|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
Scientists claim nothing will stop climate change
 Mon Nov 13, 2000 2:46 am
|
 |
|
http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2000/11/12/stifgneur01006.html
Scientists claim nothing will stop climate change
Jonathan Leake and Guy Dennis
SCIENTISTS have warned thousands of government officials and politicians gathering for international climate talks in the Hague that the rise in global temperatures is irreversible, and that the best they can hope for is to slow it down by a fraction of a degree.
Their research shows that even if delegates implement all the proposals before them in full, this will cut only about six-hundredths of a degree from a temperature rise that could be as much as 5C by 2100.
The warning comes from researchers at the Hadley Centre, the British Meteorological Office's climate change prediction centre, who will present the results in the Hague next week.
The aim of the talks is to find ways to implement the agreement in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997 under which developed countries would reduce emissions of gases, mainly carbon dioxide, to 5.2% below 1990 levels by 2012.
Geoff Jenkins, head of the Hadley Centre, said: "This has to be seen as just the first stage. If we want to minimise global warming we have to achieve emission cuts of 60% or more within the next few decades."
The centre's research shows that even with 60% cuts, the rise in temperatures will not be halted but could be restricted to only about 2C by 2100. This would cause a sea level rise of about 30cm.
However, with cuts of just 5.2%, temperatures would rise by up to 5C and sea levels would rise more than 60cm, flooding many low-lying areas.
The obstacles facing even a 5.2% reduction are huge. This weekend Michael Meacher, the environment minister, said the key was to persuade America to cut its emissions. "The US has just 5% of the world's population but it emits a quarter of all the gases," he said.
Meacher and others are worried that America favours emissions-trading, under which countries would get quotas for emitting gases which could be sold on the open market. It could then buy the right to emit gases without making real cuts.
Britain has led the way in climate change negotiations. At Kyoto it volunteered to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20% from 1990 levels by 2010.
Meacher and John Prescott, the deputy prime minister, will propose a tough regime to force every developed country to make real cuts and promote renewable energy sources.
The rise in temperatures has led to increasingly unpredictable weather. Last Christmas Eve a storm hit northern France, killing scores of people and ripping up more than 400,000 trees. Recently towns and cities across Britain have been hit by flooding.
This weekend residents in Sussex were again bracing themselves for severe floods.Ray Kemp, of the Environment Agency, said the critical time would be between midnight last night and this morning, with up to 25mm of rain expected in some places.
|
| |
|
|
theseeker
Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim |
|
Mon Nov 13, 2000 3:05 am
|
|
|
I guess throat, life (for all things) eventually ends in death......
>Britian leading in promises to cut emission<...of coursae they would, tony blair's a communist !
Emissions = prosperity, throat...
Your gas is high now, what if you had to pay 400.00 a month to keep your house at 70 degrees year round ? Or if they tax you, say 15.00 for everyday day the temperature gets over 100 degrees....
Think about it....green....
------------------
T/S |
| |
|
|
nodebbunker
Joined: 01 Nov 2000
Posts: 200
Location: Indiana USA |
|
Mon Nov 13, 2000 6:33 am
|
|
|
Green is part of the scheme. I heard someone say a few years ago that when they control our food and medicine, they'll control us. Well, they already have control of medicine - tried to buy a prescription lately without insurance? And those of us with insurance pay a hefty price as the benefits get less and less. When they have total control of the environment, telling us what we can and can't grow, how and when, they will have control of our food. The large corporations will only be able to afford to grow the food and the price will be passed down to the consumer.
The domino effect on every aspect of our lives will be devastating if that treaty goes through. And with just about every other treaty, embargo etc, the good ol' USA holds up their end of the deal while the rest of the world walks all over us. China and Russia especially just do whatever they darn well please - the Kyoto Treaty, if ratified won't be any different.
Edited for this addition: http://www.sitewave.net/PPROJECT/s33p37.htm
[Edited 1 times, lastly by nodebbunker on 11-13-2000] |
| |
|
|
Norrin Radd
Joined: 04 Nov 2000
Posts: 90
|
|
Mon Nov 13, 2000 6:08 pm
|
|
|
DID YOU SAY......CONTROL OUR FOOD? tHE LAST LINE IN THE FIRST PIECE IS A KEY....
