of the Cold War mentality; it enshrined a pragmatic Superpower agreement to respect, at least temporarily, each other's hegemony over the spheres of influence mapped out in February 1945.(5)

What particular purpose could END claim to serve distinct from other peace organizations and movements such as CND, founded in February 1958 and itself enjoying, in the early 1980s, a major popular revival? A contrast with CND is particularly instructive. All of END's original British members (notably Mary Kaldor, Dan Smith, Ken Coates, Peggy Duff, Bruce Kent, and Thompson himself)(6) were either members of CND or at least sympathetic to its fundamental goal: Britain's renunciation, independently and unconditionally, of its nuclear stockpile (so-called 'unilateralism'). But there were also reservations about CND. CND concentrated on Britain's particular responsibilities for nuclear proliferation. It insisted that the crusade against nuclear weapons should start at home; that Britain's unilateral abandonment of such weapons would break the log-jam of bilateral inertia. An organization like END, on the other hand, promised to offer an international perspective on the nuclear arms race.(7) There was the recognition too, however muted, that CND, in some respects, unwittingly reflected cultural attitudes belonging to the hey-day of Britain's colonial past. The argument of CND's founders that Britain could remain great by being a global power of peace, championing moral principles of nuclear disarmament through setting an example to the world at large, carried less credence than at one time it had. This "imperialist pacifist" vision (Hinton:1989a)(8) was believed to be politically grandiose for a middle-ranking power and morally inappropriate in its inflated and paternalistic register.


Complete text in all of it's Ugliness can be found here.........

http://www.trinstitute.org/ojpcr/3_1baehr.htm

WMM

[whitemajikman]

Roy Medvedev one of the Endorser's of END...........

Roy Medvedev - Stalinist purveyor of half-truths
By Felix Kreisel, November 1999

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

The historical conceptions of Roy Medvedev

In the past in his books written in the seventies and eighties Medvedev defined the Soviet society according to the familiar Stalinist formula as a stateless socialist society, albeit with many defects and distortions. In the Tamizdat (Tamizdat means published outside the Soviet Union, as opposed to Samizdat, which means published clandestinely, typed on typewriter or primitive illegal press within the USSR) book written circa 1971 "On Socialist democracy" he uses typical Stalinist conceptions: "socialist camp", "leaders chosen by the people and the Party", "socialist legality", etc. Medvedev characterizes socialism in a typically Stalinist manner: nationalized economy plus central planning. In his description of the Soviet Union he stressed primarily the economic and industrial development of the country in its relation to the advanced capitalist states. According to Medvedev, socialism in the USSR was definitely possible; it was only necessary to execute a series of social and economic reforms, speed up the economic development, enhance the involvement of the Soviet people in "socialist construction". Medvedev calls all of this together "socialist democracy". This book, as well as most of the other works which he published at the time, was written in the spirit of advice on the QT into the ears of the ruling bureaucracy: take this advice, allow more democracy, it is not so very dangerous, just the opposite, it may prove quite useful.

Here is a typical phrase:

"Our whole society is interested in the rapid development of socialist democracy: the workers, employees, collective farmers and the intelligentsia. Only a tiny minority, primarily the bureaucratic elements within our management apparatus, resolutely oppose the development of socialist democracy. They frighten and deceive many uninformed people about the possible consequences of democratization and present its threat to the bureaucracy as a threat to the whole society" ("Kniga o sotsialisticheskoi demokratii", "Book on socialist democracy", Amsterdam-Paris, 1972, p. 40).
In his other works he accepted the existence of socialism in the USSR as an obvious fact and spoke for "harmoniously combining socialism and democracy" ("Dissent and Free Discussion", Political Essays, Spokesman Books, 1976, p. 35). It must be noted that in this book, published by moderate western social-democrats, Medvedev takes an even more moderate position that the academician Sakharov. Medvedev rejects the radical democratic demands of the latter and proposes "slow and gradual evolutionary change" (ibid., p. 37). Further down he tries to reassure the ruling partocracy that if it were to allow some democratic freedoms its political power would not be threatened:

"If one realistically assesses what exists, it is not difficult to demonstrate that the realization of even the most maximum demands of today's democratic movement (for example, on the creation of social and political organizations and organs of press independent of the CPSU) would lead neither to the collapse of Marxism nor to the renunciation of the leading role of the CPSU" (ibid., p. 38).
Reform from above or the political revolution

In his own words Medvedev was an insider among certain groups of the Soviet leadership. In the book "O Staline i stalinizme" ("On Stalin and Stalinism"), which he finished in May, 1990, he writes:

"In the 1950's I had already begun to consider writing a large book about Soviet history, but it was not till 1964 that I was able to discuss its initial drafts with many friends, and also in the office of the Director of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism, the Chief Editor of the Politizdat (the State Political Publishing house), and in certain offices of the Central Committee of the CPSU" ("O Staline i stalinizme", Moscow, 1990, p. 6).
In his historical works Medvedev constantly takes the side of the Stalinist bureaucracy against the Opposition. Of course, he does so with some reservations that on this or that point Trotsky and the Opposition were right, but generally speaking Stalin was correct and the Party did well to support him.

For example, discussing the criticisms made by the United Opposition in 1926-27 against the policies of Stalin-Bukharin Medvedev writes:

"Being unable to analyze in this book all the details and episodes of the struggle inside the party we cannot but admit that many critical assessments of the Opposition were without a doubt correct. For example, the deeply rooted bureaucratization of both the Soviet and the Party apparatuses was far from being a myth. There was much justice in its criticism of some aspects of the economic policy ... (We omit Medvedev's remarks about the economic problems pointed to by the Opposition. F.K.) ... Quite justified was the demand of the Opposition to denounce the theory of "social-fascism" - this concept was at that time used to describe the role of the social-democracy. The theory of "social-fascism", for which not only Stalin, but also Zinoviev bore responsibility, compromised the communists in the eyes of the left wing social-democracy, helped its right wing leaders and undermined the unity of actions of the working class against the fascist advance.
"However, the general orientation of the Opposition's political platform was erroneous, despite its many correct remarks.

"The Opposition continued, as always, to defend the thesis on the impossibility of constructing socialism in a single given country, like the USSR, in the absence of state intervention of the western proletariat ...

"The Opposition leaders, swept up by the heat of polemics, radically exaggerated the existing deficiencies, and this provoked protest from the Party cadres. An incipient tendency was presented as a process well under way; the degeneration which had at that moment touched only a part of the Party apparatus was painted as a full blown degeneration of almost the whole apparatus" (Ibid., p. 140-141).

Dear reader, let us take stock, let us examine which side, Stalin's or Trotsky's, has been proved right by history. Medvedev himself admits that in 1) the bureaucratization of the regime, 2) economic problems and 3) the most important policy of the Comintern, the relationship to fascism and social-democracy, the Opposition was correct. (By the way, when the theory of "social-fascism" came into its widest and most fatal practice Zinoviev had already been pushed out of the leadership of the Comintern. By this reference to Zinoviev Medvedev simply confuses his readers.) As to the fourth question, that of the degeneration of the regime, the Opposition looked ahead, they realistically showed that the monopoly of political power under conditions of Russian poverty and backwardness lead to decay and degeneration of the casual everyday behaviour, the morals and outlook and the ideology of the Party apparatus. Medvedev blames the Opposition for foreseeing this degeneration and for arming the working class against it.

We cannot analyze all the works of Roy Medvedev within the space of a relatively short brochure. We cannot deny the assiduousness of this writer; he has completed dozens of books totaling some thousands of pages. His books can be, roughly speaking, divided into three sorts. Firstly, the history of Stalin and Stalinism published under different titles, in various formats and varied thickness of volumes: "Let History Judge", "Before the Court of History", "On Stalin and Stalinism", etc. Secondly, he wrote biographies of the various leaders of Stalinism: Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Suslov, Andropov, Gorbachev, Kalinin, etc. Without a doubt, Medvedev had inside information about the subjects of his research. During his long career as the recognized "communist-dissident" he collected masses of materials about their individual biographies. Such essays and books during the 1970's and 1980's were especially well regarded by the western Sovietologists: these researchers found the clues to the twists and turns of Soviet internal and foreign policy in the squabbles taking place in the offices of the Moscow bureaucracy. Thirdly, Medvedev's books consist of general discussions about the mistakes of Lenin, about the advantages of social-democracy, about the dissidents. Often such brochures and books were written jointly with various western Euro-Stalinists, for example, Giulio Chiesa.


Complete Text can be found here........

http://www.mit.edu/people/fjk/essays/Medvedev-books.html


WMM

[whitemajikman]

Another of Halva's(Wayne Hall) Mentor's from End..........


Jiri Dientsbier


Makfax, October 31, 2002
Dientsbier says terrorism is with international blessing

PRAGUE, Czech Republic (Makfax) - Terrorism, including the latest terrorist act in Moscow, did not break out last September when the United States was under attack, it started much earlier in Bosnia, Albania and Kosovo, said the former Czech Minister of Foreign Affairs Jiri Dientsbier, who was also the U.N. human rights special envoy.

In Friday´s interview with the Prague newspaper Pravo, Dientsbier said not only the media but also the politicians, who divided the terrorists into ´good ones´ and ´bad ones´, were doing service to terrorism. This is the case with the Chechens and the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) as well.

"When Osama bin Laden founded his own humanitarian organizations in Bosnia and Hercegovina and Albania, and later on he entered into arrangements with Algerian terrorists in Albania (1994), nobody could assume the eventual link to terrorism.

During the NATO-led bombardment on Yugoslavia, the Kosovo Liberation Army was used as a ground force. The KLA engagement during the NATO-led air strikes on Yugoslavia enabled this organization to rule in Kosovo and mastermind and carry out attacks in Macedonia, southern Serbia and Montenegro", Dientsbier said.

Dientsbier underlines that U.S. President George Bush had added a number of KLA members under the Executive Order on Extremism in the Western Balkans, including the leader of the National Liberation Army (NLA) Ali Ahmeti, who won some 70 percent of the Albanian vote in Macedonia´s parliamentary elections.

Dientsbier says the Albanian extremists had also killed thousands of Albanians, adding that ongoing efforts to arrest those responsible turned inconsequent.

"The international representatives in Kosovo fear that the former KLA members could resort to violence against the U.N. representatives and KFOR soldiers", Dientsbier said in an interview with the Prague newspaper Pravo.

WMM

[halva]

http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-in-depth/all_reports/itc/exec_summ.cfm

Induced Technological Change and Climate Policy

A central goal of climate policy is to avoid potential changes in climate and associated adverse biophysical impacts by slowing or avoiding the atmospheric build-up of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Technological change will crucially influence the extent to which nations achieve this goal. The direction and extent of technological change over the next century has profound implications for emissions and atmospheric concentrations of GHGs over time, the extent of future climate change, and associated impacts on human welfare.
Climate policy can alter the future by influencing the rate and direction of technological change. “Induced technological change� (ITC) here refers to the additional technological change that is brought about by policy. This report explores how climate policy can induce technological change and examines the implications of ITC for the effective design of climate policy.


Some of the main findings are:

1. The presence of ITC lowers the costs of achieving emissions reductions. By stimulating additional technological change, climate policy can reduce the costs of meeting a given target for reductions in GHG emissions or concentrations. Until recently, most economy-wide climate change policy studies ignored ITC. Models that disregard policy-induced technological advances will tend to overestimate policy costs.


2. The presence of ITC justifies more extensive reductions in GHGs than would otherwise be called for. Because ITC lowers the costs of achieving emissions reductions, the optimal extent of GHG reduction is greater than would be predicted by models that ignore ITC. The net benefits from climate policy are larger as well.


3. The presence of ITC alters the optimal timing of emissions abatement. Although considerable technological change occurs in the absence of policy intervention, climate policy can induce additional technological change by providing incentives for additional research and development (R&D) and by stimulating additional experience with alternative technologies or processes, thereby generating “learning-by-doing.� Analysts offer contrasting views as to how ITC alters the optimal timing of emissions abatement compared to a case where climate policy does not affect the rate of technological change (that is, the case with no ITC). Does ITC justify more extensive near-term emissions reductions, or does it justify postponing reductions? Recent analyses indicate that insofar as technological change results from R&D, the presence of ITC justifies somewhat less abatement in the near-term, and more abatement in the future (when technological change has lowered the costs of abatement). On the other hand, if ITC primarily results from learning-by-doing, greater emphasis on abatement in the short term may be called for, since early abatement efforts accelerate the learning process and can thereby lower costs.


4. In the presence of ITC, announcing climate policies in advance can reduce policy costs. Announcing policies in advance can lower the cost of meeting given targets for cumulative abatement or reductions in GHG concentrations. Illustrative results indicate that announcing a $25 per ton carbon tax 10 years in advance can reduce discounted economic costs (as measured by changes in gross domestic product or GDP) by about a third, compared to the same climate policy imposed with no prior notice.


5. Economic analysis offers a justification for public policies to induce technological change, even when the returns are highly uncertain. Uncertainties surround many aspects of ITC. Neither the returns to a given investment in R&D nor the extent of future learning-by-doing can be precisely predicted. As a result, one cannot estimate with precision the cost savings from ITC or pinpoint the optimal timing of abatement. Moreover, while prior announcements of climate policies will yield cost-savings, uncertainties about costs of adjustment make it impossible to accurately forecast these savings. Despite these uncertainties, two key market failures provide a strong rationale for public policy to stimulate ITC. These are: (1) the “spillover benefits� to society as a result of R&D investments by individual firms and (2) the presence of negative “externalities� – adverse impacts that are not accounted for in the market prices of carbon based fuels.


6. To promote ITC and reduce GHG emissions most cost-effectively, two types of policies are required: policies to reduce emissions and incentives for technological innovation. This study emphasizes that two types of policies are necessary to address the two market failures noted above and to achieve, at least-cost to society, a given target for cumulative reductions in emissions or GHG concentrations. Technology incentives can deal with the market failure created by firms’ inabilities to capture all the returns on their R&D investments. Direct emissions policies (such as carbon caps or carbon taxes) can deal with the market failure created by climate-related externalities. Attempting to address the climate change problem with only one of these policy approaches cannot fully correct both market failures. As a result, adopting one approach is likely to involve higher costs than utilizing the two approaches in tandem. To date, direct GHG emissions policies have had little political success at the federal level. But there is a strong need for these policies, along with technology incentives, to deal with the prospect of climate change in a cost-effective manner.

[halva]

The only recourse available to us with the off-topic spamming being introduced to this thread now is the ignore-list. Activate it.

[whitemajikman]

The only recourse available to us with the off-topic spamming being introduced to this thread now is the ignore-list. Activate it.

The Truth May I remind you is always on topic.........

Are you afraid of what your prior associations mean to the nice people whom read this thread......?

WMM

[whitemajikman]

Or how about how it has shaped you into the pompous ass you now are.......

You can Ignore all you wish.......Wayne .........

We do not need you to respond the truth about who you are as a person is all over the place......

I'm just wondering if your best propaganda is in your past.......

when you were associating with corrupt COMMUNIST's and The occasional Nazi......

WMM

[whitemajikman]

The only recourse available to us with the off-topic spamming being introduced to this thread now is the ignore-list. Activate it.

Well Since I'm Being Ignored I might as well Plead my case.........

Halva you can't simply Ignore the fact that you Admitted to the whole world that there is
NO,I REPEAT .....NO..........Evidence that Chemtrail's in your context exist........

You began your descent into Chemmie hysteria On page 2 and haven't quit since.......

You have not only embarrased yourself but also ...........Arianna .

What kind of judgement is that for a politician.......?

And you should be ashamed of yourself .........

Trying to manipulate the minds of the world.........

with your filth.........

WMM

[jayreynolds]

Another one bites the dust
Another one bites the dust
Another one bites the dust
Another one bites the dust
There are plenty of ways you can hurt a man
And bring him to the ground
You can beat him
You can cheat him
You can treat him bad and leave him
When he’s down
But I’m ready, yes I’m ready for you
I’m standing on my own two feet
Out of the doorway the bullets rip
Repeating the sound of the beat

Yes, Jim Phelps went down easy. His reputation precedes him, and he knows it.
What sort of arrogant fool did he really think I was, that wouldn't challenge his claims and ask for the facts about "simple science". It's clear he can't do any science at all. From what I can see, he is a hamburger flipper who never got past the guard shack at Oak Ridge.
Wayne, can't your people do any better than to send an unarmed fruitcake out like a fool to get mowed down by a simple question?

Just 8 months ago, Wayne, you were saying, "“Also I believe that Jim Phelps is a genuine whistle-blower, but unfortunately not intellectually together enough and not skilled enough at writing coherently and in good English for his whistle blowing to have an effect.”

And now when he comes out you order him to shut up?
I think you're bulling him in the butt for sure.

As I've said before, Wayne, you have toasted yourself, all I've done is draw attention to it and explained to the feeble-minded just what is taking place. You can run and try to cover all of it up, but Deborah, Sore, Chem11 and all the rest know what a fool you are making of them, and they aren't forgetting it, as you replay the show daily.

[gaiacomm]

Blah....Blah.....Blah......

[halva]

There are only two people I've had to put on the ignore list: one who didn't even try to make the effort to find out what we are talking about, or not talking about, here.

The other who obviously hasn't learnt a thing from his past collisions with off-internet reality as a result of exactly the kind of behaviour he persists in now. Notwithstanding his private apologies and asssurances that not everyone who behaves like an asshole is really an asshole. Deep down.

[whitemajikman]

Halva(Wayne Hall) says.........

The other who obviously hasn't learnt a thing from his past collisions with off-internet reality as a result of exactly the kind of behaviour he persists in now. Notwithstanding his private apologies and asssurances that not everyone who behaves like an asshole is really an asshole. Deep down.

But I ask all the Observer's Chemmie and Debunker alike.....

If Wayne Hall was True to himself and of sound mind,Would he have not already conceded this thread if he was a true man of honour......?

WAYNE has already CONCEDED that "THERE IS NO PROOF THAT CHEMTRAILS EXIST"............

Which Jay Is entirely responsible for..........

Because really how could Jay lose when he has The light of Truth as his guide......

But what concerns me Is That Wayne Hall Will not admit Defeat........

Like he should have On page 2.........................

And he still hasn't since he conceded There is no proof of Chemtrails Existing.............

Instead He now Flip-Flop's like a certain Presidential Candidate that is NOT now enjoying the luxuries of the Whitehouse........

He Now Insist's that this Thread Was Not about Chemtrail's but about Global Climate Change,Which isn't a Truthful Statement on his part , But a last ditch attempt to SAVE some Face,where none is deserved...........

And now when he is exposed Regarding his prior associations with END..........

And the Type Of People whom Started END........

He Conveniently Uses the Ignore Button........

Just like the Little Fascist Dictator He strives to be..........

Well Halva(Wayne Hall)...........

I have only scratched the surface of what is out there regarding your ugly past, But since we are on the subject I would like to ask you why you were on a Terrorist watch list from 1982 -89..........?

And don't deny it..........All the member's of END were.........

Even the Greek Government is Watching You........at this very moment......

I also ask you how you could so easily sell out your friends and associates,by your own admission that chemtrails do not exist.........?Even Though they are based on a hoax.........

You have just made CTC Obsolete in a single sentence..........

And made Cliff Carnicom look like the Paranoid Christian he is.............

Your Flip-Flopping has also made many people wonder why Arianna has let you go as far as you have with your fear induced diatribe And why she allows herself to be associated with a suspected Terrorist........

And a Bonafide Intellectual Terrorist..........

If Global Climate Change Was the Real reason you Started this thread then you are the only one responsible for tainting this thread with the Chemtrail Hoax.........there by making void the very real problems of Global climate change.......

You are a Fool, Just as This Thread is a joke ,the reason is quite simple.......

YOU WILL NOT TAKE RESPONSIBILITY THAT IT WAS YOU THAT MADE A JOKE OF IT,YOU WHO TAINTED IT,AND YOU WHO CONCEDED .......

