|
|
Edufer
Joined: 14 Nov 2003
Posts: 198
Location: Malagueno, Cordoba, Argentina |
 Thu Dec 04, 2003 4:55 am
|
 |
|
This is a link to the Crista-SPA Project, a scientific project by the University at Wuppertal, in Germany. It is a set of instruments and telescopes on a satellite, put into orbit by the Shuttle missions in mid 90s. These instruments have the capabilty of screening the atmosphere at different angles (not just straight down), and so they have discovered the ozone layer is not an uniform “layer”, but it is comprised by “patches” of ozone concentrations that varies enormously, not only with height, but in horizontal distribution as well.
So, for you people in the forum, here is some interesting information on the subject. I hope it is not too technical and hard to understand.
Here, the link to the site, that features this nice picture of the satellite in its home page:
http://www.crista.uni-wuppertal.de/
Now , the paper:
http://www.crista.uni-wuppertal.de/papers/spang/cospar6.html
CFC11 MEASUREMENTS BY CRISTA
R. Spang, M. Riese and D. Offermann, Physics Department, University at Wuppertal, Gauss Str. 20 D-42097 Wuppertal, F.R.Germany
ABSTRACT
CFC11 is a good tracer for dynamical processes in the lower stratosphere. The CRyogenic IR Spectrometers and Telescopes for the Atmosphere instrument (CRISTA) measured CFC11 global maps between 16 and 24 km for 7 days in November 1994. The CFC11 radiance maps show small and large scale structures in various geographic regions. This data can be used for qualitative studies of transport processes in the northern and southern hemisphere, especially for the fine structures and the polar vortex edges.
INTRODUCTION
With a chemical life time of around 4 years at 20 km, CFC11 is a good tracer for horizontal transport in the lower stratosphere. Due to photodissociation, the chemical life time (tc) decreases rapidly with altitude (e.g. tc = 20 days at 30 km), and it yields to a strong vertical gradient in the mixing ratio profile of CFC11. This implies that CFC11 is a very sensitive indicator for vertical transport as well. Such a vertical stratified species provides an excellent tracer for testing theoretical models of mass transport and diffusion in the middle atmosphere (e.g. Andrews et al. 1987). CRISTA measures CFC11 in the wave number region 840 - 855 cm-1 (for details Riese et al., this issue). There is some contamination due to the emissions from aerosol, HNO3 and ozone in this band (in the order of 20-30% at 18 km). The CFC11 emission starts to be identified at tangent heights around 24 km and becomes dominant between 22 and 20 km. At the current state of the CRISTA data processing only a small part of retrieved CFC11 mixing ratio profiles are available. The results indicate the influence of the atmospheric temperature field on the observed small and medium scale structures is moderate. The radiance field is more sensitive to vertical and horizontal transports due to the steep gradients of CFC11. Therefore, structures in the CFC11 radiance fields (Type B1) will be used as a proxy for structures in mixing ratio fields.
(will skip the North Polar region here, but you can see in their wepage)
SOUTH POLAR REGION
The spring time antarctic region is characterized by the rapid ozone depletion inside the polar vortex. During the end of the CRISTA mission the vortex was no longer centered around the pole and had moved towards South America. Consequently, it was possible for CRISTA with its 57° inclination orbit, to measure inside the south polar vortex (see Figure 1 for Day 310, low radiances / violet dots inside the vortex).
In order to explore the vortex edge and its vertical structure, data from Day 315 (16 to 24 km in 2 km steps) was analysed. Figure 3 shows the results with the radiances of the -56.5° to -57° belt for different tangent heights on Day 315 (16 to 24 km in 2 km steps). The rapid decrease of the radiances looks very simillar for all tangent heights. This suggests a vortex that does not tilt with height. The vortex boundary is extremly steep. Radiances go down to very low values at all tangent heights, especially for the 18-20 km level (please note the logarithmic scale in Fig. 3). It is surprising that the radiances of these levels fall down to the values of the 22 km level, which indicates very low CFC11 mixing ratios inside the polar vortex.
By the analysis of the radiance profiles between 16 and 24 km inside and outside the vortex it is possible to compute a scale size for the vertical transport of 5-6 km. Under the assumption that the downward transport works for 4-5 months, a descent rate of around 1.2 km/month can be estimated. This result is in good agreement with earlier detailed studies by Schoeberl et al. (1995) or Bacmeister et al. (1995). Prelimenary mixing ratios of CFC11 retrieved from the radiances show clearly reduced values inside the vortex (e.g. factor 2-3 at 20 km). This results in a vertical transport scale in the same order as for the radiance analysis.
The data implies that there exists a CFC11 ``hole'' inside the southern hemisphere vortex, due to the rapid downward transport taking place during the winter-spring period. The very steep vortex boundary between -130° and -100° longitude indicates additional very slow horizontal transport. An analysis of the western vortex boundary gives an upper limit for horizontal eddy diffusion rate Kyy, if there is horizontal diffusion at all.
Fig. 3. CFC11 limb radiances for different tangent heights (16-24 km) on Day 315 (11th of November 1994). The values in the -57.0° - -56.5° belt are plotted. The rapid decrease in the radiances characterizes the edge of the Antartic vortex (-130° - -110° longitude). The estimated radiance error is in the order of 1-3%. The horizontal distance is 200 km from dot to dot.
Under the assumptions: typical eddy size of 100 km, a transition region for diffusion at the vortex edge of 1000 km (here: -130° to -110° longitude) and a time scale of 5 months/10, an upper limit of Kyy to 104 m2/sec can be estimated. This is a factor of 10 smaller than in recent publications like Bacmeister et al. (1995). This indicates a strongly isolated south polar vortex.
CONCLUSIONS
The first results of CFC11 measurements by CRISTA indicates that CFC11 limb radiances are a good tracer for qualitative examinations. Streamer structures in the northern hemisphere can be confirmed in PV analyses or by the CRISTA ozone and ClONO2 results (Bittner et al., Riese et al., this issue).
We found a rapid decrease of the radiances inside the south polar vortex and a strongly isolated vortex resulting in a CFC11-hole like state. The estimation of vertical descent and horizontal diffusion rate yields an unexpected low Kyy. This has to be checked by the retrieved CFC11 mixing ratio profiles.