HOW MANY FARMS? @griculture Online, 17 Oct 1999
The recently published 1997 Census of Agriculture is already out of date, says Iowa State University Extension Public Policy Economist Mark A. Edelman. In the 2 years since the data were gathered, a lot has happened. How many farms are left in the USA? It depends on the definition, Edelman says. If you define a farm as having at least $50,000 in gross agricultural sales, then 1.4 million of the 1.9 million farms counted in the census can be considered part-time or hobby farms. This means that only about half a million farms are considered full-time and commercial farms. Further, just 3.6% of all the farms in the U.S. account for 56.6% of agricultural sales.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST THREATENS GMO STUDY New York Times, 16 August 1999
The executive officer of the National Academy of Science said that Mike Phillips, director of the Board on Agriculture, acted unethically when he did not tell the academy until a few days before leaving that he had accepted a position with a biotechnology trade organization. Fuel was added to the fire by Dr. Phillips "directing" a study on bioengineered crops, angering environmental scientists who fear the study will be biased toward the industry. Some had thought that the study panel was already weighted toward industry, and with the additional questions about Dr. Phillips wonder if the report will be fair.
PROFITS V. HEALTHY CHILDREN. . Washington Post, All Things Considered, 2 August 1999.
Yesterday the EPA announced restrictions on the uses methyl parathion and nobody on the ag or environmental side is very happy and before restrictions were announced the first lawsuit was promised. Farm groups say the decision to restrict pesticide use are based on politics and junk science; environmental groups say the decision to restrict pesticide use are based on politics and disregard for childrens' health. A NRDC attorney said, "...the agricultural and chemical industries have won the battle over implementation of pesticide law." The crop protection trade association said, "...the agency has struggled mightily and done good work, there will some pain but we will survive."
FAMILY FARMERS DOWN BUT NOT OUT Economist, 31 Aug. 1999
FAMILY FARMERS DOWN BUT NOT OUT. Economist. 31 Aug. 1999. Low prices for grain and livestock are causing a gloomy outlook on the farm in much of the U.S., but so far the crisis of the 90s has not reached the depth of the crisis of the 80s. In the 1980s, the number of farms lost was 250 000; there is hope that the number of farms lost in the current crisis will be less. Today the average farm in the Midwest had a higher net worth at the beginning the crisis;debt service cost has stayed low and steady (so far) at about 6% of a farm's total production costs, compared with 14% in the 80s. However, bankers are still nervous; even though harvest has not started, they are asking farmers for next year's financial plan.
SHORT TAKES ABOUT AGRICULTURE @griculture Online, 27 August 1999
French Farm Minister Jean Glavany attacked US agribusinesses, including DuPont and Monsanto, telling a meeting of France's Green Party that US agribusinesses are trying to "flood the world with their products, genetically modified or not, and to spread their own agricultural and food model,".... Operating income from Swiss giant Novartis' agribusiness fell 40% in the first half of its fiscal year. Stock market analysts expressed disappointment that the company provided no new information about the future of its struggling agribusiness unit, according to Reuters.... Sapporo, the third largest brewery in Japan, says it will follow Kirin Brewery in switching to non-GMO corn for its beer. The brewery will contract with US producers to obtain non-GMO grain.
CONSUMER REPORTS HAS FINAL WORD ON GMOs Consumer Reports, September 1999
In an article called Seeds of Change, Consumer Reports delivers the verdict on GMOs, saying that there is no evidence that GMOs are dangerous to eat. Nevertheless, Consumer Reports has concerns. First, they believe that the regulatory system, with no one agency in control, is lax. Second, they believe that Bt crops as threatening to organic agriculture and that this problem is representative of a larger problem---that GMOs offer little benefit to the consumer. Last, they believe that too much money is being made too quickly, allowing the regulatory process to be overwhelmed, limiting critical thinking about the wisdom of these crops, and creating mega biotech companies. If you would like a copy of this report, send us your fax number and we will send to you---it's worthwhile a read.
A THEORY MAY BE ERODING Washington Post, 30 August 1999
Modern farming practices have been indicted for causing fertile topsoil to erode quickly. A new study in the August 20 issue of Science finds that this may not be the case. Stanley W. Trimble of the University of California at Los Angeles analyzed 140 years' worth of information about sediment in the Cook Creek River watershed and its tributaries in Wisconsin. Overall, soil erosion in the watershed has been steadily decreasing since the 1930s, and has dropped to just 6 percent of that reported for the Dust Bowl years. The findings indicate that recent efforts to stem soil erosion have been working. Some experts, however, questioned whether the Cook Creek area is representative of trends elsewhere in the country.
ENVIRO DEFECTION FROM GORE CAMP Washington Post, 14 Sept 1999
There is more GMO news today but Press Briefing is tired of covering it and so will bring it to you next week. Vice President Gore got a very unpleasant surprise when Friend of the Earth announced support for Bill Bradley. Friends has a relatively small membership of 30,000 and concentrates on international issues. The group is upset that Mr. Gore has back peddled on global warming and pesticide issues. No one knows if Mr. Gore will lose support of other larger environmental groups.