AND THE MOST IMPORTANT THING...... YOU ,WHO THOUGHT YOU COULD USE 20 YEAR-OLD STRATEGIES FROM YOUR ASSOCIATION WITH END,TO MANIPULATE THE MASSES INTO BELIEVING YOUR HOAX........

CONCEDE HALVA (WAYNE HALL) THEN START A NEW THREAD WHICH ONLY DEALS WITH GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE..........AND DOES NOT CONTAIN THE HOAX OF CHEMTRAILS........

IN DOING THAT .........YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO PUT OUT THOSE BURNING BRIDGES THAT ARE SMOULDERING ALL AROUND YOU.........

And YOU might be able to claim SOME type of Legitimacy...............

BUT at this MOMENT the only person you are FOOLING,........IS YOURSELF.........

WMM

[gaiacomm]

Blah....Blah.....Blah......


Blah.....Blah......Blah.........

[whitemajikman]

Blah.....Blah......Blah.........


Some More Words of irrelevance from an Irrelevant Man.........Regarding his Dying Hoax......

WMM

[gaiacomm]

Blah.....Blah......Blah.........


Blah......Blah...........Blah..................... ........................................!

[hoot]

Global warming was planned at the Vadivostok Summit in 74 by our phoenician caananite owners. To this end the first three 40 megawatt tesla ionosphereic heaters were made operational on 7/4/76 in Russia. This "WOODPECKER" system has grown to scores of simular units and is beginning to have an effect on the artic icecap, it's primary target, and worldwide. Offshore oil drilling and shipping on the Artic ocean should now be possible in the next twenty years./////Spin-offs of this secret program are numerous. One being another secret program to "fix" the problem of global warming with a massive aerosol spraying program, with it's real secret secret goal to induce population reduction in the aged population of industrialised nations with a "social contract" with their people.//////Amuseing looking at the work of the fine wordsmiths misinforming on both sides of the issue here, but life cannot always be amuseing and is so very short!//////First "jewish" president??? Lincoln,{aka Springs aka Springstein} I believe we are currently with our tenth, but may have missed one or two. Or, do you mean the first one that is open about it? It takes one to know one. ____hoot____

[halva]

The delayed onset of detectable warming was explained by a recent discovery that was made a couple of years ago (i.e. in the early to mid 90s, W.H.). Scientists had already known that atmospheric warming is delayed because the surface waters of the oceans store heat at deeper levels before subsequently releasing it. But not until the beginning of this decade did they discover that the same fossil fuel emissions that contribute to global warming by emitting carbon dioxide simultaneously mask that warming by emitting sulfur particles as well. While the carbon dioxide high in the upper atmosphere acts to trap heat inside the global greenhouse, the lower-level umbrellas of sulfate particulates reflect the sunlight back into space, creating localized cooling effects that conceal the continuing warming. “If everyone in the world could magically [remove the sulfates from coal and oil], you would see the fingerprints of global warming in a very short time” says Harvard’s James McCarthy.

Unfortunately, the sulfate aerosols cannot be considered a long-term neutralizing agent against global warming. For one thing, they remain airborne for only several weeks and mostly in localized areas, while carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for two centuries. Since both by-productts of fossil fuel burning are reduced simultaneously, the much longer-lived carbon dioxide will eventually overwhelm the transient sulfates. The sulfates emitted by power plants, factories, automobiles and volcanoes are regarded by scientists less as an offset than as a mask.

But there is a second reason not to regard sulfate aerosols as a remedy: they are a serious and persistent public and environmental health hazard. They cause low-level air pollution, which visits on us lung disease, crop destruction and acid rain. A cure of such toxicity can scarcely be regarded as a cure at all. At bottom, sulfates are simply another airborne industrial poison generated by the combusion of fossil fuels.’

From Ross Gelbspan: ‘The Heat is On’. (Perseus Books 1997)

[foot_soldier]

.....Unfortunately, the sulfate aerosols cannot be considered a long-term neutralizing agent against global warming. For one thing, they remain airborne for only several weeks and mostly in localized areas, while carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for two centuries. Since both by-productts of fossil fuel burning are reduced simultaneously, the much longer-lived carbon dioxide will eventually overwhelm the transient sulfates. The sulfates emitted by power plants, factories, automobiles and volcanoes are regarded by scientists less as an offset than as a mask.....
The role of anthropogenic (human-produced) aerosols in the masking of greenhouse gas (primarily CO2) warming of the lower planetary atmosphere has been intensively studied by the atmospheric science community since the period following the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 when a net cooling of Earth's atmosphere, caused by the spewing of volcanic ash (sulfate) into the stratosphere where it remained suspended for about two years, was observed:

Atmospheric Aerosols: What Are They and Why Are They So Important?
http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Aerosols.html

I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that the information gained from such studies would eventually be applied to the possibility of trying to offset the net warming impact of rising CO2 concentration by allowing pre-determined levels of aerosol pollution to either be continually produced or remain unabated in the atmosphere on a regional basis. In fact this possibility has been studied and discussed intensively by the science community and anyone who cares to take a look can do their own research on it. The following is just one of dozens of available references:

Statement of Dr. Stephen E. Schwartz
Senior Scientist - Environmental Chemistry Division
Department of Applied Science, Brookhaven National Laboratory
before
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
United States Senate
Tuesday, May 24, 1994
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/senate.html

Excerpt:

.....Before concluding, I must emphasize one further very important point about the aerosol forcing issue. Because the aerosol forcing is opposite in sign to the greenhouse forcing, it is sometimes suggested that this is a fortuitous situation whereby we might develop a strategy to forestall the consequences of the enhanced greenhouse effect by offsetting it with the aerosol forcing. Such a policy would, however, be fundamentally flawed. As I have noted, the mean atmospheric residence times of the tropospheric aerosols that we have been discussing are about a week, in contrast to the lifetimes of carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases of roughly a century. At present the atmosphere contains an amount of carbon dioxide in excess of the amount that was present before the industrial era that is equal to about thirty years' worth of present fossil-fuel-combustion CO2. Thus, to the extent that anthropogenic aerosol is offsetting a fraction of the greenhouse effect of this CO2, it is a week's worth of aerosols that is offsetting decades' worth of CO2. It is clear from the differences in the atmospheric residence times of the two substances that a strategy of relying on anthropogenic sulfate aerosols to offset increased greenhouse forcing by CO2 would be relying on an ever increasing short-term fix to solve a long-term problem. Indeed, rather than solve the problem such a strategy would only exacerbate it. Everyday one would be committing oneself an ever greater rate of emissions of SO2 in the future. Such a strategy simply cannot work.

A corollary of this situation is that a substantial fraction of the warming influence due to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases to date has been offset by the cooling influence of anthropogenic aerosols, which have increased roughly in proportion to the increase in greenhouse gases. Consequently the warming influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases now in the atmosphere is very likely substantially greater than has been inferred from temperature trends thus far over the industrial era. In other words the whitehouse effect may be masking much of the greenhouse effect..... END excerpt

Sooner or later, and like it or not, the problem of anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming of the lower atmosphere is going to have to be faced as a reality, whether because people are finally ready to face it or because they no longer have a choice but to face it.

It's not like we're helpless. The longer we deny the problem the more difficult it will become to live with it.

[gaiacomm]

Blah....blah.....blah.....

[gaiacomm]

Gaiacomm Technology!

Magnetic reflection. R. B. ABBOTT, Purdue University.--Experiments suggested by Ross (Proc. A.I.E.E., June, 1920) on "Magnetic Reflection" were carried out on a larger scale. A strong magnetic field was produced by a 500-cycle current passing through a large electromagnet. A large plane coil of wire connected to a resistance coupled amplifier with a telephone receiver, was placed along the axis of the magnet and at some distance from it. The coil was oriented in the magnetic field so that no currents were induced in it. A plane thin sheet of zinc about four square feet in area was then placed at some point in the field and rotated around a vertical axis. As the plate was rotated, a 500-cycle note was produced in the telephone and went through a cycle of intensities corresponding to the angles of the zinc plate. The results show that the zinc plate, due to eddy currents, acted very much like a mirror, the angles of incidence and reflection being about equal. These results obtained when the zinc plate was twenty feet and more from the magnet and detecting coil.

[Abbott, R. B. Physical Review, February, 1928, 313]

[whitemajikman]

Wayne Hall cites this article as proof of global warming,So he should be able to explain this......

this exerpt from the article doesn't seem plausible........

".....Unfortunately, the sulfate aerosols cannot be considered a long-term neutralizing agent against global warming. For one thing, they remain airborne for only several weeks and mostly in localized areas, while carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for two centuries. Since both by-productts of fossil fuel burning are reduced simultaneously, the much longer-lived carbon dioxide will eventually overwhelm the transient sulfates. The sulfates emitted by power plants, factories, automobiles and volcanoes are regarded by scientists less as an offset than as a mask....."

Because The Author and YOU Wayne Hall have not taken into consideration the relationship between Global Warming And The Hydrosphere.........

Which Does Indeed Effect Global Warming And Is Probably It's Trigger..........

THE HYDROSPHERE

The morphological evidence shown on the World Ocean Floor map should be sufficient to convince skeptics that the Earth has expanded by an extraordinary amount in the past ~200 Ma—the entire surface area now covered by the world’s oceans. Indeed, in terms of surface area, the oceans that now cover ~71% of the planet's surface (~361,637,000 km²) did not exist when Pangaea began to break up ~200 Ma. This means that the remaining ~29% of the Earth's surface (~148,500,000 km²) once constituted the entire surface area of the planet when its diameter was approximately 55-60% of today's equatorial diameter of 12,756.254 km (7926.75 miles).

This does not mean there were no bodies of water on the planet at that moment in geologic time, because at least two (perhaps more) large but shallow bodies of water, known as "epicontinental seas," are known to have existed at about that time. The best known of these was the Tethys Sea that covered much of Eurasia, and the other covered much of the continental United States from the Rocky Mountains to the Appalachians (before either orogen was formed).

Huge salt and other mineral deposits found in many areas of the world are further evidence of lakes or seas that once existed at various periods of geologic time long before today's oceans were formed. Such deposits are further proof that we know very little about Earth's early history because so much is now hidden beneath the many layers of earth that have accreted from outer space over many millennia of geologic time.

Highways cut through mountains along Interstate Highway 40 near Nashville, in Central and East Tennessee, and Interstate Highway 75 into Kentucky exposed large sedimentary limestone deposits that confirm the earlier existence of an inland sea in this area. (The author speculates that the Grand Canyon may have been formed by runoff from this epicontinental sea when the ocean basins were first created.)

If the planet had no major oceans (the hydrosphere) at the end of the Triassic ~200 Ma, then where did all of today's ocean water come from? This is a profound question with a simple answer: The hydrosphere has been gradually outgassed from the core of the Earth via the terrestrial volcanoes and LUVs as a byproduct of core melting, which distills H²O, minerals, and other gases from the solid material that formed the planet's original nucleus. Earth's atmospheric envelope was simultaneously outgassed as a part of this same process, and the atmosphere grows thicker with each passing day.

The midocean LUVs vigorously extrude new basaltic seafloor and virgin new water via "black smoker" vents, plus an unknown, but prodigious, amount of other gases, minerals and heat as byproducts of the expansion process.

Earth's current volume of surface water, according to the nebular hypothesis and plate tectonics, is believed to have always existed since the planet originally coalesced ~4.5-4.6 Ga, but the evidence that Pangaea constituted the entire surface of the planet at the end of the Triassic makes it clear that this is not true.

Terrestrial volcanoes were the sole source of terrestrial water in archaean times, when there were no oceans and surface water was confined to lakes and epicontinental seas. Inception of the midocean ridges at the end of the Triassic became the primary source of water and magmatic expansion of the ocean basins

The LUVs are now the single greatest source of new water filling the expanding ocean basins, so research is needed to determine whether new ocean basin growth is keeping up with the increasing volume of new water. Some researchers suggest that shorelines have receded substantially in recent centuries, but that may depend on other factors—the city of Venice (which is sinking) being a case in point.

Magma extruded via terrestrial volcanoes quickly cools upon contact with cooler air, but not before it has flowed over and changed the surrounding landscape. However, when hot magma extruded via the LUVs contacts cold seawater it quickly hardens into new basaltic seafloor that continuously increases the total surface area of the ocean basins. Because the continents literally float in isostatic equilibrium on the core's sea of molten magma, they can be slowly pushed apart by this intrusive volcanic seafloor growth process (vide the ~4,000 km distance now separating the Americas from Europe and Africa and the ~10,000 km separating Australia from South America.)

MIDOCEAN RIDGES AS A SOURCE OF GLOBAL WARMING?

Scientists searching for the causes of global warming may have overlooked a hidden factor----massive volumes of heat flowing from the midocean ridges that almost completely encircle the Earth. The ridges are hidden underwater and unseen except for the short stretch that runs through Iceland as part of the ongoing volcanic process that created the island and continues to modify its surface features on a daily basis.

The heat flux from the midocean ridges could prove to be the primary heat source causing global warming because they are a single and virtually continuous worldwide "linear underwater volcano" (LUV) extruding superheated molten magma (molten rock) and byproducts (chemicals, minerals and gases, plus virgin new H²O) of the core melting process that coagulate or precipitate out to form new basaltic seafloor when they meet extremely cold seawater at the ocean floor.

If they have not already done so, the world's meteorologists, marine scientists and volcanologists should investigate the heat flux emanating from these worldwide midocean ridges to determine whether the flux is the primary factor in global warming, just another contributory factor, or of little consequence. Unknown to most people, the most active volcanism on the planet is concentrated in a short section of the midocean ridge just south of the equator along the East Pacific Rise (EPR)--and directly below the area where El Niños spawn in heated surface waters. Is this mere coincidence, or cause and effect?



Formation of new basaltic ocean seafloor along this short hyperactive stretch of the EPR has been measured at ~15-16 cm/yr, four times the growth rate along other sections of the EPR or the worldwide LUV system. The total volcanic heat flux from this source is undoubtedly massive, but it is not known whether the rate and total volume of heat has ever been calculated for the entire Earth.

If previous consideration of this heat source was dismissed because of alternating El Niños and La Niñas (the cold water version of El Niños), another review of the evidence may be in order because the periodicity of these phenomena may be explained by the fact that volcanic activity fluctuates unpredictably and is seldom sustained over long periods of time, permitting the ocean waters to cool and La Niñas to develop during periods of quiescent EPR volcanism.

Recent reports of progressively higher annual temperatures worldwide and shrinking ice packs in the Arctic and Antarctic may be precursors of greater trouble ahead if the planet grows significantly warmer, as it surely will do as a result of global expansion.

Possibly enhanced by the El Niño effect, global warming and its effects on the planet took center stage in 1997, 1998, and 1999 as worldwide reports of unusually severe hurricanes, tornadoes, storms, heavy rains, disastrous floods and heat waves captured media attention. Automobile and factory emissions, ozone depletion and greenhouse effects of a polluted atmosphere, plus other potential causative factors, have been studied extensively but there is no consensus as to what causes global warming.

Even though it does not pose an immediate threat to life, global warming is recognized as a long-term threat to plant and animal life and the planetary environment that sustains all life. How will Mankind cope with a continued increase in heat that will undoubtedly result from expansion of the Earth?

You See Wayne NO Chemtrail's ........

And It Explains a Lot ...........

Could It be Wayne That the Earth Is Doing something That Is Natural in it's Evolutionary process's..........?

And By Doing So ,Releases Heat, causing The effect's of Global Warming.........

Like I told You Before You have Been looking in the Wrong Direction........

Instead of Looking Up..........

And Worrying........

Look to the Bottom of the Ocean.....

And Understand........


WMM

[whitemajikman]

The delayed onset of detectable warming was explained by a recent discovery that was made a couple of years ago (i.e. in the early to mid 90s, W.H.). Scientists had already known that atmospheric warming is delayed because the surface waters of the oceans store heat at deeper levels before subsequently releasing it. But not until the beginning of this decade did they discover that the same fossil fuel emissions that contribute to global warming by emitting carbon dioxide simultaneously mask that warming by emitting sulfur particles as well. While the carbon dioxide high in the upper atmosphere acts to trap heat inside the global greenhouse, the lower-level umbrellas of sulfate particulates reflect the sunlight back into space, creating localized cooling effects that conceal the continuing warming. “If everyone in the world could magically [remove the sulfates from coal and oil], you would see the fingerprints of global warming in a very short time� says Harvard’s James McCarthy.

Unfortunately, the sulfate aerosols cannot be considered a long-term neutralizing agent against global warming. For one thing, they remain airborne for only several weeks and mostly in localized areas, while carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for two centuries. Since both by-productts of fossil fuel burning are reduced simultaneously, the much longer-lived carbon dioxide will eventually overwhelm the transient sulfates. The sulfates emitted by power plants, factories, automobiles and volcanoes are regarded by scientists less as an offset than as a mask.

But there is a second reason not to regard sulfate aerosols as a remedy: they are a serious and persistent public and environmental health hazard. They cause low-level air pollution, which visits on us lung disease, crop destruction and acid rain. A cure of such toxicity can scarcely be regarded as a cure at all. At bottom, sulfates are simply another airborne industrial poison generated by the combusion of fossil fuels.’

From Ross Gelbspan: ‘The Heat is On’. (Perseus Books 1997)



Ross Gelbspan......?

Oh Please.....

Can you Quit The Joking around Already I thought you SAID YOU were Serious About Global Warming......

And then you paste this Garbage...........

WMM

[foot_soldier]

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[foot_soldier]

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

[foot_soldier]

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

[foot_soldier]

17 December 2003
Scientists Say Human Impact on Climate Change Certain
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=252267

The American Geophysical Union, the world's largest organization of earth, ocean, and climate scientists, has always been extremely cautious in interpreting the growing evidence that human activities -- especially carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles and utility plants -- are a major contributor to global climate change. Indeed, American conservatives often distort AGU's "let's-see-all-the-evidence" approach into support for their position that the whole global warming controversy is some sort of environmentalist hoax.

But yesterday AGU issued a strongly worded statement -- adopted unanimously by a special panel convened for that purpose -- concluding that "human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate." The statement also calls for actions to reduce "the harmful effects of global climate change through decreased human influences (e.g., slowing greenhouse gas emissions, improving land management practices), technological advancement (e.g., removing carbon from the atmosphere), and finding ways for communities to adapt and become resilient to extreme events."

As The Wall Street Journal reported, "The scientific committee that drafted the statement includes John Christy, a University of Alabama, Huntsville, climatologist who has often sided with warming skeptics in the past. But scientific dissent now increasingly involves details of the warming phenomenon, not the basic result that man-made gas emissions are a probably cause of the warming trend." In an interview with National Public Radio today, Christy said it was "scientifically inconceivable" that natural influences are solely responsible for climate change.

It will be interesting to see if the Republican politicians who like to quote Christy are paying attention. Just last week, a group of conservative Members of Congress led by Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) contributed to the world-wide impression that the Bush administration and its supporters are dangerously irresponsible on this subject, holding a press conference outside a United Nations conference on global climate change in Milan to air their claims that "the science is flawed; it is anything but certain." At some point, preferably right now, Republicans need to stop embarrassing their country with this kind of ignorant hokum.

If AGU's scientific conclusions bear repeating, so, too, does its call for action before climate change potentially becomes catastrophic. At a minimum, the administration should risk upsetting its flat-earth fans in the GOP "base" by agreeing to restart the international negotiations on climate change that it torpedoed as one of George W. Bush's first actions in foreign relations. And both Congress and the administration need to get serious about limiting our own greenhouse gas emissions, preferably through a "cap-and-trade" system that will impose mandatory limits while encouraging market means to reach them. This kind of system could avoid the false choice between economic growth and environmental improvement that conservatives so often cite, by stimulating the development of new "clean technologies" that would give the U.S. a big comparative advantage in one of the global economy's fastest growing sectors.

The time for denial on global climate change is long over. The time for action is now.

[foot_soldier]

12/16/2003
American Geophysical Union Statement
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html

Human Impacts on Climate

Adopted by Council December, 2003

Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century.