What this study shows is that there are almost none CFCs inside the famous ozone hole! From this we should begin to wonder why the scientists aboard the green bandwagon insist in blaming CFCs for the ozone depletion. As the ozone layer is not homegenous, at any latitude, and at any height, but composed instead by scattered patches of ozone concentrations, TOMS images must be recording flawed information, some readings with lots of ozone, and others with very low levels of ozone, so we are quite entitled to think scientists at NASA and elsewhere are selectively using measurements of ozone levels - those that favour their thesis - in order to claim the ozone layer is being depleted.
Money and politics talk, and do it quite loud!
|
| |
|
|
Edufer
Joined: 14 Nov 2003
Posts: 198
Location: Malagueno, Cordoba, Argentina |
|
Thu Dec 04, 2003 5:00 am
|
|
|
Thanks, Sore Throat for editing your images. Really. Now the forum looks nice.  |
| |
|
|
Edufer
Joined: 14 Nov 2003
Posts: 198
Location: Malagueno, Cordoba, Argentina |
|
Thu Dec 04, 2003 5:14 am
|
|
|
quote:
Then we should be able to safely say that regional warming (known to exist) is a perfectly reasonable hypothetical cause for geo-engieering.
I don't think it is reasonable at all, since warming occurred in earlier times (as demonstrated during the Medieval Warming Period of 800-1350 AD) showed that 2º C warmer temperatures than today are much better. No wonder climatologists call that period "The Optimum Climatic".
But there might exist neourotics that feel warming will cause an increase in droughts, hurricanes, floods and all sort of catastrophes. As it did not happened in those times, why should it happen now?
All climatic events are caused by the sun warming the Earth. When the difference of temperatures increase (the gradient becomes bigger) then there are stronger winds, and the effects are carried over greater areas.
A cooler Earth would mean more hurricanes and stronger winds everywhere. Why? Look at the Antarctica, the coldest place on Earth, the place with the strongest hurricanes - well above 300 miles per hour. You don't see terrible hurricanes over the jungles, but see them over the oceans, where the difference in temperatures causes the formation of hurricanes, typhons, etc. Simple meteorology. |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
|
Thu Dec 04, 2003 5:40 am
|
|
|
I will give SEÑOR Eduardo Ferreyra the benefit of the doubt. I believe that he does think very carefully about what he posts, and does so quite selectively with a very definite agenda. The problem is that the picture of the state of the world that he is attempting to project is a gross distortion of reality...and while it may directly benefit oil and chemical companies, it is a danger to the majority of those who inhabit this planet.
Examples:
Earlier in this thread SEÑOR Ferreyra presented a single data set that indicate a DECLINE in surface UV-B radiation corresponding with DECLINE of atmospheric ozone between 1980-86.
I responded with multiple data sets from many parts of the planet that show the exact opposite, that a deline in atmospheric ozone has produced a marked increase in surface UV-B radiation. Anyone truly familiar with this science is well aware of the difficulties associated with ground based measurements and calibration problems experienced with older instrumentation. Satellite acquired data have proved to be more accurate and reliable.
"In 1996, scientists developed a new technique allowing them to draw conclusions about UV-b radiation at ground level. According to satellite-based trend analyses, major populated areas have experienced increasing UV-b levels over the past 15 years. As shown by the figure below, at latitudes that cover the U.S., UV-b levels are 4 to 5 percent higher than they were 10 years ago."
To which the supremely haughty SEÑOR Eduardo Ferreyra can only slander the US Environmental Protection Agency, and interject a total distraction about the banning of DDT (which earlier in this thread was discussed at length and shown to be harmful to wildlife).
To try to dismiss to graphic presentation of the decrease of ozone over North America between 1979 and 1994, he attempts to argue that this is irrelevant because people at the equator still receive more UV radiation than those living at higher latitudes.
How absurd! Is this a "truthful" statement...in part it is, those living at the equator are generally exposed to more UV than those at higher latitudes (Antarctic ozone hole the example of an exception). Does this argument in any way invalidate the reality of progressive ozone delpletion? ...absoluely NOT !
An example of a very calculated move by SEÑOR Eduardo Ferreyra and one that is inherently dishonest and misleading.
Ah, but SEÑOR Ferreyra knows exactly what he is doing, and like the snake oil salesman that he is, there is no limit to the distortions he will employ to serve his cause.
When confronted with overwhelming evidence of the decrease of ozone in the earth's stratosphere, he produces a paper reporting increases ozone increases in the lower troposphere.
SEÑOR Ferreyra states, “Meester Sore would have noticed that they say: “in all tropospheric heights up to 8 km during the past 24 years.” (people in Los Angeles drive fast, I know, but they don't take off and reach 5 to 8 km). Jokes aside, what he implies is that ozone filters UV radiation only between 20-40 km, but below 10 km it has no effect on UV radiation. That really is a joke!"
The only implication that I make SEÑOR Ferreyra is that elevated ozone levels at the earth's surface are known to have harmful health effects, and that in no way does the increase of pollutant levels of ozone in the troposphere compensate for the loss of stratospheric ozone (your quote was "in all tropospheric heights up to 8 km"). No competent scientist would argue this point. And to imply that that there is no vertical mixing within the troposphere is also ridiculous. Once again, obfuscation and distortion, intentionally employed....yet so utterly transparent.
The joke is on you SEÑOR Ferreyra.
Let me end this evening's frivolity with yet one more quote from SEÑOR Ferreyra:
"The hole is growing larger, not in the ozone layer but in Sore Throat’s foot …"
EP/TOMS Total Ozone for Sept 15, 2003
and by the way, you can keep you 357s SEÑOR Ferreyra, my Glock loads S&W40.
Perhaps we should take up a collection to buy you a new monitor and graphics card as well.
[Edited 5 times, lastly by Sore Throat on 12-03-2003] |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
|
Thu Dec 04, 2003 6:11 am
|
|
|
Yet one more quote by SEÑOR Eduardo Ferreyra worthy of our closest consideration.
"Money and politics talk, and do it quite loud!"
So here's the list...just who do you think they are employing to support their self interests?
Any thoughts on that?