Human impacts on the climate system include increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons and their substitutes, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.), air pollution, increasing concentrations of airborne particles, and land alteration. A particular concern is that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be rising faster than at any time in Earth's history, except possibly following rare events like impacts from large extraterrestrial objects.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased since the mid-1700s through fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, with more than 80% of this increase occurring since 1900. Moreover, research indicates that increased levels of carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years. It is virtually certain that increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will cause global surface climate to be warmer.

The complexity of the climate system makes it difficult to predict some aspects of human-induced climate change: exactly how fast it will occur, exactly how much it will change, and exactly where those changes will take place. In contrast, scientists are confident in other predictions. Mid-continent warming will be greater than over the oceans, and there will be greater warming at higher latitudes. Some polar and glacial ice will melt, and the oceans will warm; both effects will contribute to higher sea levels. The hydrologic cycle will change and intensify, leading to changes in water supply as well as flood and drought patterns. There will be considerable regional variations in the resulting impacts.

Scientists' understanding of the fundamental processes responsible for global climate change has greatly improved during the last decade, including better representation of carbon, water, and other biogeochemical cycles in climate models. Yet, model projections of future global warming vary, because of differing estimates of population growth, economic activity, greenhouse gas emission rates, changes in atmospheric particulate concentrations and their effects, and also because of uncertainties in climate models. Actions that decrease emissions of some air pollutants will reduce their climate effects in the short term. Even so, the impacts of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations would remain.

The 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change states as an objective the "...stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." AGU believes that no single threshold level of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere exists at which the beginning of dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system can be defined. Some impacts have already occurred, and for increasing concentrations there will be increasing impacts. The unprecedented increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, together with other human influences on climate over the past century and those anticipated for the future, constitute a real basis for concern.

Enhanced national and international research and other efforts are needed to support climate related policy decisions. These include fundamental climate research, improved observations and modeling, increased computational capability, and very importantly, education of the next generation of climate scientists. AGU encourages scientists worldwide to participate in climate research, education, scientific assessments, and policy discussions. AGU also urges that the scientific basis for policy discussions and decision-making be based upon objective assessment of peer-reviewed research results.

Science provides society with information useful in dealing with natural hazards such as earthquakes, hurricanes, and drought, which improves our ability to predict and prepare for their adverse effects. While human-induced climate change is unique in its global scale and long lifetime, AGU believes that science should play the same role in dealing with climate change. AGU is committed to improving the communication of scientific information to governments and private organizations so that their decisions on climate issues will be based on the best science.

The global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that change. Scientific research is required to improve our ability to predict climate change and its impacts on countries and regions around the globe. Scientific research provides a basis for mitigating the harmful effects of global climate change through decreased human influences (e.g., slowing greenhouse gas emissions, improving land management practices), technological advancement (e.g., removing carbon from the atmosphere), and finding ways for communities to adapt and become resilient to extreme events.

12/17/03
NPR: Interview with John Christy, Climatologist, University of Alabama, Huntsville
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1551355

[foot_soldier]

The delayed onset of detectable warming was explained by a recent discovery that was made a couple of years ago (i.e. in the early to mid 90s, W.H.). Scientists had already known that atmospheric warming is delayed because the surface waters of the oceans store heat at deeper levels before subsequently releasing it. But not until the beginning of this decade did they discover that the same fossil fuel emissions that contribute to global warming by emitting carbon dioxide simultaneously mask that warming by emitting sulfur particles as well. While the carbon dioxide high in the upper atmosphere acts to trap heat inside the global greenhouse, the lower-level umbrellas of sulfate particulates reflect the sunlight back into space, creating localized cooling effects that conceal the continuing warming. “If everyone in the world could magically [remove the sulfates from coal and oil], you would see the fingerprints of global warming in a very short time� says Harvard’s James McCarthy.

Unfortunately, the sulfate aerosols cannot be considered a long-term neutralizing agent against global warming. For one thing, they remain airborne for only several weeks and mostly in localized areas, while carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for two centuries. Since both by-productts of fossil fuel burning are reduced simultaneously, the much longer-lived carbon dioxide will eventually overwhelm the transient sulfates. The sulfates emitted by power plants, factories, automobiles and volcanoes are regarded by scientists less as an offset than as a mask.

But there is a second reason not to regard sulfate aerosols as a remedy: they are a serious and persistent public and environmental health hazard. They cause low-level air pollution, which visits on us lung disease, crop destruction and acid rain. A cure of such toxicity can scarcely be regarded as a cure at all. At bottom, sulfates are simply another airborne industrial poison generated by the combusion of fossil fuels.’

From Ross Gelbspan: ‘The Heat is On’. (Perseus Books 1997)

.

[foot_soldier]

The role of anthropogenic (human-produced) aerosols in the masking of greenhouse gas (primarily CO2) warming of the lower planetary atmosphere has been intensively studied by the atmospheric science community since the period following the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 when a net cooling of Earth's atmosphere, caused by the spewing of volcanic ash (sulfate) into the stratosphere where it remained suspended for about two years, was observed:

Atmospheric Aerosols: What Are They and Why Are They So Important?
http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Aerosols.html

I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that the information gained from such studies would eventually be applied to the possibility of trying to offset the net warming impact of rising CO2 concentration by allowing pre-determined levels of aerosol pollution to either be continually produced or remain unabated in the atmosphere on a regional basis. In fact this possibility has been studied and discussed intensively by the science community and anyone who cares to take a look can do their own research on it. The following is just one of dozens of available references:

Statement of Dr. Stephen E. Schwartz
Senior Scientist - Environmental Chemistry Division
Department of Applied Science, Brookhaven National Laboratory
before
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
United States Senate
Tuesday, May 24, 1994
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/senate.html

Excerpt:

.....Before concluding, I must emphasize one further very important point about the aerosol forcing issue. Because the aerosol forcing is opposite in sign to the greenhouse forcing, it is sometimes suggested that this is a fortuitous situation whereby we might develop a strategy to forestall the consequences of the enhanced greenhouse effect by offsetting it with the aerosol forcing. Such a policy would, however, be fundamentally flawed. As I have noted, the mean atmospheric residence times of the tropospheric aerosols that we have been discussing are about a week, in contrast to the lifetimes of carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases of roughly a century. At present the atmosphere contains an amount of carbon dioxide in excess of the amount that was present before the industrial era that is equal to about thirty years' worth of present fossil-fuel-combustion CO2. Thus, to the extent that anthropogenic aerosol is offsetting a fraction of the greenhouse effect of this CO2, it is a week's worth of aerosols that is offsetting decades' worth of CO2. It is clear from the differences in the atmospheric residence times of the two substances that a strategy of relying on anthropogenic sulfate aerosols to offset increased greenhouse forcing by CO2 would be relying on an ever increasing short-term fix to solve a long-term problem. Indeed, rather than solve the problem such a strategy would only exacerbate it. Everyday one would be committing oneself an ever greater rate of emissions of SO2 in the future. Such a strategy simply cannot work.

A corollary of this situation is that a substantial fraction of the warming influence due to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases to date has been offset by the cooling influence of anthropogenic aerosols, which have increased roughly in proportion to the increase in greenhouse gases. Consequently the warming influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases now in the atmosphere is very likely substantially greater than has been inferred from temperature trends thus far over the industrial era. In other words the whitehouse effect may be masking much of the greenhouse effect..... END excerpt

Sooner or later, and like it or not, the problem of anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming of the lower atmosphere is going to have to be faced as a reality, whether because people are finally ready to face it or because they no longer have a choice but to face it.

It's not like we're helpless. The longer we deny the problem the more difficult it will become to live with it.

.

[gaiacomm]

Blah....Blah..... Blah..................

[gaiacomm]

Is it possible that everyone can make original statements and opinioned facts without the cut and paste of data that is better left on the internet?

It would be so much more informative if everyone would voice their respective views on the subject no matter how limited or vast...but at least we would have a better understanding of what we really know and understand!

[whitemajikman]

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

And as Always Foot Soldier( Deborah Stark) put's her Two cents worth in............

Which is like a child having a temper tantrum............

All the evidence that you have provided up to this point........

IS PURE SPECULATION.......

And you have not Taken into Consideration The massive effects of the Hydrosphere and thermal venting.......

By the Way....................... Foot in Mouth Soldier..................

Do you have any Clue about the amount of Sulphates And Phosphates That are released Each and Everyday by these vent's......?

And their Effects on Global Ambient temperature.....?

Have you not made the Connection that Halva isn't into "Global Warming" and it's effect's because he is concerned.........

But rather because he enjoys playing his socialist political games.......and Likes the fact that you all kiss his ass.

I made the mistake of letting Halva continue on this thread way back in the beginning,because Jay was having such a great time Showing everyone exactly what kind of fool WAYNE HALL really is......

But Not this time........

I'm Back for however Long it takes........

And I have Also Sent Arianna a Little Background On WAYNE HALL ............

Which she can verify at her own expense........

which shouldn't be to hard ,considering her station in life.......

The Funny thing is While Wayne has Duped all of his fellow cult member's......

He still thinks in his mind that he can turn all of those same member's into his acolytes for HIS cause.......

Which is self-serving and undeniably has nothing to do with Global Warming...........

And everything to do with feeding his Blind Arrogance..........and lust for Political power which he
intends to use to further his communist and socialistic leaning's........

In conclusion Wayne Hall is a pretender,and does not have a clue what is causing Global Warming.......

WMM

[foot_soldier]

The person who taught me how to carve in soapstone, Louis Anayak, an Inuit, came down from northwestern Alaska through Canada to the United States in 1992 and ended up in a large northeastern city, which is where I first met him in 1994. He was 62 years old at that time and had just moved into a room in a senior citizens' community after living on the street for five months and trying to support himself by selling his beautifully-carved soapstone fetishes. It was in the large, sunny basement of this community house that I sat across from Louis and learned to carve. He was very quiet the first few times we sat together, but little by little he began telling me about the changes in his native region and how, even then, many of the Inuit were leaving their villages to move south because they saw what was coming and how it would affect their lives. In Louis' personal case it was the "decline of the fish" that moved him to leave. His family were all fishermen and fishing was all he knew aside from stone carving. It was his life. It was his heritage. It meant something to him. For what it's worth.

November 7, 2004
Warming trend imperils an ancient way of life
Alaska village in moving crisis
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/11/07/warming_trend_imperils_an_ancient_way_of_life?pg=f ull

NEWTOK, Alaska -- The boys hunt for mastodon bones on the tundra as the women and girls gather salmonberries from their secret spots in the hills. The men keep busy with various other things, fishing and fixing roofs and hauling water from the community well.

It's another sunny afternoon in this Eskimo village of 340 on Alaska's west coast, and there isn't the slightest hint that life is approaching a cataclysmic change. In as few as 10 years, the entire village will be swallowed up by a torrent of water from the Ninglick River, and an ancient way of life will be erased.

''It's like a razor blade down there, just chopping away at the beach," says Phil Kusayak, the school custodian, eyeing the waves in the near distance. ''Pretty soon, it'll all be water."

For thousands of years, ice shelves and permafrost along Alaska's coast acted as shields against storms and tidal forces, but rising temperatures have melted much of these natural barriers, leaving Newtok's shoreline vulnerable to a relentless barrage of waves.

The Ninglick River, which has eaten away 3,320 feet of beach in the past 50 years, is accelerating toward Newtok at a rate of 110 feet a year. The town dump was washed away, and now the barge landing, critical for receiving supplies, has begun to crumble.

Villages all across Alaska have been affected by the warming trend. Temperatures in polar regions have risen about 2 degrees per decade over the past 30 years. This has exacerbated the naturally occurring erosion that plagues more than 180 of Alaska's coastal and riverine villages.

According to a report released 10 months ago by the General Accounting Office, now the Government Accountability Office, about two dozen villages are threatened, and four are in ''imminent danger," and none more so than Newtok, where the erosion rate is faster than anywhere else.

But Newtok residents aren't panicking, because they have a plan: to move the entire village, buildings and all, to a spot across the river, 9 miles away on the north end of Nelson Island.

Villagers obtained the site for their new home in a land swap with the federal government in April. The town, which proposed the swap, got 11,000 acres on Nelson in exchange for giving up their village plus 12,000 adjacent acres, all of which will become part of a wildlife refuge that is already mostly tundra and marsh.

The move would be unprecedented, if it happens.

Tribal leaders, who commissioned an engineering study this year, said the move could cost $50 million to $100 million. Estimates from the GAO indicate the number could be as high as $400 million. Nobody knows where the money will come from.

After Newtok, there would be Kivalina, Koyukuk, Shishmaref, and 20 others. The cost to relocate, or barricade, all the villages threatened by erosion would be unimaginable.

Officials acknowledge the urgency of the situation, but the cost and complexity of relocating a village have proved daunting. It would require the coordination of several state and federal agencies, and no agency or politician has dared to take the lead. By default, the Newtok people have been left to save themselves.

Right now, their relocation fund stands at zero.

Stanley Tom knows better than anyone what is at stake.

Tom, 44, is the village grocer. He is short and bespectacled, with a wispy black mustache and eyes that, of late, have been twitchy. The village has placed the entire burden of the relocation on his shoulders. Ask villagers about the move, and they will respond with some version of ''ask Stanley."

He is a Yupik Eskimo, born and raised in this community on the outer fringe of the Yukon Kuskokwim Delta. He is a two-time college dropout, but one of only a few in town with any education past high school and, most important, the only one who remotely understands the language of bureaucrats.

In a village that depends on government funding for its most basic services, Tom is the lifeline to the outside world. He has initiated much of the planning for the move.

''I'm it," Tom says with a sigh. ''There's no one else here who can do it."

Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska convened a hearing in Anchorage this summer so village leaders could plead for assistance from local, state, and federal officials, but there was no resolution.

''Of course we're concerned. We don't want these villages to be washed away," says Stevens aide Courtney Schikora. ''But it's not something we have a solution for right now."

If the village can't be relocated for economic or other reasons, the only viable alternative, government officials say, would be to move the residents (but no buildings) to an existing community, such as Bethel, population 5,700, about 100 miles east. Village leaders say such a move would mean the end of the Newtok people as a distinct tribe.

From the air, the village looks like a cluster of barnacles clinging to the edge of an immense green plain. On the ground, Newtok is a motley collection of about 70 small wood-frame houses built along several hundred feet of boardwalks that roll and bend with the terrain.

The Newtoks, whose ancestors called themselves Qaluyaarmiut, or ''dip net people," have occupied this region for at least 2,000 years. The people here know about moving. Like all traditional Yupik Eskimos, the Newtoks were nomadic until the 20th century.

[whitemajikman]

[


The Damage is from Erosion Deborah,not global warming.............I know you would like everyone to believe your Bullshit......

But this time it is Bullshit......

EROSION not GLOBAL WARMING............

TESTIMONY OF DRUE PEARCE,

SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR FOR ALASKA

BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS

REGARDING S. 2016 A BILL TO AUTHORIZE THE EXCHANGE OF LANDS BETWEEN THE NEWTOK NATIVE CORPORATION AND THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR




July 30, 2002



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


Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 2016, which would direct a land exchange between the Department of the Interior and Newtok Native Corporation. The purpose of this exchange is to provide a new site for the Native Village of Newtok, Alaska, on lands within the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge on Nelson Island. The present village site is experiencing severe erosion along the banks of the Ninglick River. The average annual erosion rate is 90 feet per year, and it is expected that the land under the homes, schools, and businesses of Newtok will erode within eight years.


We continue to support, and have supported from the onset, the desire of the residents of Newtok to relocate their village from its present site across the Ninglick River to an upland area on the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge that is adjacent to other Newtok Village owned lands on Nelson Island.




We have concerns, however, with the bill as currently written. Fish and Wildlife Service negotiations with Newtok seek to balance the necessity of the villagers to relocate to a new village site that is suitable and will accommodate the immediate and future needs of the Village, while also providing protection for wildlife and their habitat on the Refuge. We are optimistic that together we can reach an agreement through careful planning and continued negotiations that satisfies both parties.




In November 1996, Newtok Native Corporation passed a resolution authorizing the Corporation to negotiate a land exchange with the Service. At that time, the Corporation identified approximately 19,000 acres of Refuge land on Nelson Island that they deemed suitable and necessary for a new village site. Immediately thereafter, negotiations began, and by December 1997, the Regional Director for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service submitted an intent to exchange agreement for a 21,427 acre exchange to Newtok Native Corporation.




Newtok Native Corporation responded to the proposed agreement by reducing both the Refuge land they sought on Nelson Island to 14,750 acres and their corporate land offered elsewhere to 11,105 acres. Negotiations were temporarily stalled over the amount of land to include in the exchange. When S. 2016 was introduced on March 14, 2002, Newtok's request for Refuge lands for a new village site on Nelson Island was reduced to 5,580 acres. We recommend that potential revisions to S. 2016 should include an amount of land that is of sufficient size to provide for the current and future growth of the Village and for its necessary infrastructure. Since the passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) in 1971, the Village of Newtok has nearly tripled in population to about 321. Continued growth of the Village population must be considered in the planning for necessary infrastructure. There should also be a sufficient exchange of lands of high value to wildlife to balance or at least minimize, the loss of Refuge lands associated with developing undisturbed habitats in and around Nelson Island.




We believe that surveys of the proposed Nelson Island lands should be conducted to determine the site and size for the Village. Without such surveys it is impossible to know with certainty whether the proposed exchange provides adequate resources for the Village and whether the future needs of the community can be met. We believe it is important to note that a description of the lands in the legislation at this time might result in the need for future adjustments.




In addition, it is unclear how the proposed new village site might impact wildlife. In the current proposal, the proposed site is closer to Baird Inlet Island than the present village. The island supports a large colony of nesting Pacific brant. One of just five major Pacific brant colonies on the Refuge, Baird Inlet Island is a critical production area for these geese. During an average year, up to 4,500 pairs of brant use Baird Inlet Island to nest and brood their young. Nests on this island comprise up to 25% of the colonial nests on the Refuge in any given year. Air traffic to and from a new airport, if routed directly over Baird Inlet Island, could cause disturbances to birds at critical stages in their life cycle as well as be potentially hazardous to aircraft and the safety of the flying public. Increased boating activity adjacent to the island would be an additional source of disturbance to the birds as villagers travel to and from their traditional subsistence use area northwest of the new village site and when supplies are brought into the new village. In addition to Pacific brant, other species likely to be impacted by the proximity of the Village and airport to the island are emperor goose, cackling Canada goose, Pacific white-fronted goose, the threatened spectacled eider, and muskox. The Service intends to address these issues with the Village during the NEPA review for the airport siting and construction.




Current law authorizes the Secretary to conduct land exchanges in Alaska using either Section 22(f) of ANCSA, as amended, which provides authority to conduct land exchanges on the basis of equal value; or Section 1302(h) of the Alaska National Interests Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), which provides for other than equal value exchanges if the parties agree to an exchange and the Secretary determines it is in the public interest.




If the exchange is done on an equal value basis, we would urge the Committee to allow the Service to follow its standard appraisal process. The methodology provided in the bill for conducting the proposed exchange of lands does not follow the standard procedures used by the Service in appraising lands for either acquisition or exchange. We believe the proposed methodology could impede our ability to accomplish the exchange by setting timeframes and procedures that might be problematic for both parties.




An additional concern is that, as drafted, the legislation is unclear as to whether selected lands being offered by Newtok will be deducted from ANCSA entitlement upon relinquishment of Newtok's selections. Native Corporations have no legal rights to selected lands until conveyance. If Newtok offers selected lands, they should be charged against their ANCSA entitlement or Newtok would be offering Federal lands in exchange for Federal lands on Nelson Island.




Newtok has expressed concern over statutory and regulatory restrictions imposed by Section 22(g) of ANCSA on Corporation land within the boundaries of the Clarence Rhode Unit of the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge. Only 589 acres of the Refuge lands identified for exchange at the new village site would be subject to Section 22(g) restriction. We agree that this legislation should direct that lands received by Newtok in this exchange be free from restrictions imposed by Section 22(g) of ANCSA.




The proposed legislation as drafted, in Section 2(b), would exempt the conveyance of lands to the Newtok from all laws, rules, and regulations. This would prohibit the Service from administering other federal laws and regulations that do not apply strictly to refuge lands. Also, the United States has treaty obligations with many nations that require that certain resources are protected such as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Marine Mammals Protection Act. Other laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, etc., should apply on lands conveyed to Newtok, as they do throughout the United States.




This same language in Section 2(b) jeopardizes the protection of valid existing rights. All Alaska Native and other legislation provides protection for valid existing rights. For example, an existing Native allotment application or certificate on refuge lands is a valid existing right and must be protected as such and that area would be excluded from conveyance to Newtok.






Summary and Conclusions




While we have concerns with some of the details of the bill, we support legislation that directs the Service and Newtok to negotiate an exchange that insures adequate land is conveyed for village infrastructure. Once adequate lands are identified by the parties, the exchange can be completed through established land exchange procedures. With the terms of the legislation modified as suggested, the lands conveyed to Newtok would also be free of 22(g) restrictions. The exchange would protect refuge resources and include sufficient land to provide adequate resources and facilities for the Village.


I appreciate the opportunity to comment on S. 2016 and the Department looks forward to working with Newtok representatives and the Committee to achieve the goal of relocation and reestablishment of the Village to more suitable terrain while protecting the fish and wildlife resources and their habitat within the National Wildlife Refuge System.



WMM

[whitemajikman]

OH and Deborah the words ...."The Average Annual EROSION rate is 90 feet per year".......

Now how could Global warming be a factor, If there is an Annual Average Of Erosion of 90 feet per year..............?

What you would see is a sharp increase in Erosion,if the reason was Global warming,but this is not the case,in fact they have been monitoring the Erosion since the late 1800's,as some of the other Elder's of the village have stated.......

And on average 90 feet per year........

You are Guilty DEBORAH STARK of misrepresentation of the facts..................

which really is no surpise,You are an Associate of WAYNE HALL'S And Don't CARE about the Facts......

HOW LONG CAN YOU GO ON DECEIVING PEOPLE...........

WMM

[jayreynolds]

Deborah just can't seem to grow up and be a big girl.

Women are very emotional beings, and right now she is one very angry little girl.

And why shouldn't she be? She has tied her boat to far too many "cranks" online, people like A. C. Griffith, people like Don Johnson, people like "Sore Throat", people like Diane Harvey,"Thermit", and Carnicom, all of whom have turned out to be, well, most have dropped out completely, some have turned up their noses at her, and some have turned out to be pure lunatics.

This week it's been yet another loss, her precious John Kerry has been left flipping and flopping like a catfish on the deck, and she's squealing like a stuck pig! To top it all off, Jim Phelps comes in like a lion, but when challenged on "simple science", get's the shutdown order from Wayne Hall, and heads off with his tail between his legs.

Have you started to realize that you are just atypical "idiot magnet", Deborah?

Is that what has you posting and pasting pure zeros and more of the same-old-same-old?

Get a grip, Debbie, no amount of "global warming" propaganda posted heres going to make any difference to me or anyone else, no matter how much you might hope it does!

Your only hope now is to blow the lid on all the lies, all the liars, all the schemers related to the "chemtrails" hoax, because you know that's exactly what it is. You could do it, and it would be the right thing to do.

There is no other escape from what you've gotten into. What you are doing now
is just another symptom of madness, and an attraction for the next idiot.

Is that what you want, girl? Make a change, do the right thing, you can get out of it now and start anew, and help others do so as well.

The choice is up to you, stay here and get bossed around by Wayne, get laughed at by the whole world, and keep attracting more idiots, or get real, get out of it, and get over it.

[gaiacomm]

Blah....Blah.......Blah........

[foot_soldier]

October 7, 2004
Warming signs: thinner glaciers and saltier oceans
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1007/p14s01-cogn.html

Earth has a message for global warming skeptics: Its effects are starting to appear where it really counts. Antarctic glaciers are melting faster than scientists had thought. The tropical "firebox" that drives the atmosphere's weather machine is running hotter. These two developments could significantly change our planet's weather patterns.

Roughly speaking, Earth's weather machine is like a steam engine with a boiler (the tropical and subtropical oceans) and a condenser (the cooler higher latitudes). Masses of water vapor flow into the atmosphere from the boiler and travel north or south. These masses condense into rain or snow, releasing the heat they absorbed when they evaporated. Much of the water finds its way to the polar seas and flows back to the tropics.

This interchange maintains our planet's distribution of solar heat and fresh water. Research suggests that this heat/moisture distribution is changing, which could shift the location and timing of rainfall, droughts, and floods.

The telltale signal: salt. When the boiler evaporates seawater, it leaves salt behind. The hotter the boiler, the saltier the water. Indeed, the tropical seas across the Atlantic are getting saltier, according to a Nature article last December by Ruth Curry at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts and colleagues - and an update by her last month.

To suggest that this condition is causing the rise in Atlantic hurricane activity would be a stretch. But Dr. Curry and her associates think the accumulation of salt probably is linked to global warming.

Antarctica also shows signs of a significant climate change. Three international studies reported by NASA on behalf of the various research teams show more ice loss and glacial movement than had been expected. While glaciers all over the world are losing ice, the release of vast water masses locked in Antarctic land-based ice would cause the biggest rise in sea level.

The studies show western Antarctic glaciers are shrinking "substantially" faster than observed in the 1990s, NASA reports. "They are losing 60 percent more ice into the Amundsen Sea than they accumulate from inland snowfall."..... (continued)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Global Warming - Impacts: Western Mountains
Glacier National Park
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/0/85256c870070ee7285256bfe0057a30b?OpenDocument#glac ier

Today's climate may be too warm to sustain the park's mountain glaciers long-term. Researchers estimate that even if average temperatures were to remain at their current level, all the glaciers would disappear within the next 100 years. If warming in the region proceeds as expected, the glaciers will be gone much sooner, probably by the year 2030.

The size of the park's glaciers already is affected by changes in climate. For example, the glaciers retreated dramatically from 1920-1940, when the region experienced above-average summer temperatures and below-average annual precipitation. From 1960-1979, temperatures dropped, precipitation increased, and some of the larger glaciers actually grew slightly. Since that time the glaciers have receded farther.

Glacier National Park is not the only area where glaciers are melting. Mountain glaciers in the Alps, south-central Alaska, and the Pacific Northwest also have retreated over the past century.

November 7, 2004
Front Range glaciers are melting
http://www.knoxstudio.com/shns/story.cfm?pk=GLACIERS-11-07-04&cat=AN

ARAPAHO GLACIER, Colo. - The state's largest glacier is shrinking fast, and University of Colorado researchers suspect global warming is playing a role.

The surface of the 62-acre Arapaho Glacier along the Continental Divide west of Boulder has dropped 100 to 130 feet since 1960, according to recent university reports.

A third university analysis concludes that the surface of the 25-acre Arikaree Glacier, about five miles north of the Arapaho, has also sunk some 66 feet since 1965.

The three reports are the first to document significant present-day declines in Colorado's pint-size Front Range glaciers, which are clustered along the Continental Divide from Rocky Mountain National Park south to Interstate 70.

"We can argue about the rate of decline, but I think we can say confidently that both of them are losing ice - and they've been losing it fairly seriously," said university hydrologist Nel Caine, author of the Arikaree report.

Researchers say there is no reason to believe that other Front Range glaciers aren't experiencing similar declines. Some of them could be gone in a few decades.

Just two years ago, at the height of Colorado's multiyear drought, two year-round ice patches along the Continental Divide disgorged ancient bison horns that have been radiocarbon dated between 2,090 and 2,280 years old.

The animal remains suggest that, in some cases, ice along the divide has retreated to levels unseen since before the time of Christ.

"Over the last couple of decades, and especially over the last 10 years, we have entered a period of warming and retreat that is as great, or greater, than any we know of since the end of the last ice age" 10,000 years ago, said glaciologist Tad Pfeffer, of the university's Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, or INSTAAR.

"The Front Range glaciers and snowfields could be gone in a couple of decades," Pfeffer said.

"Are we directly responsible for this? Is this the smoking gun that says this is caused by fossil-fuel emissions? That's a harder question to answer," he said.

The loss of glaciers and the so-called perennial snowfields would redefine places such as Rocky Mountain National Park. It would reduce habitat for fish that rely on late-summer runoff from glacial sources. Some alpine plants and high-altitude forests also could suffer.

And the extinction of the alpine ice would cut deeper, beyond what can be measured in tourist dollars or acre-feet of water. Those scattered scraps of flowing mountaintop ice are remnants of the last ice age, the last links to a vanished time, when mammoths roamed the landscape.

"Compare these mountains to a really dry mountain range in New Mexico or Arizona or Nevada. They're very different places," Pfeffer said. "And to the extent that we care about the landscape that we live in, that matters."..... (continued)

[foot_soldier]

September 23, 2004
Antarctic glaciers slipping faster into the sea
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996442

Antarctic glaciers are thinning and slipping ever faster into the sea, according to several new studies. Warmer air and sea temperatures are blamed, and the changes are expected to cause an appreciable rise in sea levels.

Glaciologist Robert Thomas, a NASA contractor in Wallops Island, Virginia, US, led a team that flew over West Antarctica in 2002 and measured the thickness of six glaciers flowing into the Amundsen Sea with radar. He found the glaciers were thinning at twice the rate they had in the 1990s, when a European satellite measured them.

The glaciers are losing about 250 cubic kilometres of ice to the ocean each year - about 60% more ice than they accumulate from snowfall. That translates to a global sea level rise of 0.2 millimetres a year - equivalent to 10% of the current rising levels.

The glaciers are also accelerating toward the sea. One, the Pine Island Glacier, has sped up by about 25% over the last 30 years.

Warmer waters

The changes are linked to the thinning and weakening of ice shelves that the tongue-shaped glaciers flow into before reaching the sea. These shelves are generally bounded by rock or anchored ice on all sides but the one facing the sea. So when warmer seawater erodes the bottom of these shelves, glaciers ramming into them can break them off more easily.

"It's like pulling a cork out of a tilted bottle - the contents start to spill out," Thomas told New Scientist. The research suggests this can set off a chain reaction of thinning that can spread like a crack for more than 1000 kilometres inland.

"If that deep channel goes far into the interior of the ice sheet, it's a weak link where instabilities can creep back to the heart of the ice sheet and help the ice sheet collapse," Thomas says.

The root cause is more heat getting to the bottom of the ice shelves, says Thomas, who publishes his work in Science (DOI: 10.1126.1099650). "But whether it's the same ocean currents but warmer water, or the same temperature water but the currents have speeded up isn't clear," he adds. Global warming or some natural, unknown cycle may be responsible for the warmer water, he says.

Shelf collapse

Two other studies, published on Wednesday in Geophysical Research Letters (vol 31, L18401 and L18402), describe similar changes in glaciers on the Antarctic Peninsula.

There, a 3250-square-kilometre ice shelf called Larsen B collapsed in March 2002 after being weakened by temperatures that rose about five times as fast as the global average over the previous five decades.

Eric Rignot of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, and colleagues used satellite radar data to reveal increases in the speed of glaciers which run into the ice sheet. Three glaciers showed eightfold increases between 2000 and 2003, with another two glaciers showing a threefold increase. The ice loss amounts to more than 27 cubic kilometres per year.

"The magnitude of the glacier changes illustrates the importance of ice shelves on ice sheet mass balance and contribution to sea level change," write the authors.

A second paper by Ted Scambos of the University of Colorado, Boulder, used another satellite to find that four glaciers were flowing into the collapsed Larsen B ice shelf at rates two to six times faster in 2003 than in 2000. One glacier, called Hektoria, also thinned significantly a year after the collapse - its surface lowered by about 40 metres over six months.

[foot_soldier]

September 23, 2003
Mount Kilimanjaro's Glacier Is Crumbling
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0923_030923_kilimanjaroglaciers.html

Last January, amateur adventurer Vince Keipper realized a long-time goal when he trekked to the top of Tanzania's Mount Kilimanjaro. But the view from Africa's 19,340-foot (5,895-meter) rooftop hardly compared to what he saw on the way up the mountain's Western Breach.

"The sound brought our group to a stop," Keipper recalled. "We turned around to see the ice mass collapse with a roar. A section of the glacier crumbled in the middle, and chunks of ice as big as rooms spilled out on the crater floor."

Keipper grabbed his camera just in time to capture a section of Kilimanjaro's massive Furtwängler Glacier spilling onto the same trail his group had ascended the very night before.

Keipper's photos speak for themselves, dramatic proof of a scientific near-certainty: Kilimanjaro's glaciers are disappearing. The ice fields Ernest Hemingway once described as "wide as all the world, great, high, and unbelievably white in the sun" have lost 82 percent of their ice since 1912—the year their full extent was first measured.

If current climatic conditions persist, the legendary glaciers, icing the peaks of Africa's highest summit for nearly 12,000 years, could be gone entirely by 2020.

"Just connect the dots," said Ohio State University geologist Lonnie Thompson. "If things remain as they have, in 15 years [Kilimanjaro's glaciers] will be gone."..... (continued)

[foot_soldier]

September 2003
Excessive heat takes toll on Swiss Alpine glaciers
http://www.uswaternews.com/archives/arcglobal/3exchea9.html

SION, Switzerland -- Greyed by the heat and riven with deep cracks, Switzerland's mighty Alpine glaciers are shrinking at a record rate in this summer's sizzling sun.

Scientists may disagree over some of the causes of the heat wave which has sent temperatures soaring in Europe and about how much people are contributing to global warming, but the effects high in the Alpine valleys are visible. The Alpine glaciers, source of some of Europe's biggest rivers, have been in retreat for more than a century, but the loss of ice has speeded this year as temperatures have soared.

"The rate of ice melt is some three or four times the usual amount," said Charly Wuilloud, head of the department of natural dangers at the Valais state forestry department.

Some 9,000 feet above the Rhone valley in southern Switzerland, at the junction of the Ferpecles and Mount Mine glaciers, the temperature is an unusually warm 59-68 degrees Fahrenheit. Sporting sunglasses and a short-sleeved shirt more typical of beach ware, Wuilloud pointed to the rush of melt water streaming from the ice wall of the Ferpecles glacier.

The so-called equilibrium line, the point at which any fresh snow or rain falling will turn to ice and not melt or run off, is some 984-1,312 feet higher up the mountain this year than usual this summer, he added.

At one time, the four-miles-long Ferpecles and Mount Mine, some six miles in extension, joined to form a forked tongue of ice stretching down into the valley.

Lines gouged into the mountain side tens of yards above the valley floor show the height to which the ice once reached.

COLD SNAP

Scientists say Europe's glaciers have been shrinking since the 1850s, initially as a result of a natural warming of the earth following a 250 year cold snap.

But the process has picked up pace over recent decades -- particularly since the 1970s -- under the impact of global warming fuelled -- many scientists believe -- by high emissions of greenhouse gases.

According to the United Nations' International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), the average temperature of the earth rose 0.5 Celsius during the 20th century and could rise several times that rate over the next 100 years.

Back in the 1990s, even before this year's blistering summer, geologists at the Zurich-based World Glacier Monitoring Service (WGMS) forecast that the glaciers would shrink to just 10 percent of their 1850 size by the end of the 21st century.

By 1970, they had already declined to around half and were seen losing a further 50 percent by 2025, according to geography professor Wilfried Haeberli of the University of Zurich.

The latest estimates are that 25-30 percent has already gone. "It looks like our prediction was a little bit optimistic. It is going faster than we thought," he said.

SAHARA DUST

Glaciers have long been seen as one of the most sensitive detectors of climate change, with the impact showing up first in the thickness of the ice rather than its length, which can take years to respond.

This year a number of factors have combined to intensify the rate of melt, including a freak weather event last November when a cloud of dust was blown north from the Sahara desert.

As glacier surface ice melted with the coming of spring, the dust was exposed again, helping give the ice a greyish appearance that reduced reflection and increased the amount of sunlight absorbed -- hence the melt.

Although studies for this year are not yet finished, Haeberli said the Alpine glaciers could have slimmed down some six feet or more -- an exceptional loss of thickness.

This would be 10 times the average annual melt over the length of the 20th century and some four times that of the two decades between 1980-2000 when global warming was already making its presence felt..... (continued)

[halva]

Raynolds I hope that Deborah has got you ignore-listed as firmly as I have ignore listed other individuals posting here recently, whose style of intervention you now imitate and intellectual level you now approximate.

It suits us very well - and requires little effort - to keep you looking at yourself in the mirror here, deluding yourself that you have succeeded in silencing the world.

[whitemajikman]

Halva says " It is no problem at all for me to keep you diverted on this list until the day that we can all creep up on you from behind."

Wayne ,You sound like a madman........

Who is "WE"......

And Why are you threatening Jay....?

I have to say I am Not Surprised...........

Your A Lunatic and of Terrorist Mentality........

And not too bright ,You must really be quakin in your boots for you to show your true nature.......

Not to mention your temple must just be a throbbin.......

And what is this perversion you have for taking men from behind.........?

You are one sick individual .........

Hey Deborah This is YOUR FRIEND..........The guy you are backing up.........And trying to come to the rescue to.......What are your thoughts of his perversion.............?

And what does that make you..........By Association......................

The deception has got to end..........

Halva by any standards is an expert at manipulation....

And unfortunately deception.........

In his own word's...........and by his own admission.............


WMM

[foot_soldier]

[hoot]

Life is not fair. Who got rich and famous? The inventor or his patent clerk?

[The Shadow]

Not that I would suggest such a thing, but the only sure cure for the disease that is Jay Reynolds is a bullet to the head... a la his mentor William Cooper

[gaiacomm]

Was Arafat poisoned by Israel?

There is evidence to suggest that the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat,
is the victim of an Israelu assassination attempt. Israel has assassinated
its enemies before, and Arafat is now fighting for his life in a French
hospital suffering from the same symptoms as others who have been poisoned
by Mossad in the past. Israel assassinates more people than any other
country which claims to be civilised or democratic.


Arafat died last week but it would not be to the advantage of a few to let that be known because of the trouble that it would create. Only a few know that Arafat is already dead. He should be buried in Jeurasalem with other great kings, But again that would cause problems.

[whitemajikman]

Was Arafat poisoned by Israel?

There is evidence to suggest that the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat,
is the victim of an Israelu assassination attempt. Israel has assassinated
its enemies before, and Arafat is now fighting for his life in a French
hospital suffering from the same symptoms as others who have been poisoned
by Mossad in the past. Israel assassinates more people than any other
country which claims to be civilised or democratic.


Arafat died last week but it would not be to the advantage of a few to let that be known because of the trouble that it would create. Only a few know that Arafat is already dead. He should be buried in Jeurasalem with other great kings, But again that would cause problems.


Arafat Was Old........

What you should be thinking of though..........

Is who will get The 3-4 Billion dollar fortune that he will leave........upon his passing........

Family or Terrorist's...................

or both..........

But I would like to point out that publicly accusing Israel of poisoning arafat in one paragraph,saying he is battling for his life.........

Then saying he is dead in the next paragraph........

is a stretch........in itself.......

And this is just one more reason to question your real motives........on this thread......

What does Arafat have to do with Global climate change.......?

And are you next going to try and use the chemtrail hoax as the method in which he was killed........

I can see the headlines now..........................If Wayne or Deborah have their way.................

ARAFAT SUCCUMBS TO ISRAELI KILLER CHEMTRAILS............

And it's True......

Just ask ......

Clifford Carnicom

Wayne Hall

Deborah Stark

Mark Sky

Jim Phelps

Mech

Swampgas

Boomerchick

And to get a clearer Picturer of the Mental faculties of these individuals........

I ask you to pay close attention to this post.......

By THe SHADOW........