Largest Corporations
Global
Rank
Corporation
Revenues
Year 2000
(U.S. millions)
1
ExxonMobil
210,392
2
Wal-Mart Stores
193,295
3
General Motors
184,632
4
Ford Motor
180,598
5
DaimlerChrysler
150,069
6
Royal Dutch/Shell Group
149,146
7
British Petroleum
148,062
8
General Electric
129,853
9
Mitsubishi
126,579
10
Toyota Motor
121,416
11
Mitsui
118,0134
12
Citigroup
111,826
13
Itochu
109,756
14
Total Fina Elf
105,870
15
Nippon Telegraph & Telephone
103,235
16
Enron
100,789
17
AXA
92,782
18
Sumitomo
91,168
19
IBM International Business Machines
88,396
20
Marubeni
85,351
|
| |
|
|
Edufer
Joined: 14 Nov 2003
Posts: 198
Location: Malagueno, Cordoba, Argentina |
|
Thu Dec 04, 2003 12:23 pm
|
|
|
You are right, Sore, most of those corporations are funding the green movement and the global warming and ozone scam. You made my point. Thanks.
|
| |
|
|
Edufer
Joined: 14 Nov 2003
Posts: 198
Location: Malagueno, Cordoba, Argentina |
|
Fri Dec 05, 2003 2:26 am
|
|
|
quote:
Earlier in this thread SEÑOR Ferreyra presented a single data set that indicate a DECLINE in surface UV-B radiation corresponding with DECLINE of atmospheric ozone between 1980-86.
Actually, Scotto's data covers two consecutive periods: 1979-1979 and 1980-1985. It seems Sore Throat can read or remember well.
quote:
I responded with multiple data sets from many parts of the planet that show the exact opposite, that a decline in atmospheric ozone has produced a marked increase in surface UV-B radiation. Anyone truly familiar with this science is well aware of the difficulties associated with ground based measurements and calibration problems experienced with older instrumentation. Satellite acquired data have proved to be more accurate and reliable.
There are only 4 really good instruments for ozone reading in the world. They are quite recent, and so good they supersede instruments on the TOMS satellite, that are still working, but they are almost obsolete, compared with these new types. One of theses new R-B spectrometers was sent by the US National Academy of Science to Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego, and is being operated by the Argentinean National Meteorological Service, in charge of Lic. Victoria Tafuri – that happens to be a good friend of mine.
That instrument was used by Drs. Isidoro Orlansky and Ernesto A. Martínez to measure the radiation passing through a “mini ozone hole” above Ushuaia. I have told this board about that, but Sore Throat keeps forgetting (or not reading and analyzing) the information I present here. Making it short, Orlansky and Martínez found that UV irradiance passing through that ozone hole was in the order of 150 watts/m2. They pointed out that the UV irradiance passing through an ozone later of normal “distribution” or “concentration” over Buenos Aires was exactly the double: 300 watts/m2.
What Sore Throat is forgetting or missing here, is that part of this discussion is centered in the lack of danger presented by the extension of the infamous ozone hole into South America. When we look at the TOMS maps, we can see that in the surroundings of the “hole”, ozone concentrations are much higher than the Equator or Europe or the Us, or any populated regions of the world. And this proves my point beyond any further discussion.
Other subject being discussed here, presented in my last post, is the doubts arised by the Crista-SPA satellite and the conclusions presented in the research by the German satellite: the ozone layer is patchy (not uniform) so TOMS readings are showing therefore “patchy” readings – very low and very high ozone levels in a very small area. Thus, people is entitled to presume NASA is “cherry picking” data on low values and discarding the data that don't fit their thesis of ozone depletion.
Instead of discussing the German conclusions, he presents the TOMS maps and NASA information – that is now under serious suspicion – as the ultimate proof that there is an ozone depletion. It is as the criminal being judged for murder, and the prosecutor saying: “All evidences indicate that you are lying”, and the murderer replying: “No, I am not. I am only telling you what I say is the truth. It is my truth. I don't care about your evidences.”
quote:
To which the supremely haughty SEÑOR Eduardo Ferreyra can only slander the US Environmental Protection Agency, and interject a total distraction about the banning of DDT (which earlier in this thread was discussed at length and shown to be harmful to wildlife).
The EPA has slandered itself with the many unscientific rulings and wrongdoings committed since it first came in existence. DDT have never proved to be harmful to the environment, when used as recommended, and has prevented the deaths from about 500 million people around the world from the 1940s to 1972. All. and I mean ALL studies used by the EPA to ban DDT, were proved flawed, distorted and/or false, especially those related to avian extinctions, bald eagles, peregrine falcons, etc. It is not my intention to divert the attention from the ozone issue, but it fits perfectly well to show that EPA is not the scientific source that can be used for proving the ozone depletion is serious, or even that is not beyond the natural variances observed since the ozone layer has been studied.
quote:
To try to dismiss to graphic presentation of the decrease of ozone over North America between 1979 and 1994, he attempts to argue that this is irrelevant because people at the equator still receive more UV radiation than those living at higher latitudes.
It is not the contention of the greens that a 20% “ozone depletion” will provoke an increase of about (and no more) 10% of UV radiation in 100 years, and the UV increase will provoke skin cancers and cataracts all over the world? That kind of increase in radiation is the increased radiation people get when traveling 60 miles towards the Equator, that is, moving from New York to Philadelphia. Do statistics show higher rates of skin cancer or cataracts in Philadelphia, or even Miami, than in New York? Nope. So the green claim about skin cancers caused by a future reduction of the ozone layer is totally wrong, and is being used to sxare the ignorante people and the politicans!
As the Earth is round, UV radiation is filtered more in high latitudes than in medium or low ones. Thus, UV radiation varies 5000% from the Poles to the Equator. People living in Oslo, for instance, when having their vacations in the Caribbean get an increase in UV radiation of about 300%. Are governments advising Norwegians and Swedish tourists not to travel to the Caribbean, or the south of Spain? Sore Throat's position on this subject is clearly unscientific – I would say neurotic.
Sorry it is in Spanish - the graph belongs to an article in our website. At the left the scale indicates "relative UV unit values" and the legend on the borrom indicates "Northern Latitudes".
quote:
… and that in no way does the increase of pollutant levels of ozone in the troposphere compensate for the loss of stratospheric ozone (your quote was "in all tropospheric heights up to 8 km"). No competent scientist would argue this point.
How does he know? How can he prove it? On the contrary, lots, and lots of very competent scientists are arguing against it, of course. But, lastly, what does he knows about physics, meteorology and much less climatology? He has not answered the simple questions I have asked him to answer, not because ha as chosen not to provide an explanation for those phenomena, but simply because he does not know enough. And he insists in presenting flawed “evidence” as the ultimate proof of his claims, “evidence” he seems not to understand at all.