"Not that I would suggest such a thing, but the only sure cure for the disease that is Jay Reynolds is a bullet to the head... a la his mentor William Cooper"

That makes I don't know how many Death threats this thread has had.........Because I quite frankly do not want to have to go through all of Halva's Drivel to get an exact Number......

But I have started A list in this post of some of the purveyor's of a hoax that has cost human lives.........

Feel free To add to it......

I think it is Important to let the public know whom they are and what they do.........

They are not Peace activist's.......As SHadow's post and Halva's Threats prove....

Nor freedom fighter's.........If they really believed in freedom they would never have banned anyone from their websites with an opposing veiw..........

Nor Interested In the Real Problems of Global Climate Change............But instead post their version of global climate change.......which is meant to cause panic and hysteria..........and is not backed up with real Scientific Conclusions,but Speculation and innuendo..........

If you Run into these people online REMEMBER this bit of advise........

THERE IS A SUCKER BORN EVERY MINUTE..........

AND THE Wayne Hall's,Deborah Stark's,Clifford Carnicom's And Mark Sky's of this world are indeed betting on that YOU are a sucker..........

So Don't fall into their Trap........................

And Become Another Cult Member....................

WMM

[Yaak]

The following list illustrates the typical descent of the chemtrail hoax on any message board and obviously applies to the global warming hoax as well:

1. Present the hoax

2. Copy / paste non-provable theories, opinions, lies and extraneous info to support the hoax

3. Become argumentative and angry with anyone that disagrees with the hoax

4. Use profanity and make references to body parts and bodily functions as insults

5. Ban everybody that disagrees

6. Make death wishes or threats

.....and thank you, Shadow, for bringing us down to number 6

[Insurrectionchemistry]

Diversify

http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-15635.html

[whitemajikman]

Diversify

http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-15635.html

Jim your blatent attempts to draw us away from this thread will not work......

Whatever plan you and Wayne got will not come to fruition..............

Wayne is done on this thread.........

his credibility is non-existent.......

and his motives are not Truthful......

You should be taking note here.......

because Just as Wayne Hall is guilty of Pushing a Hoax............SO ARE YOU...........

I wonder if that poor Lad who commited Suicide at ground zero..........had a prior run in with the likes of you...........

It would Indeed be interesting if it were to be known that he too beleived in the HOAX that you PUSH.............

And really would that not make you guilty of at the very least manslaughter........

WMM

[stuart_allsop]

Was Arafat poisoned by Israel?

There is evidence to suggest that the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat,
is the victim of an Israelu assassination attempt.

Really? You actually have EVIDENCE of this? Would you be so kind as to show it?


Arafat died last week... Really? And you have evidence of this too? So please do go ahead and share your evidence with the rest of the world.

Don't get me wrong: It wouldn't surprise me at all that Arafat was already dead, given all the conflicting reports and the possibility for major problems upon his death. But my point is that there is no EVIDENCE that he is already dead. Just SUSPICION, which is an entirely different thing. However, you didn't say that you SUSPECTED that he might be dead: you presented it as solid, undeniable fact: "Arafat died last week".

So I'm calling you on it: Provide the evidence, or back down and admit that you have none.

[halva]

The first major oil company to acknowledge the urgency of climate change was British Petroleum, whose CEO, John Browne, announced in 1997, that the company was preparing itself to begin the transition to renewable energy in order to reduce the world's output of greenhouse gases.

The company subsequently launched a series of advertisements in which it declared that its initials no longer stood for British Petroleum but for "beyond Petroleum". Observers credited the company with running those ads not on PBS - but during the baseball championship playoff series, aiming them clearly at a mainstream male American audience.

Beyond reshaping its public image, BP also spawned a new subsidiary - BP Solar - which has grown into the world's largest seller of solar systems.

Another oil giant, Royal Dutch/Shell, announced in 2001 that the industrial world could be getting half its energy from renewable energy and natural gas by 2020. (Natural gas emits only half as much carbon as coal per unit of energy and about two-thirds as much as oil.)

(from Ross Gelbspan: Boiling Point)

[foot_soldier]

Back to aerosols – more food for thought:

Sulfur Dioxide cuts may allow Increased Global Warming
http://healthandenergy.com/sulfur_dioxide.htm

Sulfur dioxide emissions from the burning of coal and oil react with water and oxygen in the air to form sulfate aerosols; acidic compounds that fall to the Earth in the form of acid rain.

Global warming and acid rain are two environmental problems the world will be forced to reckon with in the 21st century. Unfortunately, efforts to mitigate acid rain may actually increase regional warming, according to a university professor.

"It is ironic, in a sense, that in working to solve one environmental problem you exacerbate another problem", said Michael Schlesinger, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

Sulfur dioxide emissions from the burning of coal and oil react with water and oxygen in the air to form sulfate aerosols — acidic compounds that fall to the Earth in the form of acid rain, wreaking havoc on the world’s forests and streams.

Sulfate aerosols also reflect sunlight back into space. "This acts as a negative radiative forcing which partially compensates for the positive radiative forcing due to greenhouse gases", said Schlesinger.

Take away the sulfur dioxide — a gas that doesn’t stray too far from its source of emission — and all of a sudden something that used to mitigate the effects of carbon dioxide is lost, resulting in regional warming.

"In recent studies, we found that decreasing the sulfur dioxide emissions led to significant regional warming in North America, Europe and Asia", said Schlesinger.

Schlesinger and his colleagues based their study on four scenarios for emissions of greenhouse gases that are being produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for the panel’s Third Assessment Report scheduled for completion in 2001.

In these scenarios, sulfur dioxide emissions have been de-coupled from carbon dioxide emissions. Even though the burning of coal and oil produces both carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide emissions, technologies exist that allow for both low-sulfur fuels and "scrubbers" placed in smoke stacks that clean emissions of sulfur dioxide.

Therefore, in each of the scenarios that Schlesinger and his colleagues examined, sulfur dioxide emissions either leveled off early in the next century or decreased while carbon dioxide emissions continued to rise.

"Thus it appears that mitigation of the acid-rain problem by future reductions in sulfur dioxide emissions exacerbates the greenhouse-warming problem by enhancing the warming in and near the regions where the sulfur dioxide emissions are reduced", he said.
Nevertheless, Schlesinger said that the problem of acid rain and the breathing difficulty he has experienced in Beijing, China, are good enough of a reason to want to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide.

Schlesinger presented the group’s findings June 2 in Bonn, Germany, at a joint meeting of the IPCC and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technical Advice of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

November 4, 2004
Beijing gasping for clean air
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/11/04/china.olympics.reut/index.html

BEIJING, China (Reuters) -- China's capital, host of the 2008 Olympics, is in "a state of emergency" because of air pollution and one of the city's biggest polluters will slash production till the end of the year, state media said Thursday.

Improving air quality is key to the city's drive to be ready for the 2008 summer Games, and visiting International Olympic Committee officials have seen the air quality at its worst over recent days.

The capital has set a clean air target for 2004 of 227 days but has fallen well short of this.
"With 40 more days of clean air still needed, we are in a state of emergency," the Beijing Morning Post quoted a notice issued by the Beijing Environment Protection Bureau as saying.

The notice urged companies and factories to "strive hard to grab blue skies," the newspaper said.

By the end of October, Beijing had registered only 187 blue-sky days, meaning it needed clear air in 40 of the last 61 days of 2004 to meet the mark, the newspaper said.

Steel maker Shougang Group said it will cut production to curb pollution.

"Some factories will examine and repair equipment in November and December which will cut production to 40,000 tonnes so as to reduce pollution," Shougang's vice general manager, Liu Shuiyang, was quoted as saying….. (continued)

[stuart_allsop]

Back to aerosols ? more food for thought:

Back to aerosols ? more food for thought:

Sulfur Dioxide cuts may allow Increased Global Warming


Strange... very strange, in fact, seeing that man-made global warming is actually a myth....

[halva]

Allsop I have ignore-listed you.

[halva]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6433717/?GT1=5809

This is the Walmart Bill Gates/Microsoft analysis of global warming

Study: Arctic warming threatens people, wildlife
Eight-nation report faults fossil fuels; U.S. in wait-and-see mode

Subhankar Banerjee

A polar bear makes its way across a frozen stretch of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. A report released Monday warns warmer Arctic temperatures could wipe out polar bears by 2100.

MSNBC staff and news service reports

Updated: 2:56 p.m. ET Nov. 8, 2004OSLO, Norway - Global warming is heating the Arctic almost twice as fast as the rest of the planet in a thaw that threatens the livelihoods of millions of people and could wipe out polar bears by 2100, according to an eight-nation report released on Monday.

The report, the work of more than 250 scientists and the biggest survey to date of the Arctic climate, found that the accelerating melt could point to wider disruptions from a build-up of human emissions of heat-trapping gases in the earth’s atmosphere.

The “Arctic climate is now warming rapidly and much larger changes are projected,� according to the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA), which was commissioned by the Arctic Council and funded by the United States, Canada, Russia, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden, Norway and Finland.

The report projects that temperatures in the Arctic will rise by 8 to 14 degrees Fahrenheit in the next 100 years. If temperatures then stayed stable, the Greenland icecap would melt altogether in 1,000 years and raise global sea levels by about 23 feet.

Possible benefits like more productive fisheries, easier access to oil and gas deposits or trans-Arctic shipping routes would be outweighed by threats to indigenous peoples and the habitats of animals and plants.

Sea ice around the North Pole, for instance, could almost disappear in summer by the end of the century, it said. The extent of the ice has already shrunk by 15-20 percent in the past 30 years.

“Polar bears are unlikely to survive as a species if there is an almost complete loss of summer sea-ice cover,� the report said. On land, creatures like lemmings, caribou, reindeer or snowy owls are being forced north into a narrower range.

Fossil fuels blamed

The report mainly blames the melt on gases from fossil fuels burned in cars, factories and power plants. The Arctic warms faster than the global average because dark ground and water, once exposed, traps more heat than reflective snow and ice.

“Changes in the Arctic provide an early indication of the environmental and societal significance of global warming,� it said.

The thaw will have a global impact — melting of glaciers will raise global sea levels by about 4 inches by the end of the century.

Many of the four million people in the Arctic are already affected. Buildings from Russia to Canada have been demolished because of subsidence linked to thawing permafrost that also destabilizes oil pipelines, roads and airports.

FACT FILE What drives climate change?

• Solar input
• The atmosphere
• The oceans
• The water cycle
• Clouds
• Ice and snow
• Land surfaces
• Human influences


Solar input
A third of the sun's energy is reflected back into space after hitting Earth's upper atmosphere, but two thirds gets through, driving Earth's weather engine.

The atmosphere
A delicate balance of gases gives Earth its livable temperature. Known as "greenhouse" gases because they trap heat inside the atmosphere, they send a portion of that heat back to Earth's surface. The gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.


The oceans
Covering two thirds of Earth, oceans are the key source of moisture in the air and they store heat efficiently, transporting it thousands of miles. The oceans and marine life also consume huge amounts of carbon dioxide.


The water cycle
Higher air temperatures can increase water evaporation and melting of ice. And while water vapor is the most potent greenhouse gas, clouds also affect evaporation, creating a cooling effect.

Clouds
They both cool Earth by reflecting solar energy and warm Earth by trapping heat being radiated up from the surface.

Ice and snow
The whiteness of ice and snow reflects heat out, cooling the planet. When ice melts into the sea, that drives heat from the ocean.

Land surfaces
Mountain ranges can block clouds, creating "dry" shadows downwind. Sloping land allows more water runoff, leaving the land and air drier. A tropical forest will soak up carbon dioxide, but once cleared for cattle ranching, the same land becomes a source of methane, a greenhouse gas.

Human influences
Humans might be magnifying warming by adding to the greenhouse gases naturally present in the atmosphere. Fuel use is the chief cause of rising carbon dioxide levels. On the other hand, humans create temporary, localized cooling effects through the use of aerosols, such as smoke and sulfates from industry, which reflect sunlight away from Earth.

Source: National Geographic; MSNBC

[foot_soldier]

THINK:


Back to aerosols – more food for thought:

Sulfur Dioxide cuts may allow Increased Global Warming
http://healthandenergy.com/sulfur_dioxide.htm

Sulfur dioxide emissions from the burning of coal and oil react with water and oxygen in the air to form sulfate aerosols; acidic compounds that fall to the Earth in the form of acid rain.

Global warming and acid rain are two environmental problems the world will be forced to reckon with in the 21st century. Unfortunately, efforts to mitigate acid rain may actually increase regional warming, according to a university professor.

"It is ironic, in a sense, that in working to solve one environmental problem you exacerbate another problem", said Michael Schlesinger, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

Sulfur dioxide emissions from the burning of coal and oil react with water and oxygen in the air to form sulfate aerosols — acidic compounds that fall to the Earth in the form of acid rain, wreaking havoc on the world’s forests and streams.

Sulfate aerosols also reflect sunlight back into space. "This acts as a negative radiative forcing which partially compensates for the positive radiative forcing due to greenhouse gases", said Schlesinger.

Take away the sulfur dioxide — a gas that doesn’t stray too far from its source of emission — and all of a sudden something that used to mitigate the effects of carbon dioxide is lost, resulting in regional warming.

"In recent studies, we found that decreasing the sulfur dioxide emissions led to significant regional warming in North America, Europe and Asia", said Schlesinger.

Schlesinger and his colleagues based their study on four scenarios for emissions of greenhouse gases that are being produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for the panel’s Third Assessment Report scheduled for completion in 2001.

In these scenarios, sulfur dioxide emissions have been de-coupled from carbon dioxide emissions. Even though the burning of coal and oil produces both carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide emissions, technologies exist that allow for both low-sulfur fuels and "scrubbers" placed in smoke stacks that clean emissions of sulfur dioxide.

Therefore, in each of the scenarios that Schlesinger and his colleagues examined, sulfur dioxide emissions either leveled off early in the next century or decreased while carbon dioxide emissions continued to rise.

"Thus it appears that mitigation of the acid-rain problem by future reductions in sulfur dioxide emissions exacerbates the greenhouse-warming problem by enhancing the warming in and near the regions where the sulfur dioxide emissions are reduced", he said.
Nevertheless, Schlesinger said that the problem of acid rain and the breathing difficulty he has experienced in Beijing, China, are good enough of a reason to want to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide.

Schlesinger presented the group’s findings June 2 in Bonn, Germany, at a joint meeting of the IPCC and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technical Advice of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

November 4, 2004
Beijing gasping for clean air
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/11/04/china.olympics.reut/index.html

BEIJING, China (Reuters) -- China's capital, host of the 2008 Olympics, is in "a state of emergency" because of air pollution and one of the city's biggest polluters will slash production till the end of the year, state media said Thursday.

Improving air quality is key to the city's drive to be ready for the 2008 summer Games, and visiting International Olympic Committee officials have seen the air quality at its worst over recent days.

The capital has set a clean air target for 2004 of 227 days but has fallen well short of this.
"With 40 more days of clean air still needed, we are in a state of emergency," the Beijing Morning Post quoted a notice issued by the Beijing Environment Protection Bureau as saying.

The notice urged companies and factories to "strive hard to grab blue skies," the newspaper said.

By the end of October, Beijing had registered only 187 blue-sky days, meaning it needed clear air in 40 of the last 61 days of 2004 to meet the mark, the newspaper said.

Steel maker Shougang Group said it will cut production to curb pollution.

"Some factories will examine and repair equipment in November and December which will cut production to 40,000 tonnes so as to reduce pollution," Shougang's vice general manager, Liu Shuiyang, was quoted as saying….. (continued)

[gaiacomm]

Really? You actually have EVIDENCE of this? Would you be so kind as to show it?

Really? And you have evidence of this too? So please do go ahead and share your evidence with the rest of the world.

Don't get me wrong: It wouldn't surprise me at all that Arafat was already dead, given all the conflicting reports and the possibility for major problems upon his death. But my point is that there is no EVIDENCE that he is already dead. Just SUSPICION, which is an entirely different thing. However, you didn't say that you SUSPECTED that he might be dead: you presented it as solid, undeniable fact: "Arafat died last week".

So I'm calling you on it: Provide the evidence, or back down and admit that you have none.

I got it from the "Insider" so that is that!

[whitemajikman]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6433717/?GT1=5809

This is the Walmart Bill Gates/Microsoft analysis of global warming

Study: Arctic warming threatens people, wildlife
Eight-nation report faults fossil fuels; U.S. in wait-and-see mode

Subhankar Banerjee

A polar bear makes its way across a frozen stretch of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. A report released Monday warns warmer Arctic temperatures could wipe out polar bears by 2100.

MSNBC staff and news service reports

Updated: 2:56 p.m. ET Nov. 8, 2004OSLO, Norway - Global warming is heating the Arctic almost twice as fast as the rest of the planet in a thaw that threatens the livelihoods of millions of people and could wipe out polar bears by 2100, according to an eight-nation report released on Monday.

The report, the work of more than 250 scientists and the biggest survey to date of the Arctic climate, found that the accelerating melt could point to wider disruptions from a build-up of human emissions of heat-trapping gases in the earth’s atmosphere.

The “Arctic climate is now warming rapidly and much larger changes are projected,� according to the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA), which was commissioned by the Arctic Council and funded by the United States, Canada, Russia, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden, Norway and Finland.

The report projects that temperatures in the Arctic will rise by 8 to 14 degrees Fahrenheit in the next 100 years. If temperatures then stayed stable, the Greenland icecap would melt altogether in 1,000 years and raise global sea levels by about 23 feet.

Possible benefits like more productive fisheries, easier access to oil and gas deposits or trans-Arctic shipping routes would be outweighed by threats to indigenous peoples and the habitats of animals and plants.

Sea ice around the North Pole, for instance, could almost disappear in summer by the end of the century, it said. The extent of the ice has already shrunk by 15-20 percent in the past 30 years.

“Polar bears are unlikely to survive as a species if there is an almost complete loss of summer sea-ice cover,� the report said. On land, creatures like lemmings, caribou, reindeer or snowy owls are being forced north into a narrower range.

Fossil fuels blamed

The report mainly blames the melt on gases from fossil fuels burned in cars, factories and power plants. The Arctic warms faster than the global average because dark ground and water, once exposed, traps more heat than reflective snow and ice.

“Changes in the Arctic provide an early indication of the environmental and societal significance of global warming,� it said.

The thaw will have a global impact — melting of glaciers will raise global sea levels by about 4 inches by the end of the century.

Many of the four million people in the Arctic are already affected. Buildings from Russia to Canada have been demolished because of subsidence linked to thawing permafrost that also destabilizes oil pipelines, roads and airports.

FACT FILE What drives climate change?

• Solar input
• The atmosphere
• The oceans
• The water cycle
• Clouds
• Ice and snow
• Land surfaces
• Human influences


Solar input
A third of the sun's energy is reflected back into space after hitting Earth's upper atmosphere, but two thirds gets through, driving Earth's weather engine.

The atmosphere
A delicate balance of gases gives Earth its livable temperature. Known as "greenhouse" gases because they trap heat inside the atmosphere, they send a portion of that heat back to Earth's surface. The gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.


The oceans
Covering two thirds of Earth, oceans are the key source of moisture in the air and they store heat efficiently, transporting it thousands of miles. The oceans and marine life also consume huge amounts of carbon dioxide.


The water cycle
Higher air temperatures can increase water evaporation and melting of ice. And while water vapor is the most potent greenhouse gas, clouds also affect evaporation, creating a cooling effect.

Clouds
They both cool Earth by reflecting solar energy and warm Earth by trapping heat being radiated up from the surface.

Ice and snow
The whiteness of ice and snow reflects heat out, cooling the planet. When ice melts into the sea, that drives heat from the ocean.

Land surfaces
Mountain ranges can block clouds, creating "dry" shadows downwind. Sloping land allows more water runoff, leaving the land and air drier. A tropical forest will soak up carbon dioxide, but once cleared for cattle ranching, the same land becomes a source of methane, a greenhouse gas.