He also gives the impression of knowing not too much about fire guns and energy supplied by projectiles of different calibers. As a gun collector myself, I have guns ranging from the 2,5 mm Kolibri Austrian pistol (No. 4 serial, out of 10 existent), passing through Lugers, P-38, Mausers, .45 Colt Governments, Steyr .41 cal (better than Glock . that I also have), to a Browning .50 aerial machine gun. Perhaps I should have offered a 600 Holland & Holland Nitro Express for shooting his foot, but I keep that kind of ammo for big game – not squirrels.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Edufer on 12-04-2003] |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
|
Fri Dec 05, 2003 3:13 am
|
|
|
Going back through this thread you will note a common theme.
Anyone presenting data contradicting SEÑOR Eduardo Ferreyra's pet theories on global warming and ozone deplition are not simply wrong...but they are excoriated as being not only incompetent, but intentionally deceptive and untruthful for their own selfish reasons.
Quite a mighty list of miscreants that SEÑOR Ferreyra has demonized ...most quite well known:
NASA
NOAA
National Academy of Sciences
US Environmental Protection Agency
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
British Antarctic Survey
Nobel Prize winners
...and more, many more.
So while we're at it SEÑOR Ferreyra, let's have you add just one more name to your list:
"It's official, global warming does exist, says Bush"
...and who would ever have thought that G. W. Bush would become a "greenie"?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,727167,00.html
While he criticizes others for cautious interpretation of data, SEÑOR Eduardo Ferreyra's has absolutely no uncertainty about his own position. And he takes great pride in the loyal following that he says he has garnered from his "work".
So be it.
The data are there folks...and much more than presented on this thread.
If you are concerned, stay conscious and aware...read and discover for yourself.
If the reality of it all is too much for you, you will escape in front of the tube, with mind altering substances, or finding comfort with someone so happy to tell you that everything is OK.
So be it.
The truth of the matter will become increasing apparent, and no amount of discussion here will change that.
And ultimately, it is my belief, we will all have that moment to reflect on how we invested the moments of our life.
Take a deep look daily into that mirror.
...and my, my, my...what a impressive arsenal you have amassed SEÑOR Ferreyra...and such BIG guns too!
I suppose it would be risky to suggest that this was a reflection of a compensation issue...
...but then, what the hell.
It seems that many on this planet are choosing to live dangerously.
[Edited 12 times, lastly by Sore Throat on 12-04-2003] |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
|
Fri Dec 05, 2003 5:18 am
|
|
|
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/12/04/MNG0Q3FPCT1.DTL
Climate change laid to humans
Report warns there's 'no doubt' industry is primary cause
New evidence found by teams of climate researchers leaves no doubt that industrial emissions of greenhouse gases are responsible for increasing global temperatures -- an ominous trend that has speeded up in the past 50 years and threatens to continue for centuries, according to a report by two of the nation's leading atmospheric scientists.
The two government experts said climate change "may prove to be humanity's greatest challenge" and warned that "it is very unlikely to be adequately addressed without greatly improved international cooperation and action."
Thomas Karl, a meteorologist at the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., and Kevin Trenberth, chief of the climate analysis section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., are publishing their analysis in Friday's edition of the journal Science.
Neither scientist criticized the Bush administration's refusal to ratify the Kyoto treaty, which is designed to regulate emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases worldwide. But their published comments reflected the growing concerns of most climate experts over the White House stance.
The two disagreed with assertions by some scientists that swings in worldwide temperatures over the years are normal and natural. "Modern climate change is dominated by human influences, which are now large enough to exceed the bounds of natural variability," they said.
Karl and Trenberth also agreed that many uncertainties remained about how swiftly global temperatures are rising, how much they are likely to rise and how long ago the problem began.
However, "there is no doubt," they say, "that the composition of the atmosphere is changing because of human activities, and today greenhouse gases are the largest human influence on global climate.''
They estimate that by the end of this century there is a 90 percent chance that the world's climate will heat up between 3.1 and 8.9 degrees Fahrenheit because of those human influences.
Among the consequences, they predict, are more frequent heat waves, more widespread droughts in some parts of the world and "extreme precipitation events" in others.
They also predict more wildfires, abrupt changes in vegetation and continued melting of glaciers and of the great Greenland Ice Sheet, causing floods along many continental coastlines.
Additionally, as snow cover melts on land and icebergs shrink at sea, both the darker ground and the darker ocean surfaces will be exposed to solar radiation, increasing temperatures even more, the climate forecasters say.
While some climate analysts have noted that the vast quantities of soot emitted by many industries and volcanic eruptions can actually cool the atmosphere, that kind of cooling can last only a few years, with little or no effect on the long-range trend, the scientists say.
The report by Karl and Trenberth adds new data to scores of previous international studies and computer models of future climate changes as well as analyses by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The new conclusions met with some disagreement Wednesday from James Mahoney, a noted meteorologist and the Bush administration's assistant secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere, who directs all the government's weather and climate research and forecasting agencies.
In a telephone interview, Mahoney agreed that climate change is indeed a global problem that "has no political boundaries." He noted that the United States has a large delegation of experts attending an international conference on climate change in Milan right now.
Mahoney also insisted that the United States under President Bush had developed a "substantial involvement" in international activities aimed at researching the problems of global warming and at resolving their uncertainties.
But he took issue with Karl's and Trenberth's insistence that there's clear evidence that human activity far outstrips natural variation as the main cause of global warming.
"That's their assertion," Mahoney said. "They are extremely competent, and there are many in the climate community who would agree with them. That's not surprising, but there are many others who would disagree with them. My own view is somewhat more open-minded, and from my perspective we don't really understand these things as well as we might.''
No one disputes that there has been a sharp rise in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere during the past decades, Mahoney said, "but there remains disagreement about just how severe its impact has been."
As to the grim future that Karl and Trenberth see as a result of global warming, "I do challenge them on that," Mahoney said, "because all future projections are based on many, many models of how the atmosphere behaves, and I think a number of skeptical scientists would also challenge them." |
| |
|
|
Deborah
Joined: 30 Jul 2000
Posts: 731
Location: East Coast |
|
Fri Dec 05, 2003 6:55 am
|
|
|
.....the composition of the atmosphere is changing because of human activities.....
This is important in and of itself.
It's not a small thing. Please think about this for exactly what it is, no more, no less.
|
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
|
Fri Dec 05, 2003 6:56 am
|
|
|
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=469820
America's war on nature
For decades, US corporate interests have systematically sabotaged efforts to protect the environment. But the Bush years have seen the polluters encouraged to despoil as never before.
Robert F Kennedy Jr laments
George Bush will go down in history as America's worst environmental president. In a ferocious three-year attack, the Bush administration has initiated more than 200 major rollbacks of America's environmental laws, weakening the protection of our country's air, water, public lands and wildlife. Cloaked in meticulously crafted language designed to deceive the public, the administration intends to eliminate the nation's most important environmental laws by the end of the year. Under the guidance of the Republican pollster Frank Luntz, the Bush White House has hidden its anti-environmental programme behind deceptive rhetoric, telegenic spokespeople, secrecy and the intimidation of scientists and bureaucrats.
The Bush attack was not entirely unexpected. George Bush had the grimmest environmental record of any governor during his tenure in Texas. Texas became No 1 in air and water pollution and in the release of toxic chemicals. In his six years in Austin, Bush championed a short-term pollution-based prosperity, which enriched his political contributors and corporate cronies by lowering the quality of life for everyone else. Now President Bush is set to do the same to America. After three years, his policies are already bearing fruit.
I am angry both as a citizen and a father. Three of my sons have asthma, and I watch them struggle to breathe on bad-air days. And they are comparatively lucky: one in four African-American children in New York shares this affliction; their suffering is often unrelieved because they lack the insurance and high-quality healthcare that keep my sons alive. My kids are among the millions of Americans who cannot enjoy the seminal American experience of fishing locally with their dad and eating their catch. Most freshwater fish in New York, and all in Connecticut, are now under consumption advisories. A main source of mercury pollution in America, as well as asthma-provoking ozone and particulates, is the coal-burning power plants that President Bush recently excused from complying with the Clean Air Act.
Furthermore, the deadly addiction to fossil fuels that White House policies encourage has squandered our treasury, entangled us in foreign wars, diminished our international prestige, made us a target for terrorist attacks and increased our reliance on petty Middle Eastern dictators who are hated by their own people.
When the Republican right managed to install George Bush as President in 2000, the movement's leaders once again set about doing what they had attempted to do since the Reagan years: to eviscerate the infrastructure of laws and regulations that protect the environment. For 25 years it has been like the zombie that keeps coming back from the grave.
The attacks began on Inauguration Day, when Bush's chief of staff and former General Motors lobbyist Andrew Card quietly initiated a moratorium on all recently adopted regulations. Since then, the White House has enlisted every federal agency that oversees environmental programmes in a co-ordinated effort to relax rules aimed at the oil, coal, logging, mining and chemical industries as well as car-makers, real-estate developers, corporate agribusiness and other industries.
This onslaught is being co-ordinated through the White House Office of Management and Budget - or, more precisely, OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, under the direction of John Graham, the engine-room mechanic of the Bush stealth strategy. Graham's speciality is promoting changes in scientific and economic assumptions that underlie regulation - such as recalculating cost-benefit analyses to favour polluters. Before the White House, Graham was founding director of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, where he received funding from America's champion corporate polluters: Dow Chemical, DuPont, Monsanto, Alcoa, Exxon, General Electric and General Motors.
Penalties imposed for environmental violations have plummeted under Bush. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed eliminating 270 enforcement staffers, which would reduce staff levels to the lowest ever. Inspections of polluting businesses have dipped by 15 per cent. Criminal cases referred for federal prosecution have dropped by 40 per cent.
The EPA measures its success by the amount of pollution reduced or prevented as a result of its own actions. Last year, the EPA's two most senior career enforcement officials resigned after decades of service. They cited the administration's refusal to carry out environmental laws.
The White House has masked its attacks with euphemisms that would have embarrassed George Orwell. George Bush's "Healthy Forests" initiative promotes destructive logging of old-growth forests. His "Clear Skies" programme, which repealed key provisions of the Clean Air Act, allows more emissions. The administration uses misleading code words, such as streamlining or reforming instead of weakening, and thinning instead of logging.
Bush seems to be trying to take us all the way back to the Dark Ages by undermining the very principles of our environmental rights, which civilised nations have always recognised. Clean-air laws in England, passed in the 14th century, made it a capital offence to burn coal in London, and violators were executed for the crime. These "public trust" rights to unspoiled air, water and wildlife descended to the people of the United States after the American Revolution. Until 1870, a factory releasing even small amounts of smoke on to public or private property was operating illegally.
But during the Gilded Age, when the corporate robber barons captured the political and judicial systems, those rights were stolen from the American people. As the Industrial Revolution morphed into the postwar industrial boom, Americans found themselves paying a high price for the resulting pollution. The wake-up call came in the late Sixties, when Lake Erie was declared dead and Cleveland's Cuyahoga River exploded in colossal infernos.
In 1970, more than 20 million Americans took to the streets protesting about the state of the environment on the first Earth Day. Whether they knew it or not, they were demanding a return of ancient rights. During the next few years, Congress passed 28 major environmental statutes, including the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, and it created the Environmental Protection Agency to apply and enforce these new laws.
Earth Day caught polluters off guard. But in the next 30 years, they mounted an increasingly sophisticated and aggressive counterattack to undermine these laws. The Bush administration is a culmination of their three-decade campaign.
In 1980, the candidate Ronald Reagan declared: "I am a Sagebrush Rebel," marking a major turning point of the modern anti-environmental movement. In the early 1980s, the Western extractive industries, led by one of Colorado's worst polluters, the brewer Joseph Coors, organised the Sagebrush Rebellion, a coalition of industry money and right-wing ideologues that helped to elect Reagan president.
The big polluters who started the Sagebrush Rebellion were successful because they managed to broaden their constituency with anti-regulatory, anti-labour and anti-environmental rhetoric that had great appeal both among Christian fundamentalist leaders such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, and in certain western communities where hostility to government is deeply rooted.
Coors founded the Mountain States Legal Foundation in 1976 to bring lawsuits designed to enrich giant corporations, limit civil rights and attack unions, homosexuals and minorities. He also founded the right-wing Heritage Foundation to provide a philosophical underpinning for the anti-environmental movement.