Human influences
Humans might be magnifying warming by adding to the greenhouse gases naturally present in the atmosphere. Fuel use is the chief cause of rising carbon dioxide levels. On the other hand, humans create temporary, localized cooling effects through the use of aerosols, such as smoke and sulfates from industry, which reflect sunlight away from Earth.

Source: National Geographic; MSNBC



The Key to Global Warming is found in our Oceans,At depth's of 6-7 miles .......

Not in all of this UseLess information that you have Provided.............

Here is A Hint.......

The ring of fire........

And It's expanding.........

You people make me laugh............

Before you undertook your campaign of dishonesty,you should have been smart enough to enquire about Paleoclimatology......

The Earth has Gone through many WARMING and COOLING trends in it's Long life......

What we are Experiencing Now is part of a normal Warming trend........

While you keep spreading your Politically motivated Global Warming hysteria based diatribes,The Ring of Fire is Expanding ........

It is the Natural order of things.........

Unless of course you can come up with solid proof that MAN is responsible for the Expansion of the Ring of Fire which is a ludicrous Thought to begin With..........

WAYNE HALL AND DEBORAH STARK ARE CONTINUING TO BARK UP THE WRONG TREE........

AND IN THE PROCESS DECEIVING PEOPLE INTO BELIEVING CHEMTRAIL HOAXES AND BLAMING BIG BROTHER.........CONSPIRACY HAS TAKEN IT'S TOLL ON THESE INDIVIDUAL'S WHO NO LONGER HAVE SOUND MINDS , BUT THEY THEMSELVES ARE ONLY TO BLAME......

WMM

[stuart_allsop]

Allsop I have ignore-listed you.

That really does not surprise me, halva: I always knew that you were scared stiff of discussing anything with me, since I have always, without exception, totally whipped your sorry butt in every debate (then gone on to wipe the floor with your remains afterwards). And everyone here already knows just how chicken you are, when you have to face true science, real logic, and common sense. So it surprises nobody in the least that you would rapidly scurry deep into the first availble hidy-hole, screaming in abject terror and foaming at the mouth, within minutes of my registering on a board where you are active....

You just cannot face even the THOUGHT of having to debate me, can you?

And since you are ignoring me, the most beautiful part of this whole affair is that you wont even see this post, so you'll never know just how thoroughly I insutled you, whipping your butt once again, but with every single word being true! Ain't techology wonderful! :) Ahh! Life is good!

[stuart_allsop]

I got it from the "Insider" so that is that!Yep! That certainly is that! At least you are man enough to admit that there is no such evidence. Thank you for your honesty.

[stuart_allsop]

The Earth has Gone through many WARMING and COOLING trends in it's Long life......

What we are Experiencing Now is part of a normal Warming trend........

While you keep spreading your Politically motivated Global Warming hysteria based diatribes,The Ring of Fire is Expanding ........

It is the Natural order of things.........

Unless of course you can come up with solid proof that MAN is responsible for the Expansion of the Ring of Fire which is a ludicrous Thought to begin With..........

Well said, Shawn! Excellent!

Of course, the Kookoo Klub will probably figure out a way to blame natural volcanic activity on George Bush somehow... just give them time... after all, it MUST be his fault, right?

[whitemajikman]

"Of course, the Kookoo Klub will probably figure out a way to blame natural volcanic activity on George Bush somehow... just give them time... after all, it MUST be his fault, right?"

Let's see here......

They have already tried to pin on......

contrails
Planet x
The Free Masons
The Israeli's
The Russian's
Corporate Banking
The Illuminati
And every other Conspiratorial Urban Myth out there.......

Personally my favorite would have to be the "Annunaki" Lizard Race which now controls us all from Inner Earth.....

Which amazingly as it seems there is an Article on Chemtrail Central which most of this Koo Koo club calls home.......

That Directly names George Dubya as an Annunaki Lizard King......Only Taking Human Form When he is in Public.....

Now I ask myself what would a Bunch of "SERIOUS" Global Warming Activist's as they like to think of themselves be doing promoting such "Urban Myth's"...........

Science.....REAL Science matter's little to these pretender's........

WMM

[foot_soldier]

So essentially, what's being said on this thread is that the climate change issue is a hoax and that studies such as the following recently-completed international project on the impact of greenhouse gas warming on the Arctic region are based on false information and shoddy science:

Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
For Release to the Public November 8, 2004
http://amap.no/acia/

Are reports such as the following by an established media resource for the business community also based on false information?

November 8, 2004
Arctic Melting Threatens to Disrupt Oil Pipelines (Update2)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000082&sid=aUMB_KujBd70&refer=canada

Nov. 8 (Bloomberg) -- Atmospheric warming threatens to disrupt Arctic oil pipelines in the U.S. and Russia as melting ice caps turn the permafrost into a "sea of mud,'' an international scientific report said.

The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, a report by 300 scientists and sponsored by Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the U.S., embargoed a highlight of its findings for journalists until today. The report, to be presented at a conference in Reykjavik, Iceland this week, follows a 2001 United Nations study that showed melting ice and permafrost would disrupt the Arctic economy.

"Pipelines would be at risk as the thawing permafrost turns the tundra into a sea of mud,'' Paul Prestrud, vice-chairman at the Center for Climate Research in Oslo, Norway, said in an interview. The report said that "oil and gas extraction will increasingly be disrupted.''

More than 900,000 barrels of oil per day are pumped through the 800-mile Trans Alaska Pipeline System, the Alyeska Pipeline Service Company said on its Web Site. Since 1977 more than 14 billion barrels have been transported.

Up to four million people live in the Arctic, spread out between the eight countries that share the region. The Arctic tundra is expected to shrink over the next century to its smallest size in 21,000 years as climate warming causes the sea level to rise, the ACIA said. Most scientists say climate warming in the last 50 years can be attributed to human activities.

Shrinking Sea Ice

Since 1974 Arctic sea-ice has shrunk by about one million square kilometers, or the size of Texas and Arizona combined, the ACIA report said. Temperatures are projected to rise another seven to 13 degrees Fahrenheit (4 to 7 Celsius) in the next 100 years.

One of the ACIA's next projects will be to design an economic impact model for the region, Prestrud said. People in the Arctic tend to work in the agricultural, fishery and oil industries, he said.

"Warming could also have some economic benefits,'' said ACIA spokeswoman Tove Kolset. She noted the possibility of more frequent cross-pole transport and offshore oil exploration.

The United Nations Environment Program said in a 2001 report that widespread disintegration of permafrost in the Arctic can cause serious damage to buildings, roads, pipelines and other infrastructure in places such as Alaska and Siberia.

The melting permafrost could also threaten a nuclear power plant near the Russian city of Murmansk, Prestrud said. The plant, located on the Kola Peninsula, is the only one in the world built north of the Polar Circle.

The report also forecasts disruptions to many of the Earth's ecosystems. People currently living in the Arctic already receive 30 percent more ultraviolet radiation known to cause skin cancer and cataracts. Insect outbreaks and forest fires are very likely to increase in frequency. Polar bears, ice-inhabiting seals and some seabirds will be pushed toward extinction, the report said.

How about this article also published today?

Bush advisor claims climate change conspiracy
http://www.greenconsumerguide.com/index.php?news=2275

An advisor to President George W Bush has reportedly claimed that global warming is a fallacy created to disrupt the American economy, in an interview on Radio 4. Myron Ebell, from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), claimed that the notion of climate change through man-made emissions was “ridiculous and unrealistic�.

The views of the UK’s chief scientist Sir David King – who stated that global warming posed a bigger threat to the planet than terrorism – were dismissed by Ebell as ‘a ridiculous claim’, and Sir David an ‘alarmist’. The European Commission was also accused by Ebell of targeting the American economy through efforts to develop an international climate change strategy.

Environmentalists responded by calling the CEI spokesperson’s claims “idiocy�.

A statement from the Greenpeace organisation read; “The world's best climate scientists agree the threat is real and growing. It is terrifying that this man is advising the White House on the gravest threat this planet faces. This kind of idiocy would be a mere distraction if it were not for the fact that Bush believes this nonsense. If Tony Blair really regards global warming as a huge threat, like he says he does, he needs to give the President a dose of straight talking the next time they meet.�

Greenpeace has also highlighted the fact that the Competitive Enterprise Institute has received backing of around $1.5m from Esso since 1998.

[letxa2000]

That really does not surprise me, halva: I always knew that you were scared stiff of discussing anything with me, since I have always, without exception, totally whipped your sorry butt in every debate (then gone on to wipe the floor with your remains afterwards).

Halva is afraid of anything and everything and the inevitable to answer to anything copy/paste. I can't believe this thread is now 321 pages long. I was visiting for awhile a few hundred pages ago. It seemed to sort of die off as Halva and gaiaconn kept doing copy/paste spam runs, often in foreign languages. But I guess the thread lives on. :)


And since you are ignoring me, the most beautiful part of this whole affair is that you wont even see this post, so you'll never know just how thoroughly I insutled you, whipping your butt once again, but with every single word being true! Ain't techology wonderful! :) Ahh! Life is good!

Well Havla will see your words... unless I'm ignore-listed too. :)

[whitemajikman]

Footsoldier Says -

"So essentially, what's being said on this thread is that the climate change issue is a hoax and that studies such as the following recently-completed international project on the impact of greenhouse gas warming on the Arctic region are based on false information and shoddy science."

Yep that's exactly what I am saying........

And the reason's are as follows........

1) NOBODY not even the best Scientist's in the World know for CERTAIN what causes "GLOBAL WARMING"........

2) To Try and pinpoint the cause not only must you take into consideration Human Pollution,But also must look into the Earth's natural cycle of Warming and cooling........

But You won't Listen to reason.......

We can Argue until our faces turn blue about the Obvious...........

Yes there is pollution and yes it effects human's............

But If the Earth is on a natural Warming trend As I suspect is......

There is not a damn thing you can do about it.....

Except Observe......

Oh and I think It Is YOU who wishes "TOO FOOL WITH MOTHER NATURE"..........

YOU who thinks you can fix a Naturally occuring event.........

All the rest of the research you have provided is bunk........

They are observations which lead to more questions............and not one single answer........

Think of the Earth as A human Body..........

When A doctor Needs to diagnose a problem,He takes into consideration all of the working parts of the anatomy of the body.........

To this Date.........

We do not have a clear understanding of how the entire Earth outer and inner behaves in conjuction with each other.............

As I said before "The Ring of Fire" is expanding and growing in ferocity.........

Now remember We have only known About The Venting process 6-7 miles deep for only about 20 years.........

And have only been Studying it's effect's of Plume release for maybe 5 of those 20.........

And this is just one of Millions of Processes that work in conjuction of one another daily on earth........

Also Global warming Scientist's flip-flop more than any other Scientist's in other fields due to great political and economic pressure..........And lack of HARD DATA.........

Even the Oil Companies are handing out Funds to prospective Reasearcher's,as you have pointed out.......

Most of these Researcher's are making a living on the back of Global Warming.........

But still haven't got a Clue too accurately diagnose the problem,they must look at the Earth's past and understand how the earth and it's process's work in conjuction with each other..........

Because if you believe that the Earth was always hospitable to human's you are in need of a SHRINK.........


WMM

[stuart_allsop]

So essentially, what's being said on this thread is that the climate change issue is a hoax and that studies such as the following recently-completed international project on the impact of greenhouse gas warming on the Arctic region are based on false information and shoddy science.No. What's being said on this thread that is that global warming has nothing at all to do with man! It's a natural warming process that has been going on for thousands of years, as we are still leaving the last ice age and returning to normal temperatures, which in turn is part of the very long term natural cycles of variation in the average temperature of planet earth.

Sure, the temperature is risng, very slowly (far more slowly than is predicted by the scare-mongering politicians). But it is natural, not man-made.

What we are saying is that MAN MADE global warming is a hoax, perpetrated on the world for political reasons. It isn't science: it is politics.

A little common sense shows that the amount of carbon dioxide and other so-called "greenhouse gasses" put out by man, is way, way WAY to small to have much long term effect on the environment.

In fact, the largest single component of greenhouse agents is not carbon dioxide (CO2), but rather is just plain old water vapor in the atmosphere. Water vaopr accounts for about 95% of all greenhouse effect. Man puts virtually zero water into the atmosphere.

Of the remaining 5%, CO2 accounts for maybe 2%, and most of that 2% is naturally occuring, put out by volcanoes, animals, and other natural processes. Over all of his entire history, Man has added a minuscule tiny fraction of one one hundredth of one percent to the total amount of "greenhouse gases", yet somehow the leftist politicians and their cronies in fake science and real marketing have managed to foist this off on the general public as being the only cause of a very slight warming observed over the last fifty years or so. Yet none of these "scientists" will allow his predictions to be adjusted for natural variations in solar activity, volcanic activity, ocean cycles, weather cycles, or the very long term ice-age cycles.

Once you take all those factors into account, you see that what the politicians want you to believe is "man made global warming", is really nothing more than very slight, very natural temperature variation, and that man might perhaps be responsible for raising mean atmospheric temperature by about 1/1000 th of a degree, over the last few centuries. The rest is all completely and totally natural variation.

It's a hoax that is costing people jobs, and costing you money. And making politicians rich, at your expense. You SHOULD be worried about it!

[whitemajikman]

No. What's being said on this thread that is that global warming has nothing at all to do with man! It's a natural warming process that has been going on for thousands of years, as we are still leaving the last ice age and returning to normal temperatures, which in turn is part of the very long term natural cycles of variation in the average temperature of planet earth.

Sure, the temperature is risng, very slowly (far more slowly than is predicted by the scare-mongering politicians). But it is natural, not man-made.

What we are saying is that MAN MADE global warming is a hoax, perpetrated on the world for political reasons. It isn't science: it is politics.

A little common sense shows that the amount of carbon dioxide and other so-called "greenhouse gasses" put out by man, is way, way WAY to small to have much long term effect on the environment.

In fact, the largest single component of greenhouse agents is not carbon dioxide (CO2), but rather is just plain old water vapor in the atmosphere. Water vaopr accounts for about 95% of all greenhouse effect. Man puts virtually zero water into the atmosphere.

Of the remaining 5%, CO2 accounts for maybe 2%, and most of that 2% is naturally occuring, put out by volcanoes, animals, and other natural processes. Over all of his entire history, Man has added a minuscule tiny fraction of one one hundredth of one percent to the total amount of "greenhouse gases", yet somehow the leftist politicians and their cronies in fake science and real marketing have managed to foist this off on the general public as being the only cause of a very slight warming observed over the last fifty years or so. Yet none of these "scientists" will allow his predictions to be adjusted for natural variations in solar activity, volcanic activity, ocean cycles, weather cycles, or the very long term ice-age cycles.

Once you take all those factors into account, you see that what the politicians want you to believe is "man made global warming", is really nothing more than very slight, very natural temperature variation, and that man might perhaps be responsible for raising mean atmospheric temperature by about 1/1000 th of a degree, over the last few centuries. The rest is all completely and totally natural variation.

It's a hoax that is costing people jobs, and costing you money. And making politicians rich, at your expense. You SHOULD be worried about it!


Man I wish I could Be as Articulate......

Pure Poetry in Motion Stuart.........................

WMM

[foot_soldier]

Here's the Take-Home Message, folks:


What we are saying is that MAN MADE global warming is a hoax, perpetrated on the world for political reasons. It isn't science: it is politics.
And that concludes the show for this evening.

[halva]

Raynolds I hope that Deborah has got you ignore-listed as firmly as I have ignore listed other individuals posting here recently, whose style of intervention you now imitate and intellectual level you now approximate.

It suits us very well - and requires little effort - to keep you looking at yourself in the mirror here, deluding yourself that you have succeeded in silencing the world.

Raynolds has called in reinforcements in order to prove that I was wrong in asserting that it requires little effort to counter debunker influence here. This is not the first time that there has been a mass debunker influx in response to Raynolds' difficulties.

In reply to Letxa, no I have not got you ignore-listed. But I will ignore-list you when I deem that you are persistently failing to respect this thread's identity (negotiated with Raynolds following my agreement to abandon the subject of chemtrails here) as a notice board for climate change news.

So yes, you can bring yourself to my attention by quoting each other, but I can also ignore-list you, and I can and will ignore-list every debunker here other than Raynolds, who issued the initial challenge with a view to getting me to leave this thread.

That will still leave the thread as a useful source of information for me on climate change, from footsoldier's postings.

I will also ignore-list Raynolds if he starts quoting you, which would however be a very great departure from his normal practice.

[stuart_allsop]

Here's the Take-Home Message, folks:


And that concludes the show for this evening.I'm glad you finally got it! Congratulations.

[stuart_allsop]

Man I wish I could Be as Articulate......

Pure Poetry in Motion Stuart.........................

WMMWhy, thank you, Shawn! Compliment graciously accepted. I bet it's nice to NOT be on the receiving end for once, right? :)

(Sorry, Shawn! Couldn't resist the little dig there, Just for old times sake! No offense meant at all!)

[stuart_allsop]

Raynolds has called in reinforcements in order to prove that I was wrong in asserting that it requires little effort to counter debunker influence here. This is not the first time that there has been a mass debunker influx in response to Raynolds' difficulties..Sorry to dissapoint you, Halva, but this has nothing to do with Jay, Or with you. I'm sure Jay doesn't need my help to debunk your ... err ... "theories"! He seems to have done just fine, all by himself, without any help from me! Unlike you, he's a big boy, and he can stand on his own.

In any event, to clarify: For the record, the only reason I'm here is because I saw some discussion about this board over at Mav's place, and I decided to pop in and look around for myself. The first post I saw was my old friend Gaiacomm-the-huckster, making his usual outrageous and totally unsupported-by-reality claims about things for which he has not offered even the slightest proof, and of which he has even less understanding. I could not let that pass unchallenged, so I just HAD to join up and set the record straight. Fortunately, he backed down on the first try, and admitted that there is no proof for what he claimed.

So don't embrass yourself any more, halva, by thinking that I just came over here to annoy you: you are far below my normal level of debate, and not worth dealing with anyway. I think I have some bigger fish to fry over here, and I fear you'd just get lost in the bottom of the frying pan anyway, so I really don't give a flying hoot if you respond or not.

Ciao!

[whitemajikman]

Why, thank you, Shawn! Compliment graciously accepted. I bet it's nice to NOT be on the receiving end for once, right? :)

(Sorry, Shawn! Couldn't resist the little dig there, Just for old times sake! No offense meant at all!)


None taken.........


I have to ask Is it just me.......?

Or do you notice Halva's fascination with Jay............?

Which is more than an obsession.......

And leaning more towards a Homo-erotic passion..........

WMM

[halva]

Yesterday there were devastating floods in the Western suburbs of Athens, Greece: whole neighbourhoods waist deep in water, cars washed away.

Here is something I read very recently:
"The atmosphere, particularly in the northern hemisphere, is now essentially never getting a break from input of aviation emissions. All that particulate matter (aerosol pollution) is acting as condensation nucleii to which ambient atmospheric water is naturally attracted. Atmospheric water vapor is actually being indefinitely suspended at upper tropospheric level on a regional basis depending on air traffic intensity. The wetter the air the more heat it holds - and vice versa. A cold front comes along and what are we now repeatedly seeing in specific regions? Answer: Abnormally high precipitation "dumps" of up to 11-12 inches in a 24-hour period from swaths of the upper troposphere that are artificially overloaded with water vapor-laden condensation nucleii."

Today the skies are blue again, but there is also a phenomenally intense presence of what Raynolds and I have agreed are not 'chemtrails'. Presumably they were also there before also, out of sight above the clouds.

[jayreynolds]

Halva is afraid of anything and everything and the inevitable to answer to anything copy/paste. I can't believe this thread is now 321 pages long. I was visiting for awhile a few hundred pages ago. It seemed to sort of die off as Halva and gaiaconn kept doing copy/paste spam runs, often in foreign languages. But I guess the thread lives on. :)
Well Havla will see your words... unless I'm ignore-listed too. :)

Anybody who thinks that at this point Wayne Hall or Deborah could EVER "ignore list" anyone on this thread, after over 300 pages, just hasn't been around long enough. Those two simply can't afford to ignore anything here. They probably even read their own stupid copy/pastes, LOL!