From its conception, the Heritage Foundation and its neoconservative cronies urged followers to "strangle the environmental movement," which Heritage named "the greatest single threat to the American economy". Ronald Reagan's victory gave the Heritage Foundation and the Mountain States Legal Foundation immeasurable clout. Heritage became known as Reagan's "shadow government" and its 2,000-page manifesto, "Mandate for Change," became a blueprint for his administration.
Coors handpicked his Colorado associates: Anne Gorsuch became the EPA administrator; her husband, Robert Burford, a cattle baron who had vowed to destroy the Bureau of Land Management, was selected to head that very agency. Most notoriously, Coors chose James Watt, the president of the Mountain States Legal Foundation, as the Secretary of the Interior. Watt was a proponent of "dominion theology," an authoritarian Christian heresy that advocates man's duty to "subdue" nature. His deep faith in laissez-faire capitalism and apocalyptic Christianity led Watt to set about dismantling his department and distributing its assets rather than managing them for future generations. During a Senate hearing, he cited the approaching Apocalypse to explain why he was giving away America's sacred places at fire-sale prices: "I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns."
Meanwhile, Anne Gorsuch gutted the EPA's budget by 60 per cent, crippling its ability to write regulations or enforce the law. She appointed lobbyists fresh from their stints in paper, asbestos, chemical and oil companies to run each of the principal agency departments. Her chief counsel was an Exxon lawyer; her head of enforcement was from General Motors.
These attacks on the environment precipitated a public revolt. By 1983, more than a million Americans and all 125 American-Indian tribes had signed a petition demanding Watt's removal. After being forced out of office, Watt was indicted on 25 felony counts of influence-peddling. Gorsuch and 23 of her cronies were forced to resign following a congressional investigation of sweetheart deals with polluters, including Coors. Her first deputy, Rita Lavelle, was jailed for perjury. The indictments and resignations put a temporary damper on the Sagebrush Rebels, but they quickly regrouped as the "Wise Use" movement. The Wise Use founder, the timber-industry spokesman Ron Arnold, said: "Our goal is to destroy, to eradicate the environmental movement. We want to be able to exploit the environment for private gain, absolutely."
By 1994, Wise Use helped to propel Newt Gingrich to the Speaker's chair of the House of Representatives and turn his anti-environmental manifesto, "The Contract with America," into law. Gingrich's chief of environmental policy was Tom DeLay, the one-time Houston exterminator who was determined to rid the world of pesky pesticide regulations and to promote a biblical world-view. He targeted the Endangered Species Act as the second-greatest threat to Texas after illegal aliens.
Gingrich and DeLay had learnt from the James Watt débâcle that they had to conceal their radical agenda. Carefully eschewing public debates on their initiatives, they mounted a stealth attack on America's environmental laws. Rather than pursue a frontal assault against popular statutes, such as the Endangered Species, Clean Water and Clean Air acts, they tried to undermine these laws by attaching silent riders to must-pass budget bills.
But the public got wise. Moderate Republicans teamed up with the Clinton administration to block the worst of it. My group, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), as well as the Sierra Club and the US Public Interest Research Group, generated more than one million letters to Congress. When President Clinton shut down the government in December 1995 rather than pass a budget bill spangled with anti-environmental riders, the tide turned against Gingrich and DeLay. By the end of that month, even conservatives disavowed the attack. "We lost the battle on the environment," DeLay conceded.
Today, with the presidency and both houses of Congress under the anti-environmentalists' control, they are set to eviscerate the despised laws. White House strategy is to promote its unpopular policies by lying about its agenda, cheating on the science and stealing the language and rhetoric of the environmental movement.
Even as the pollster Luntz acknowledged that the scientific evidence is against the Republicans on issues like global warming, he advised them to find scientists willing to hoodwink the public. "You need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue," he told Republicans, "by becoming even more active in recruiting experts sympathetic to your view."
In autumn 2001, the Interior Secretary, Gale Norton, provided the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources with her agency's scientific assessment that Arctic oil-drilling would not harm hundreds of thousands of caribou. Not long afterwards, Fish and Wildlife Service biologists contacted the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which defends scientists and other professionals working in state and federal environmental agencies. "The scientists provided us the science that they had submitted to Norton and the altered version that she had given to Congress a week later," said the group's executive director, Jeff Ruch. There were 17 major substantive changes, all of them minimising the reported impacts. When Norton was asked about the alterations in October 2001, she dismissed them as typographical errors.
There is no scientific debate in which the White House has cooked the books more than that of global warming. The Bush administration has altered, suppressed or attempted to discredit close to a dozen major reports on the subject. These include a 10-year study by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), commissioned by the President's father in 1993 in his own efforts to dodge what was already a virtual scientific consensus blaming industrial emissions for global warming.
After disavowing the Kyoto protocol, the Bush administration commissioned the federal government's National Academy of Sciences to find holes in the IPCC's analysis. But this ploy backfired. The NAS not only confirmed the existence of global warming and its connection to industrial greenhouse gases; it also predicted that the effects of climate change would be worse than previously believed, estimating that global temperatures will rise by between 2.5F and 10.4F by 2100.
In July this year, EPA scientists leaked a study, which the agency had ordered suppressed in May, showing that a Senate plan co-sponsored by Republican Senator John McCain to reduce the pollution that causes global warming could achieve its goal at very small cost. Bush reacted by launching a $100m 10-year effort to prove that global temperature changes have, in fact, occurred naturally another delay tactic for the fossil-fuel barons.
There is no better example of the corporate cronyism now hijacking American democracy than the White House's cozy relationship with the energy industry. The energy industry contributed more than $48m to Republicans in the 2000 election cycle, with $3m to George Bush. Both Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney came out of the oil patch. Thirty-one of the Bush transition team's 48 members had energy-industry ties. Bush's cabinet and White House staff is an energy-industry dream team four cabinet secretaries, the six most powerful White House officials and more than 20 high-level appointees are alumni of the industry and its allies.
Days after his inauguration, Bush launched the National Energy Policy Development Group, chaired by Cheney. For three months, the task force held closed-door meetings with energy-industry representatives then refused to disclose the names of the participants.
For the first time in history, the nonpartisan General Accounting Office sued the executive branch, for access to these records. The NRDC put in a Freedom of Information Act request, and when Cheney did not respond, we also sued. On 21 February 2002, under a court order, the NRDC obtained some 20,000 documents. Although none of the logs on the Vice-President's meetings have been released yet and the pages were heavily redacted to prevent disclosure of useful information, the documents still allow glimpses of the process.
In the winter and spring of 2001, executives and lobbyists from the oil, coal, electric-utility and nuclear industries tramped in and out of the cabinet room and Cheney's office. Many of the lobbyists had just left posts inside Bush's presidential campaign to work for companies that had donated lavishly to that effort. Companies that made large contributions were given special access. Executives from Enron Corp, which contributed $2.5m to the Republicans from 1999 to 2002, had contact with the task force at least 10 times, including six face-to-face meetings between top officials and Cheney.
After one meeting with the Enron chief executive Kenneth Lay, Cheney dismissed California Governor Gray Davis's request to cap the state's energy prices. That denial would enrich Enron and nearly bankrupt California. It has since emerged that the state's energy crisis was largely engineered by Enron. According to The New York Times, the task-force staff circulated a memo that suggested "utilising" the crisis to justify expanded oil and gas drilling. President Bush and others would cite the California crisis to call for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
When it was suggested that access to the administration was for sale, Cheney hardly apologised. "Just because somebody makes a campaign contribution doesn't mean that they should be denied the opportunity to express their view to government officials," he said.
The energy task-force plan is a $20bn subsidy to the oil, coal and nuclear industries, which are already swimming in record revenues. In May this year, as the House passed the plan and as the rest of the nation stagnated in a recession abetted by high oil prices, Exxon announced that its profits had tripled from the previous quarter's record earnings. The energy plan recommends opening protected lands and waters to oil and gas drilling and building up to 1,900 electricity power-plants. National treasures such as the California and Florida coasts, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the areas around Yellowstone Park will be opened for plunder for the trivial amounts of fossil fuels they contain. While increasing reliance on oil, coal and nuclear power, the plan cuts the budget for research into energy efficiency and alternative power sources by nearly a third. "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue," Cheney explained, but it should not be the basis of "comprehensive energy policy".
On 27 August last year while most of America was heading off for a Labor Day weekend the administration announced that it would redefine carbon dioxide, the primary cause of global warming, so that it would no longer be considered a pollutant and would therefore not be subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. The next day, the White House repealed the act's "new source review" provision, which requires companies to modernise pollution control when they modify their plants.
According to the National Academy of Sciences, the White House rollback will cause 30,000 Americans to die prematurely each year. Although the regulation will probably be reversed in the courts, the damage will have been done, and power utilities such as Southern Co will escape criminal prosecution. As soon as the new regulations were announced, John Pemberton, the chief of staff to the EPA's assistant administrator for air, left to work for Southern.
On 30 August this year, President Bush nominated Utah's three-term Republican Governor Mike Leavitt to replace his beleaguered EPA head, Christine Todd Whitman, who was driven from office, humiliated in even her paltry efforts to moderate the pillage. In October, Leavitt was confirmed by the Senate.
Like Gale Norton, Leavitt has a winning personality and a disastrous environmental record. Under his leadership, Utah tied for last as the state with the worst environmental enforcement record and ranked second-worst (behind Texas) for both air quality and toxic releases.
I was taught that communism leads to dictatorship and capitalism to democracy. But as we've seen from the Bush administration, the latter proposition does not always hold. While free markets tend to democratise a society, unfettered capitalism leads invariably to corporate control of government. Corporate capitalists do not want free markets, they want dependable profits, and their surest route is to crush competition by controlling government. The rise of fascism across Europe in the 1930s offers many lessons on how corporate power can undermine a democracy.Mussolini complained that "fascism should really be called 'corporatism'".
Today, George Bush and his court are treating our country as a grab bag for the robber barons, doling out the commons to large polluters. Last year, as the calamitous rollbacks multiplied, the corporate-owned TV networks devoted less than 4 per cent of their news minutes to environmental stories. If they knew the truth, most Americans would share my fury that this president is allowing his corporate cronies to steal America from our children.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Sore Throat on 12-05-2003] |
| |
|
|
Deborah
Joined: 30 Jul 2000
Posts: 731
Location: East Coast |
|
Fri Dec 05, 2003 6:58 am
|
|
|
Show-me Truth wrote:
.....I think a big group of people that are worried are Industry themselves. Insurance sees a HUGE potential for loss from even Regional instabiltiy, or inversely a HUGE savings by being able to control the climate. Big Agriculture as well.....
YES. |
| |
|
|
Deborah
Joined: 30 Jul 2000
Posts: 731
Location: East Coast |
|
Fri Dec 05, 2003 7:21 am
|
|
|
Sore Throat wrote [in response to Senor Ferreyra]:
.....I suppose it would be risky to suggest that this was a reflection of a compensation issue...
...but then, what the hell.
It seems that many on this planet are choosing to live dangerously.....
I don't post much from my heart on these boards anymore for obvious reasons but I'm going to do it now:
I would add that not only are many on this planet "choosing to live dangerously", but they are choosing for the rest of us - and for those coming up behind us - our children.
This is what makes me crazy - and, believe me, I do realize that the best researchers in the field don't know *exactly* what we are up against [and say so] and that none of us really know *exactly* [and don't pretend to.]
However, it's becoming more obvious with each passing year that the integrity of our interdependent life-support systems is slowly decompensating - and that this is, in fact, an actual trend - and that this trend is, in no insignificant part, directly related to the cumulative effects of 100 years of synthetic air, water and soil pollution - and is, in that regard, a therefore unprecedented situation in human history.
I do not think it is unreasonable, let alone "neurotic", to be actively concerned about the direction in which we are going. |
| |
|
|
Edufer
Joined: 14 Nov 2003
Posts: 198
Location: Malagueno, Cordoba, Argentina |
|
Fri Dec 05, 2003 9:07 pm
|
|
|
Deborah said:
quote:
Robert Kennedy Jr. :”… According to the National Academy of Sciences, the White House rollback will cause 30,000 Americans to die prematurely each year.”
it was a NAS press release? Based on what study? Or just the opinion from the political branch of the NAS? But this presumed claim by the NAS is not shared by many other good scientists.
And look who's quoting the NAS: Bobby Kennedy Jr., the little watermelon that will go to any lenghts to discredit anything G. Bush does. I, myself, think G. Bush, as his father, rank among the worst presidents the US ever had, almost as bad as Jimmy Carter. Not for what they did to the US, but what they did to the rest of the world. I also believe that the only good thing Bush did was opposing to the Kyoto treaty. But my bad opinion on other matters are still in ggod health.