[The Shadow]

The following list illustrates the typical descent of the chemtrail hoax on any message board and obviously applies to the global warming hoax as well:

1. Present the hoax

2. Copy / paste non-provable theories, opinions, lies and extraneous info to support the hoax

3. Become argumentative and angry with anyone that disagrees with the hoax

4. Use profanity and make references to body parts and bodily functions as insults

5. Ban everybody that disagrees

6. Make death wishes or threats

.....and thank you, Shadow, for bringing us down to number 6


And to get a clearer Picturer of the Mental faculties of these individuals........

I ask you to pay close attention to this post.......

By THe SHADOW........

"Not that I would suggest such a thing, but the only sure cure for the disease that is Jay Reynolds is a bullet to the head... a la his mentor William Cooper"

That makes I don't know how many Death threats this thread has had.........Because I quite frankly do not want to have to go through all of Halva's Drivel to get an exact Number......

But I have started A list in this post of some of the purveyor's of a hoax that has cost human lives.........


Do not thank me, Yaakwad. You and Whitemajikwaffleman have taken the bait and have revealed your own true characters with the spin in your predictable analyses of my earlier comments, which were mild in comparison to what typically rolls off of the fingertips of Mr. Reynolds. You squeal like stuck pigs, reminiscent of schoolyard bullies who try to switch roles and play innocent after one of yours gets a taste of his own medicine. You are not fooling anyone with your list of “chemmie� attributes, Yaakity-yaak. Anyone who has made the rounds will easily recognize the majority of them as skills that have been honed in your own adopted cesspool community and now carried into this arena. Enjoy while you can the attention being lavished upon you by Allslop and others, Whitey. All you are is an approval seeker. The pack will again turn on you. It is just a matter of time.

As you are well aware, The Shadow knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men. However, the acute malevolence that is buried in the dark recesses of Mr. Reynolds’ twisted mind is painfully obvious to anyone who makes so much as a cursory pass through his ruthlessly venomous outbursts. One can almost see his glowing red eyes any time he pukes out one of his “investigative reports.� Rumor has it that Mr. Reynolds actually moonlights as the infamous “J. C.,� who periodically entertains millions of radio listeners with his hysterical sermons aimed at cursing Art Bell into hell.

Now why do you not all go back where you came from so that you may continue to crap in your own nest.

[halva]

Anybody who thinks that at this point Wayne Hall or Deborah Stark could EVER "ignore list" anyone on this thread, after over 300 pages, just hasn't been around long enough. Those two simply can't afford to ignore anything here. They probably even read their own stupid copy/pastes, LOL!

You are wrong, Raynolds. I have now ignore-listed three of your friends.

[jayreynolds]

You are wrong, Raynolds. I have now ignore-listed three of your friends.

Nobody really believs that, Wayne. Your responses clearly indicate that you read them all.

Hey, what's up with this, Wayne?
Ever get your wife to become a "chemtrail" believer?
I remember you were having trouble........
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chemtrailtrackingusa/message/116992

[jayreynolds]

Hey!
You there!
Jim Phelps!(aka 'insurrectionchemistry')
I see you are still reading this thread.
Too bad you haven't the balls to explain the "simple science" question I asked you.
ha!

If you ever decide to be a man, come on back and explain yourself, answer the questions you were asked about your claims that aluminum burned in jet fuel would produce alum.
That should be a blast.
But you won't.
Cause you can't.
Cause it doesn't.

Watching you, 'girlie-man'.

[gaiacomm]

Blah....Blah.....Blah>>>>>>

[Yaak]

Do not thank me, Yaakwad. You and Whitemajikwaffleman have taken the bait and have revealed your own true characters with the spin in your predictable analyses of my earlier comments, which were mild in comparison to what typically rolls off of the fingertips of Mr. Reynolds. You squeal like stuck pigs, reminiscent of schoolyard bullies who try to switch roles and play innocent after one of yours gets a taste of his own medicine. You are not fooling anyone with your list of “chemmie� attributes, Yaakity-yaak. Anyone who has made the rounds will easily recognize the majority of them as skills that have been honed in your own adopted cesspool community and now carried into this arena. Enjoy while you can the attention being lavished upon you by Allslop and others, Whitey. All you are is an approval seeker. The pack will again turn on you. It is just a matter of time.

As you are well aware, The Shadow knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men. However, the acute malevolence that is buried in the dark recesses of Mr. Reynolds’ twisted mind is painfully obvious to anyone who makes so much as a cursory pass through his ruthlessly venomous outbursts. One can almost see his glowing red eyes any time he pukes out one of his “investigative reports.� Rumor has it that Mr. Reynolds actually moonlights as the infamous “J. C.,� who periodically entertains millions of radio listeners with his hysterical sermons aimed at cursing Art Bell into hell.

Now why do you not all go back where you came from so that you may continue to crap in your own nest.

Well Whitemajikwaffleman, it appears that we poked the Shadow in the right place. Ha, Ha, Ha!

Your Internet Pal,
Yaakity-yaak Yaakwad

[gaiacomm]

Final Thought!


The USA will weaken and soon be open for assault if the nations of the world continue to unite and force the trade and dollar to become a secondary value of exchange. Spreading the armies to engage in conflict worldwide will strain the defense and lobby for sanctions and tariffs to be imposed against the USA. Rely on the UN to use its authority to rule without the bribery imposed by the USA. Force change in US policy thru open discussion and use force only if attacked. Do not compromise your position and maintain honor with valor.
Rally supporters for defense of ones lands and dictate the common rules of democracy and religious law to those that it applies to only. Work out differences thru being honest with your feelings and allow money to only be an exchange of trust and goodwill.

Always tell the truth that way you have nothing to remember!

[whitemajikman]

Do not thank me, Yaakwad. You and Whitemajikwaffleman have taken the bait and have revealed your own true characters with the spin in your predictable analyses of my earlier comments, which were mild in comparison to what typically rolls off of the fingertips of Mr. Reynolds. You squeal like stuck pigs, reminiscent of schoolyard bullies who try to switch roles and play innocent after one of yours gets a taste of his own medicine. You are not fooling anyone with your list of “chemmie� attributes, Yaakity-yaak. Anyone who has made the rounds will easily recognize the majority of them as skills that have been honed in your own adopted cesspool community and now carried into this arena. Enjoy while you can the attention being lavished upon you by Allslop and others, Whitey. All you are is an approval seeker. The pack will again turn on you. It is just a matter of time.

As you are well aware, The Shadow knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men. However, the acute malevolence that is buried in the dark recesses of Mr. Reynolds’ twisted mind is painfully obvious to anyone who makes so much as a cursory pass through his ruthlessly venomous outbursts. One can almost see his glowing red eyes any time he pukes out one of his “investigative reports.� Rumor has it that Mr. Reynolds actually moonlights as the infamous “J. C.,� who periodically entertains millions of radio listeners with his hysterical sermons aimed at cursing Art Bell into hell.

Now why do you not all go back where you came from so that you may continue to crap in your own nest.


Hmmm........

Now why would I want to leave, Your Post is proof Positive that what we are doing here is working ........................

Oh And Have I mentioned ,This is Our thread Now..............

It is you whom needs to find a new home..........

Unless you can unequivocally beyond a doubt explain in your own word's how Human pollution creates Global Warming........

And is not a purely a NATURAL EVENT in the lifespan of the EARTH...........

Then maybe once and for all ,you will have to realize that The Trigger's are not because of Man........

With the Arctic Melting that is today's news,Must come a realization that It's not the first time Nor the last.........
We as Humanity are just a "blink in the eye" that is the life span of the Earth...........

Relatively new, Ignorant of her temper ,and blinded to her past.........


By the way Shadow...........

The Last Sentence of your Above Quote is very familiar,Could it be that I know who you are.........

You little Deceiver.......

P.S.

Calling me an Approval Seeker is one thing,But really isn't the likes of WAYNE HALL,DEBORAH STARK and YOURSELF the REAL approval seeker's.........

Is it not you whom seek's the Approval of the Public and of politician's like Arianna ........

To keep your Hoax And Political Aspirations moving along..........

Under the guise of Global Warming ..........

You should really get a clue........

And since your a Shadow,The Blinding Light of Truth will make you obsolete on this thread.......

WMM

[whitemajikman]

Final Thought!


The USA will weaken and soon be open for assault if the nations of the world continue to unite and force the trade and dollar to become a secondary value of exchange. Spreading the armies to engage in conflict worldwide will strain the defense and lobby for sanctions and tariffs to be imposed against the USA. Rely on the UN to use its authority to rule without the bribery imposed by the USA. Force change in US policy thru open discussion and use force only if attacked. Do not compromise your position and maintain honor with valor.
Rally supporters for defense of ones lands and dictate the common rules of democracy and religious law to those that it applies to only. Work out differences thru being honest with your feelings and allow money to only be an exchange of trust and goodwill.

Always tell the truth that way you have nothing to remember!

Kerry Lost.........

Get over it............

He might have won if he would have followed the last line of your Quote.......

But he didn't .......


So quit whining...........

And live with it........

[whitemajikman]

FOR WAYNE HALL(Halva) and DEBORAH STARK(Foot Soldier)...............



THE MYTH OF GLOBAL WARMING

Hollywood is playing politics again - this time it's not celebrities protesting a war or promoting their favorite charity, but actors dramatizing the myth of global warming through Roland Emmerich's summer action flick, "The Day After Tomorrow."

In the movie, global warming alters ocean currents and triggers an ice age, causing bizarre and highly destructive weather to level major cities worldwide. Unlike most science-fiction flicks, however, the filmmakers actually believe that these horrors present a real-life threat. As co-screenwriter Jeffer Nachmanoff describes it, "It's a cautionary tale about what can happen if we continue to provoke Mother Nature."

The film packages and sells what environmentalists have been preaching in schools and in public for decades: the idea that technological advances that prolong and enrich human life come at the cost of destroying the planet through global warming - a suggested increase in worldwide temperatures caused by man-made greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.

With the release of "The Day After Tomorrow," people and the media have a renewed interest in this topic. However, there seems to be a lack of hard evidence suggesting that the earth really is getting warmer, that such weather patterns are outside of the normal fluctuation ranges or that any of it is caused by human activity.

This isn't just a stubborn denial by politicians or chemical plant owners. More than 17,000 scientists have signed the Oregon Institute Petition, which states that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

If this were a small misunderstanding, it wouldn't be a problem to clear up. However, an incredible amount of people believe in this. In a national survey of 1,000 adults conducted by the polling firm Global Strategy Group this year, 70 percent of Americans polled said they consider global warming to be a "very serious" or "somewhat serious" problem.

And the media doesn't seem to be doing much to clear this matter up.

John Houghton, a former member of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change described global warming as "a weapon of mass destruction" in the British newspaper, The Guardian. He further asserted that "The 1990s were probably the warmest decade in the past 1,000 years."

At first glance, this seems to be a staggering statistic affirming a rise in global temperature, but it immediately draws the question: Why was it so warm 1,000 years ago? In 990, power plants, factories, chemical plants and SUVs didn't exist, so why would we assume that the temperature change was a natural occurrence back then yet believe it to be manmade now?

Environmentalists such as Houghton point to 1,500 deaths last year in an Indian pre-monsoon heat wave where temperatures reached 120 degrees, 9 degrees above normal. Indeed, on "The Day After Tomorrow" Web site, such death tolls flash on the screen as if the bodies would make a person forget about actual evidence through an emotional appeal. But truth and evidence speak beyond the tragic loss of life - in 2003, temperatures hit 127 degrees in Palm Springs, Calif., with no reported heat-related deaths. That's 7 degrees hotter and 1,500 less dead people. Like it or not, in this case the difference between life and death is living in the United States, with the benefit of the technology these environmentalists are accusing to be the world's doom.

Karry Mullis, the 1993 Nobel Prize winner in chemistry once said, "Environmentalists predict that global warming is coming, and our emissions are to blame. They do that to keep us worried about our role in the whole thing. If we aren't worried and guilty, we might not pay their salaries. It's that simple."

Hopefully most of those perpetuating the myth of global warming and the doom of our planet are guided by a genuine sense of protecting the beautiful planet we inhabit, and merely need to examine the wealth of facts to the contrary that are readily available on the Internet and in scientific journals. Hollywood and the media must face these facts and debunk this myth, so that another generation of Americans doesn't grow up trying to hinder economic and technological progress in fear of Roland Emmerich's vision of a judgment day that will never happen.

http://www.thebatt.com/news/2004/06/02/Opinion/The-Myth.Of.Global.Warming-683933.shtml



WMM

[whitemajikman]

The Greenhouse Effect
Earth's atmosphere consists of five layers of gas that blanket the planet, allowing sunlight to enter and warm the planet. These layers of gas also hold in heat at night keeping the planet warm. The gases that do this are carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, and water vapor. This phenomenon of gases holding heat near the Earth is called the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is a natural occurrence and is necessary for most life to survive, as it warms Earth by about 63°F.

Source: The EPA Global Warming Site

So What's the Problem?
The average surface temperature of earth has risen 1°F this century, which is causing concern and great debate about the greenhouse effect and global warming. Scientists and government officials worldwide are in disagreement what is causing this increase. There are two major arguments describing what is causing the global temperatures to rise: (1) man-made greenhouse gases and (2) a combination of natural factors.

Man-Made Greenhouse Gases
The argument that human produced carbon dioxide is responsible for global warming is simple. Since 1700, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are up 30% (1). One reason for is that humans are burning fossil fuels releasing carbon dioxide. Also, deforestation causes less carbon dioxide to be removed from the atmosphere. Since the amount of greenhouse gases is increased, global temperatures are rising (1).


Or maybe not...

However, most of the temperature rise this century took place before 1940, although most greenhouse emissions took place after 1940 (2). Also, from the 1940's through 1970's the average temperature dropped slightly, even though greenhouse gases were pouring into the atmosphere (3). This evidence has directed some researchers to look for natural causes of global warming.
One study measured the rise in carbon dioxide globally from 1958-1988, and found that it followed the rise in ocean temperatures by about five months (4). This is another piece of evidence supporting natural causes of global warming. But what are these natural factors?

Natural Factors

Sunspots
One natural factor believed to affect climate is sunspot cycles. The output of the sun's energy fluctuates on a cycle. This cycle averages 11 years in length. A study by Friis-Christensen and Lassen in 1991 showed that shorter cycles bring a warmer climate while longer cycles bring a chilly climate (5). Over the past 100 years, while the average temperature has slowly been rising the average sunspot cycle has gone from 11.7 years to 9.7 years. Sunspots also account for the slight drop in temperatures from 1940-1970. During this period, the sunspot cycles lengthened from 10.2 years to 10.7 years (5).

.
Milankovitch Cycles
Another major factor believed to affect global climate is the orbital parameters of earth. There are three major cycles that affect climate, known as the Milankovitch cycles.
The first cycle is the eccentricity of earth's orbit. Earth's orbit is not a perfect circle, it is elliptical. These variations in the orbit cause changes in the amount of heat received from the sun. This cycle is approximately 100,000 years long (6).

Another Milankovitch cycle is the tilt of earth's axis. The tilt ranges from 22.1 to 24.5 degrees. The current tilt is 23.5 degrees. At greater tilt, the seasons are more marked, and the poles receive less sunlight. This is a 41,000 year cycle (6).


The third Milankovitch cycle is the precession of equinoxes. The earth is wobbling like a top. The time of year when the sun is closest to the earth varies on a 21,000 year cycle. Currently, winter in the northern hemisphere occurs when the earth is closest to the sun, so in 10,500 years (half the cycle) the northern hemisphere winter will occur when earth is farthest from the sun (6).


Plate Tectonics
In addition to sunspot cycles and the Milankovitch cycles, another natural factor that affects climate is plate tectonics. The movement of continents is not cyclical, but "sets the stage" for warm and cool climates globally by altering ocean currents and weather patterns. During the Mesozoic Period (6), continents have been arranged so that a current has been able to circle the earth near the equator. This current is warm because it circumnavigates the earth on and near the equator. The north and south currents diverging from it are also warm, keeping regions at high latitudes warm. Evidence of this in the past is seen as fossils have been found in far north latitudes that reflect a climate similar to today's climate in the southeast US (6).
Circumequatorial Currents Circumpolar Currents

If the equatorial current is blocked and channels are opened that allow currents to circulate around the earth at polar latitudes, the poles will be insulated from the warm currents and become cold. This happened during the Cenozoic Period (6) when Antarctica was broken free to allow the circum-polar seaway to open and the equatorial seaway was closed when the Isthmus of Panama was formed (6).

Plate tectonics also alters global weather patterns not only by determining where warm ocean currents flow, but also by mountain building. Mountain building, caused by plate movements, can affect global wind patterns and precipitation trends. Tall mountain ranges such as the Himalayas can have effects reaching high into the atmosphere.


Final Thoughts

There is a great deal of evidence that natural factors and cycles are causing global warming - plate tectonics causing the poles to be isolated from warm ocean currents, Milankovitch cycles affecting how the earth receives the sun's energy, and sunspot cycles affecting the sun's output of heat energy. Humans are responsible for increased greenhouse gases emitted in the atmosphere (especially carbon dioxide), and this is probably affecting global temperatures as well. If man-made gases continue to increase, their effect on climate may become more noticeable, but at the present time most climate changes can be explained by natural causes.


WMM

[stuart_allsop]

Blah....Blah.....Blah>>>>>>Well, I see that my buddy Gaia is very eloquent today! Such deep words of wisdom, and so enlightrning! Either that, or the rest of us have just plain left him speachless...

[Yaak]

Thank you, Whitemajikman, for your last 2 posts. You are a true voice of reason.

Yaakity-yaak Yaakwad



:p

[halva]

Nobody really believs that, Wayne. Your responses clearly indicate that you read them all.

Hey, what's up with this, Wayne?
Ever get your wife to become a "chemtrail" believer?
I remember you were having trouble........
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chemtrailtrackingusa/message/116992

Keep asking questions Raynolds. And making baseless assertions. The proportion of my activity that you are tracking is negligible.

[whitemajikman]

Keep asking questions Raynolds. And making baseless assertions. The proportion of my activity that you are tracking is negligible.

WAYNE I am sure Jay will Keep asking Question's.......

at Least Until you Start answering some of them...............

Over 300 pages Of YOU not answering a single question ........

Or coming to a Conclusion of a Non-conspiratorial kind........

It's A New Record for Denial..........

Answer this one...........Wayne.....

How Much Research have you done on "Natural" Global Warming.......

While you sit in Greece..............Pulling your pud , playing your political eco-activist sham game.....

There are REAL Scientist's With a REAL Genuine Interest in why Global Warming Is Occuring.........

And let's face it Wayne.........


YOUR INTENTIONS ARE ANYTHING BUT GENUINE..........

Let's See if you have been doing your Homework.........

Because of Expansion Of the "Ring of FIRE"..........

And due to the Increase Of Plume Release.................

What Can One Expect..........?

And what relationship Will it Have to the increase in Global Temperature.........?

And How is Man responsible for this Occurence.........?


WMM

[whitemajikman]

For YOU.................. DEBORAH STARK(Foot Soldier)...............

Halva Wouldn't have the balls,To comment on this peer Reviewed Paper.........

But since you have no balls,please feel free.............



Observation and possible causes of new ozone depletion in Antarctica in 1991

D. J. Hofmann*, S. J. Oltmans*, J. M. Harris*, S. Solomon+, T. Deshler++ & B. J. Johnson++
* NOAA Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado 80303, USA

+ NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado 80303, USA

++ Department of Atmospheric Science, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming 80271, USA


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

Local ozone reductions approaching 50% in magnitude were observed during the Antarctic spring in the 11-13 and 25-30 km altitude regions over South Pole and McMurdo Stations in 1991. These reductions, at altitudes where depletion has not been observed previously, resulted in a late September total ozone column 10-15% lower than previous years. The added depletion in the lower stratosphere was observed to coincide with penetration into the polar vortex of highly enhanced concentrations of aerosol particles from volcanic activity in 1991.


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

ON the basis of the phase of the quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO) of equatorial stratospheric winds[1], and tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures (SST)[2,3] which affect the timing of transport of ozone to the Antarctic continent in spring, 1991 was expected to be a year of early recovery of the springtime Antarctic ozone hole and only moderate ozone depletion. Although the recovery of the ozone hole indeed occurred early in 1991 (mid- November), total ozone nevertheless reached record lows in September even though values during the October minimum period at South Pole were no lower than the previous record low values observed in 1987. Antarctic ozone depletion generally extends over the altitude range from 12 to 22 km (ref. 4), the dominant region of polar stratospheric cloud (PSC) formation. From balloon-borne observations, which give the vertical ozone profile, we have determined that this 'normal' ozone hole was only slightly more severe during September in 1991 than in 1987, 1989 or 1990; additional ozone depletion was observed, however, in both the 11-13 km and the 25-30 km regions which were the predominant causes of the low total ozone at this time. Homogeneous chlorine chemistry, combined with continually increasing chlorine levels, can explain only a small portion of the high-altitude ozone depletion. The transport of coastal air depleted of ozone by PSCs and/or the aerosol cloud from the volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo at 10deg. N in June 1991 might also be involved. The low-altitude ozone reduction occurs simultaneously with high aerosol concentrations, from the August 1991 eruption of Mount Hudson at 46deg. S, arriving in the Antarctic lower stratosphere in September, and is believed to be the result of heterogeneous processes occurring on the surface of the volcanic aerosol.

Observations

Ozone vertical profiles were obtained at South Pole and McMurdo (78deg. S) stations with a digital electrochemical ozonesonde technique which has been used in Antarctica since 1986 (ref. 4). Total ozone is obtained by integration of the vertical profiles of ozone partial pressure for soundings that reach at least 28 km. Beginning on 10 October, there was adequate sunlight to obtain total ozone values with the Dobson spectrophotometer at South Pole station (W. Komhyr, personal communication) and the sonde values agreed with the Dobson values within ~2%.

As indicated in Fig. 1, a minimum in total ozone of about 125 Dobson units (DU) was observed at South Pole station on 7 October (Julian day 280). Although this value is not significantly lower than the lowest value observed there in 1987, the September reduction began earlier in 1991 than in any previous year. In late August 1991, total ozone was similar to previous years with a value of ~270 DU on day 240 (28 August); but beginning on day 247 (4 September), six of the next seven measurements were ~30-40 DU (15-20%) lower than observed in the previous five years. The 'normal' ozone hole, represented by the 12-20 km column data in Fig. 1, contributed only about 1/4 of the difference in total ozone between 1991 and previous years during the September decreasing phase. Thus, in terms of total column ozone, 3/4 of the unusual low ozone (~20-30 DU or ~10% of the late August column) during September had to result from new ozone losses in regions not previously subject to depletion.

Individual profiles of the ozone mixing ratio for all soundings at South Pole between 15 August and 3 November, shown in Fig. 2, indicate that high-altitude (25-30 km) ozone reductions, 30-50% below the normally constant mixing ratio in this region, began on 4 September and were observed to some extent on every sounding within the vortex thereafter. Because of the position of the high-altitude ozone minima coinciding with the maximum altitude obtained on 4 and 9 September, the extrapolation for total ozone was done at a lower-than-normal mixing ratio and thus the total ozone values for these days are probably underestimated.

Transport of mid-latitude ozone to the south polar region at high altitudes, as expected during vortex breakup in late October and early November, is also apparent in Fig. 2. Beginning about 5 November, the vortex distorted and shifted substantially towards east Antarctica so that ozone concentrations typical of extra-vortex air were present over the South Pole down to ~23 km (see ozone profile of November 8 in Fig. 2). The vortex centre then shifted back towards the South Pole and the ozone profile on 11 November again showed the high-altitude minimum, indicating that it was a characteristic feature of the vortex.

Ozone soundings were conducted at McMurdo between 23 August and 1 November in 1991. Figure 3 compares the 1991 McMurdo and South Pole soundings in September (Fig. 3a) and October (Fig. 3b) with those obtained in 1990. Soundings from McMurdo when the vortex boundary was near, for example from 13 to 21 September 1991, are identified by the high values of ozone mixing ratio at high altitude in Fig. 3. Ozone minima in the 27-30 km region, similar to those observed at South Pole, were present during soundings conducted while McMurdo was inside the vortex boundary in 1991, providing important confirmation that this ozone feature extended over much and possibly all of the vortex. Figure 3b indicates that small (~10%) ozone minima were present at 25-28 km in October at both South Pole and McMurdo before 1991.

Another unusual ozone depletion phenomenon, observed in 1991, is demonstrated in Fig. 4 at South Pole station where mixing ratios at 10, 12 and 14 km averaged over 2-km intervals are compared with measurements of the previous five years. The small ozone layer below the main ozone hole, which in the past has been characterized by mixing ratios of ~0.3 - 0.4 parts per 10[6] volume (p.p.m.v.) in the 11-13 km region, began to decrease in late September and reached values 50% below normal in late October. The time constant for ozone reduction was ~40 days, about one-half as fast as the ozone hole development at higher altitude in September. Similar observations were made at McMurdo.

Possible causes of the new depletion.............

The Paper in it's Entirety........

http://www.ciesin.org/docs/011-434/011-434.html



WMM

[whitemajikman]

Rushing to Judgment
by Jack M. Hollander

Related Articles
Experimenting with Earth by V. Ramanathan, Tim P. Barnett


Is Earth warming? The planet has warmed since the mid-1800s, but before that it cooled for more than five centuries. Cycles of warming and cooling have been part of Earth’s natural climate history for millions of years. So what is the global warming debate about? It’s about the proposition that human use of fossil fuels has contributed significantly to the past century’s warming, and that expected future warming may have catastrophic global consequences. But hard evidence for this human contribution simply does not exist; the evidence we have is suggestive at best. Does that mean the human effects are not occurring? Not necessarily. But media coverage of global warming has been so alarmist that it fails to convey how flimsy the evidence really is. Most people don’t realize that many strong statements about a human contribution to global warming are based more on politics than on science. Indeed, the climate change issue has become so highly politicized that its scientific and political aspects are now almost indistinguishable. The United Nations Inter*governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), upon which governments everywhere have depended for the best scientific information, has been transformed from a bona fide effort in international scientific cooperation into what one of its leading participants terms “a hybrid scientific/political organization.�



Yet apart from the overheated politics, climate change remains a fascinating and important scientific subject. Climate dynamics and climate history are extraordinarily complex, and despite intensive study for decades, scientists are not yet able to explain satisfactorily such basic phenomena as extreme weather events (hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts), El Niño variations, historical climate cycles, and trends of atmospheric temperatures. The scientific uncertainties about all these matters are great, and not surprisingly, competent scientists disagree in their interpretations of what is and is not known. In the current politicized atmosphere, however, legitimate scientific differences about climate change have been lost in the noise of politics.


For some, global warming has become the ultimate symbol of pessimism about the environmental future. Writer Bill McKibben, for example, says, “If we had to pick one problem to obsess about over the next 50 years, we’d do well to make it carbon dioxide.� I believe that we’d be far wiser to obsess about poverty than about carbon dioxide.


Fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) are the major culprits of the global warming controversy and happen also to be the principal energy sources for both rich and poor countries. Governments of the industrial countries have generally accepted the position, promoted by the IPCC, that humankind’s use of fossil fuels is a major contributor to global warming, and in 1997 they forged an international agreement (the Kyoto Climate Change Protocol) mandating that worldwide fossil fuel use be drastically reduced as a precaution against future warming. In contrast, the developing nations for the most part do not accept global warming as a high-priority issue and, as yet, are not subject to the Kyoto agreement. Thus, the affluent nations and the developing nations have set themselves on a collision course over environmental policy relating to fossil fuel use.


The debate about global warming focuses on carbon dioxide, a gas emitted into the atmosphere when fossil fuels are burned. Environmentalists generally label carbon dioxide as a pollutant; the Sierra Club, for example, in referring to carbon dioxide, states that “we are choking our planet in a cloud of this pollution.� But to introduce the term pollution in this context is misleading because carbon dioxide is neither scientifically nor legally considered a pollutant. Though present in Earth’s atmosphere in small amounts, carbon dioxide plays an essential role in maintaining life and as part of Earth’s temperature control system.


Those who have had the pleasure of an elementary chemistry course will recall that carbon dioxide is one of the two main products of the combustion in air of any fossil fuel, the other being water. These products are generally emitted into the atmosphere, no matter whether the combustion takes place in power plants, household gas stoves and heaters, manufacturing facilities, automobiles, or other sources. The core scientific issue of the global warming debate is the extent to which atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning affects global climate.


When residing in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide and water vapor are called “greenhouse gases,� so named because they trap some of Earth’s heat in the same way that the glass canopy of a greenhouse prevents some of its internal heat from escaping, thereby warming the interior of the greenhouse. By this type of heating, greenhouse gases occurring naturally in the atmosphere perform a critical function. In fact, without greenhouse gases Earth would be too cold, all water on the planet would be frozen, and life as we know it would never have developed. In addition to its role in greenhouse warming, carbon dioxide is essential for plant physiology; without it, all plant life would die.


A number of greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide and water vapor occur naturally in Earth’s atmosphere and have been there for millennia. What’s new is that during the industrial era, humankind’s burning of fossil fuels has been adding carbon dioxide to the atmospheric mix of greenhouse gases over and above the amounts naturally present. The preindustrial level of 287 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased almost 30 percent, to 367 ppm (as of 1998).


Few, if any, scientists question the measurements showing that atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by almost a third. Nor do most scientists question that humans are the cause of most or all of the carbon dioxide increase. Yet the media continually point to these two facts as the major evidence that humans are causing the global warming Earth has recently experienced. The weak link in this argument is that empirical science has not established an unambiguous connection between the carbon dioxide increase and the observed global warming. The real scientific controversy about global warming is not about the presence of additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from human activities, which is well established, but about the extent to which that additional carbon dioxide affects climate, now or in the future.


Earth’s climate is constantly changing from natural causes that, for the most part, are not understood. How are we to distinguish the human contribution, which may be very small, from the natural contribution, which may be small or large? Put another way, is the additional carbon dioxide humans are adding to the atmosphere likely to have a measurable effect on global temperature, which is in any case changing continually from natural causes? Or is the temperature effect from the additional carbon dioxide likely to be imperceptible, and therefore unimportant as a practical matter?


Global warming is not something that happened only recently. In Earth’s long history, climate change is the rule rather than the exception, and studies of Earth’s temperature record going back a million years clearly reveal a number of climate cycles—warming and cooling trends. Their causes are multiple—possibly including periodic changes in solar output and variations in Earth’s tilt and orbit—but poorly understood. In recent times, Earth entered a warming period. From thermometer records, we know that the air at Earth’s surface warmed about 0.6ºC over the period from the 1860s to the present. The observed warming, however, does not correlate well with the growth in fossil fuel use during that period. About half of the observed warming took place before 1940, though it was only after 1940 that the amounts of greenhouse gases produced by fossil fuel burning rose rapidly, as a result of the heavy industrial expansions of World War II and the postwar boom (80 percent of the carbon dioxide from human activities was added to the air after 1940).


Surprisingly, from about 1940 until about 1980, during a period of rapid increase in fossil fuel burning, global surface temperatures actually displayed a slight cooling trend rather than an acceleration of the warming trend that would have been expected from greenhouse gases. During the 1970s some scientists even became concerned about the possibility of a new ice age from an extended period of global cooling (a report of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences reflected that concern). Physicist Freeman Dyson notes that “the onset of the next ice age [would be] a far more severe catastrophe than anything associated with warming.�



Earth’s cooling trend did not continue beyond 1980, but neither has there been an unambiguous warming trend. Since 1980, precise temperature measurements have been made in Earth’s atmosphere and on its surface, but the results do not agree. The surface air measurements indicate significant warming (0.25 to 0.4ºC), but the atmospheric measurements show very little, if any, warming.



http://wwics.si.edu/index.cfm?fuseaction=wq.essay&essay_id=33083

WMM

[gaiacomm]

Well, I see that my buddy Gaia is very eloquent today! Such deep words of wisdom, and so enlightrning! Either that, or the rest of us have just plain left him speachless...


Something like that!

[gaiacomm]

Kerry Lost.........

Get over it............

He might have won if he would have followed the last line of your Quote.......

But he didn't .......


So quit whining...........

And live with it........


I am a Neocon and could care less if Kerry lost! Bush is my Hero,,, even though he is an idiot!

[Insurrectionchemistry]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/11/08/globalwarming.reut/index.html


Study: Arctic warming at twice the global rate
Species, including polar bears, may go extinct as ice melts
November 8, 2004

OSLO, Norway (Reuters) -- Global warming is heating the Arctic almost twice
as fast as the rest of the planet in a thaw that threatens millions of
livelihoods and could wipe out polar bears by 2100, an eight-nation report said on
Monday.

The biggest survey to date of the Arctic climate, by 250 scientists, said the
accelerating melt could be a foretaste of wider disruptions from a build-up
of human emissions of heat-trapping gases in Earth's atmosphere.

The "Arctic climate is now warming rapidly and much larger changes are
projected," according to the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA), funded by the
United States, Canada, Russia, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden, Norway and Finland.

Arctic temperatures are rising at almost twice the global average and could
leap 4-7 Celsius (7-13 Fahrenheit) by 2100, roughly twice the global average
projected by U.N. reports. Siberia and Alaska have already warmed by 2-3 C since
the 1950s.

Possible benefits like more productive fisheries, easier access to oil and
gas deposits or trans-Arctic shipping routes would be outweighed by threats to
indigenous peoples and the habitats of animals and plants.

Sea ice around the North Pole, for instance, could almost disappear in summer
by the end of the century. The extent of the ice has shrunk by 15 percent to
20 percent in the past 30 years.

"Polar bears are unlikely to survive as a species if there is an almost
complete loss of summer sea-ice cover," the report said. On land, creatures like
lemmings, caribou, reindeer and snowy owls are being squeezed north into a
narrower range.

Fossil fuels blamed
The report mainly blames the melt on gases from fossil fuels burned in cars,
factories and power plants. The Arctic warms faster than the global average
because dark ground and water, once exposed, traps more heat than reflective
snow and ice.

Klaus Toepfer, head of the U.N. Environment Programme, said the Arctic
changes were an early warning. "What happens there is of concern for everyone
because Arctic warming and its consequences have worldwide implications," he said.

And the melting of glaciers is expected to raise world sea levels by about 10
cm (4 inches) by the end of the century.

Many of the four million people in the Arctic are suffering. Buildings from
Russia to Canada have collapsed because of subsidence linked to thawing
permafrost that also destabilises oil pipelines, roads and airports.

Indigenous hunters are falling through thinning ice and say that prey from
seals to whales is harder to find. Rising levels of ultra-violet radiation may
cause cancers.

Changes under way in the Arctic "present serious challenges to human health
and food security, and possibly even (to) the survival of some cultures," the
report says.

Farming could benefit in some areas, while more productive forests are moving
north on to former tundra. "There are not just negative consequences, there
will be new opportunities too," said Paal Prestrud, vice-chair of ACIA.

Scientists will meet in Iceland this week to discuss the report. Foreign
ministers from Arctic nations are due to meet in Iceland on November 24, but
diplomats say they are deeply split with Washington least willing to make drastic
action.

President George W. Bush pulled the United States, the world's top polluter,
out of the 126-nation Kyoto protocol in 2001, arguing its curbs on greenhouse
gas emissions were too costly and unfairly excluded developing nations.

"Kyoto is only a first step," said Norwegian Environment Minister Knut
Hareide, a strong backer of Kyoto. "The clear message from this report is that Kyoto
is not enough. We must reduce emissions much more in coming decades."

[Insurrectionchemistry]

http://rense.com/general59/rpro.htm


Chemtrails And
Radio Propagation -
Some Observations
By Jim Mortellaro
Jsmortell@aol.com
11-7-4

Note: At the time of submission, the sun had become slightly more active, with half a dozen sunspots on the solar surface. While much less in intensity than during the recent solar maximum, the reader should know that this recent activity has no effect on the observations made.

I am an Amateur Radio operator. Been licensed since 1957. Since I operate the low frequency bands, like 80 and 160 meters and enjoy listening to long distance (DX) AM radio broadcasts (such as Rense, the nearest station carrying Jeff is well over 800 miles away) I depend on 'skip' conditions which occur on these frequencies on a regular basis only during the period of time the sun is in it's active phase. This past August (2004) the sun was extraordinarily active. Now, the sun is at peace with nary a sunspot on it's surface. It is in it's 'minimum' stage.

This means low frequency radio signals during the nighttime hours are mostly local. On rare occasions, will these bands 'open up' to skip and long distance (DX) conditions. The sun's cycle is 11 years. But solar maximums and minimums will sometimes occur very close to one the other. We appear to be at a minimum just 3 months after the solar maximum. Not terribly unusual.

Now let's get to the point.

A look at the NASA sites show the sun as clear and clean of sunspots as the sun can be. This past week, there was absolutely NOTHING there. Nothing. That means the activity on low band radio frequencies, from 3 MHz on down to about 1 MHz, should be dead. No skip, no long distance stations coming in, nothing. Quiet.

Nothing could be farther from true. Listen in to your own AM radio and see for yourself. Sunday night (10/24/04) produced a plethora of stations coming in that should definitely not have been heard. Near the 1500 and up portion of the spectrum, long distance stations (DX) were blasting in as if they were local. This occurs only during Solar Maximum. The Amateur 80 Meter band is bringing in stations from all over the world. Not only has this condition continued, but it has increased. Stations on the AM radio dial begin phasing in and out before 7PM EDST and continue to sunup.

I was trying to listen in to a show I cannot receive on AM radio one night. The closest stations and therefore the strongest signals in my area, come from New York and Albany. Tonight, I could not here those stations. I was hearing stations from Mexico, Canada, LA, and points all over the compass including Canada.

A digression. When the solar maximum occurs, ionized particles flood the upper atmosphere. These particles allow AM stations, and Amateur radio stations from 80 through 160 meters to bounce off the ionosphere, landing at great distances beyond the ground wave. The ground wave for a typical AM broadcast station is normally in the 300+ mile range. More or less. During skip conditions, the ground wave is less effective, since the sky wave interferes with local stations.

A powerful AM station in New York such as WABC (770) or WCBS (880) will fade in and out as stronger stations come in. And those NY stations will actually cancel themselves out as the sky wave arrives a little after the ground wave, causing phase differences sufficient to reduce signal strength to near zero at times.

Don't give up now, people, there's a lot more to this little tutorial than a lesson in DX radio conditions.

Here is the premise. If the sun is no longer active, if the sun has a nice, clean surface, and if there are no other perturbations affecting radio communications, then what the heck is causing this windfall for Hams and lousy listening for AM radio?

Not a darn thing. Not a darn NATURAL thing that is. But something is happening here and I think I know what it is, Mr. Jones. The biggest phenomena lurking in our skies is Chemtrails. Chemtrails contain at least one interesting element and that would be barium. Barium is used as substrate material since it is not a conductor of electrons. Coat the barium with other elements and voila, you have a great conductor.

I posit the idea that chemtrails may be responsible for this bounty of good DX radio on the low frequencies. And to add to the rationale, some high frequency bands are also active which should NOT be active. These include the ham 10 meter band and even the Citizen's Band 11 meter band. This is quite bizarre. Low frequency bands open up BEFORE 8 PM in the Eastern Time Zone. This is not normal. DX continues until just before daylight. Also quite impossible, since the sun is not active and there is NOTHING else known to us which may cause these conditions.

It may be that chemtrails are specifically used to enhance low frequency propagation. Or it may be that chemtrails have the side benefit of creatin