But going back to the alleged NAS claim, it is not shared at all by Dr. Richard Lindzen, famous climatologist, member of the National Academy of Sciences panel that wrote the scientific chapters for the IPCC Third Report. He not only disagrees on the human influence on climate, he claims the warming – if any – will be highly beneficial for mankind, crops will increase yields, crop fields will extend farther north, and much more.
He disagrees with the claims on increase of tropical diseases, storms, droughts, floods, and all the green litany. It did not happen during the Medieval Warm Period (called the Climatic OPTIMUM, by climatologists – before the global warming hype). Sore Throat would say Lindzen is another solitary voice in the emptiness. But then we've found that the number of all these solitary voices have grown to an alarming size, and the first “solitaries” are no longer alone, out in the cold – as you say I am. There is a crowd there. And what's worse (for the greens) this is a crowd of respected scientists. An worse yet, governments are listening to what they say.
People has gotten tired of waiting for all the catastrophes prophesized 20 years ago to show up – and nothing happened. The US population did not starve by 1990, as prophesized by Guru Paul Ehrlich. Nor the world starved to death by 2000, as he extended the deadline 10 more years. Now they take the deadline 50 years to the front. They think we are stupid, of course. The Chicken Little Crowd see their business is dying too fast. They are worried. We are not. |
| |
|
|
Edufer
Joined: 14 Nov 2003
Posts: 198
Location: Malagueno, Cordoba, Argentina |
|
Fri Dec 05, 2003 9:13 pm
|
|
|
quote:
Sore Throat. “It seems that many on this planet are choosing to live dangerously.” And Deborah: “I would add that not only are many on this planet "choosing to live dangerously", but they are choosing for the rest of us - and for those coming up behind us - our children.
You are both right here. But there are two sides in this issue: those who see a half empty glass, and those who see a half full glass. The former have a negative view of things, the latter, a positive view of live. We, skeptics of the warming catastrophe, see the glass half full. “Living dangerously” has been what made mankind descend from the trees and start walking in an upright posture: they needed to see farther, above the level of the high grass, in order to see where they were heading and see if there was some danger or enemies ahead.
We became used to live dangerously, the world was conquered by the fearless. The timid and cowards were left behind to starve and die. Those who live in fear are not living - they are agonizing, and I can feel the agony you are going through when I read your posts.
The Green movement has chosen to live in fear and horror, and have chosen for the rest of us that we must follow them and live in agony, fearing the imminent fall of the sky on our heads. “The sky is falling!” – cried Chicken Little. And has been crying that for thousands of years now. Isn’t he going to get tired of doing it? No way! There always be cowards that live afraid of their own shadows.
The trouble – for the rest of us – is that they have gained political and economic power and have been taking decisions for too many years, trying to slow down progress and development – in behalf of a small number of powerful groups that like to play God.
quote:
Quite a mighty list of miscreants that SEÑOR Ferreyra has demonized ...most quite well known: NASA, NOAA, National Academy of Sciences, US Environmental Protection Agency, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, British Antarctic Survey, Nobel Prize winners
Sore Throat is wrong, as usual. Those marked in red have not been “demonized” by me, as I have not demonized the rest. I don’t believe in the Devil, or associate demons. I believe that some “scientists” in those institutions are playing their own game, in their own personal interest, and in the interest of higher powers.
I have criticized, not the National Academy of Sciences, but the political staff there, not scientists but lawyers and public relations experts. How can I demonize an Institution that has a branch to which I belong? I show next an email received just minutes ago:
From: AAAS Member Services
To: shuara@fullzero.com.ar
Date: Viernes, 05 de Diciembre de 2003 02:51 p.m.
Subject. 2004 AAAS Annual Meeting
AAAS Annual Meeting
12-16 February, 2004
Seattle, Washington
4 December 2003
Dear Colleague:
I invite you to learn firsthand about the latest innovations in science, technology and engineering that impact the lives of people around the world by registering for the 2004 AAAS Annual Meeting in Seattle.
Advance registration ends 16 January and AAAS members are eligible for special rates. Rates for students, both members and non-members, are greatly reduced. If you have not already registered, please go to http://www.aaas.org/meetings for details.
Unfortunately, I cannot attend the meeting, as I would have liked to do. There are not industries and polluters that would pay me a cent for going there. Darn it!
The article that Sore Throat linked us to (It's official, global warming does exist, says Bush) is a tragic example of how misinformation works. It is a clear distortion of facts made by dishonest journalists. Judge for yourselves. I highlight the important things from the British The Guardian –green newspaper if there is one….
"In an extraordinarily secretive manoeuvre, the Bush administration has subtly altered its position on global warming, … A government report to the UN says that global warming exists, that it is man-made, and that it will transform the environment - all points that the current US government, while never actually denying, has been reluctant to accept. … The new attitude was signalled in the US climate action report, which was published last week on the government's environmental protection administration website, http://www.epa.gov.
Well, well, well… So it was not Bush, or the Dept. of State, or any Secretary or Under Secretary, or even a White House spokesman who gave the report.
It was the EPA!.
And to put the cherry on top, they provide this at the bottom of the article:
Useful links
UN framework convention on climate change
Greenpeace
Friends of the earth
The Show must go on!
Sore Throat pointed us to another nice link. See it:
quote:
Climate change laid to humans
Report warns there's 'no doubt' industry is primary cause)
"That's their assertion," Mahoney said. "They are extremely competent, and there are many in the climate community who would agree with them. That's not surprising, but there are many others who would disagree with them. My own view is somewhat more open-minded, and from my perspective we don't really understand these things as well as we might.''
No one disputes that there has been a sharp rise in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere during the past decades, Mahoney said, "but there remains disagreement about just how severe its impact has been."
As to the grim future that Karl and Trenberth see as a result of global warming, "I do challenge them on that," Mahoney said, "because all future projections are based on many, many models of how the atmosphere behaves, and I think a number of skeptical scientists would also challenge them."
He should have said that models have been proved flawed, unrealistic and not dependable when it comes to predicting future climate. Mankind cannot trust fairy tales when it comes to decide its future.
[Edited 4 times, lastly by Edufer on 12-05-2003] |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Thu May 24, 2012 3:21 am
|
|
|
|
|
Login