AG NOT GUILTY OF ATLANTIC SALMON DECLINE New York Times, 14 Sept 1999
According to recent estimates, the wild salmon population is in an accelerating downward spiral; some scientists say that the number of salmon returning to spawn in their native streams has reached an all-time low. "Something terrible is happening in the ocean," said Bill Taylor, the president of the Atlantic Salmon Federation. It is estimated that historically there were between 2.5 and 5 million of these brood salmon migrating between ocean feeding grounds and North American spawning rivers. By the mid-1970s, that figure had shrunk to 800 000; by 1991, to about 300 000; by 1996, to a little more than 125 000, and last year to a mere 80 000. While many spawning rivers have been ruined by pollution, dams and silty runoff from farms, and logged forests, experts say that there is still enough freshwater habitat on both sides of the Atlantic to produce reasonable numbers of young fish. But once in the ocean, it appears that proportionately fewer of these salmon are surviving to return to spawn in their natal rivers. Speculation as to possible causes of this decline include natural cycles, disease from farmed fish, and a warming climate.
GMOs LEAD THE SUNDAY POST Washington Post, 12 Sept 1999
bove the fold in Sunday's Post the headline reads, "Food War Claims Its Casualties." The story's first sentence tells of an industry in "panic" because of "escalating uncertainty over genetically engineered crops." The panic the paper said is caused by food companies refusing to purchase GMOs, in addition to ADM's recommendation that farmers segregate their gene altered crops. Farmers and the grain industry say that because of the large volume of grain handled in the short harvest season they are not capable of segregating the modified from the conventional grain. The American Corn Growers Association asserts that farmers were "misled" by multinational seed and chemical companies and other commodity associations that did not warn farmers of the risks of planting a crop that does not have consumer acceptance.
CONSOLIDATION IS A PROBLEM Associated Press, 8 September 1999
Senators Grassley (R-IA) and Harkin (D-IA) called a special hearing to discuss the consolidation occurring in many sectors of the farm economy. Iowa State University economist Neil Harl testified that not only do high-profile mergers cut into competition in the farm economy, they also place the keys to evolving technologies in the hands of fewer and fewer players. "The outcome would be a smaller share of the revenue from production going to the producer,'' Harl said. Other testimony said the Justice Department is only giving lip service to preventing mergers and monopolies. Harkin said he favors strengthening antitrust laws. Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN) wants to go a step further, and said, "there should be an end to mergers and consolidations among agribusinesses while lawmakers study revisions to antitrust laws."
FOLLOW THE BOUNCING GMO STORY New York Times, 8 Sept 1999
The New York Times continues to cover the GMO story just about everywhere except in the sports section. On 29 August, the front page of the Sunday paper headlined "New Trade Threat for U.S. Farmers," saying that consumers in growing numbers do not want genetically modified foods and that farmers face mounting pressure not to grow these crops. Two days later an op-ed piece appeared titled "Why Genetically Altered Food Won't Conquer Hunger." The article said that current GMOs do not increase yields, are risky, and that world hunger is a problem better solved by changes in society, not technology. Seven days later in the paper's Living section, a column titled "Genes Are Changed, but Not the Label" appeared. The story reviewed the Consumer Reports article about GMOs, with an interesting spin: "Because so few safety studies have been done, there is no evidence that genetically engineered food now on the market is unsafe to eat...but some scientists worry about the unknown."
BIG NEWS IN AGRI-BUSINESS @griculture Online, 3 Sept. 1999
Smithfield Foods, Inc., the world's largest pork producer and packer, Wednesday signed a letter of intent to acquire the nation's second largest hog production company, Murphy Family Farms. The deal means Smithfield would own 686,000 sows, roughly doubling its production capacity and increasing the company's level of vertical integration to 60%. The acquisition is scheduled to take effect January 1, 2000, pending regulatory approval. The CEO of Smithfield said,@ he expects the industry to continue consolidating and that Smithfield Foods will continue to lead that consolidation."...Land O'Lakes, Cenex Harvest States and Farmland are working on a joint venture that will distribute plant food and crop protection products to member cooperatives and other customers... Archer Daniels Midland Co. is warning grain suppliers in the Midwest they should begin segregating GMO crops from conventional crops, the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday. In an effort to placate anti-GMO consumers in Europe and Asia, ADM is faxing a statement to elevators urging them to prepare for different business next year. "This should be a wake-up call to the industry," an ADM spokesperson told the Wall Street Journal. In response, National Corn Growers Association promptly released a statement of its own. "This change in ADM's policy could mean for some growers that the 'Supermarket to the World' is now backing away from cashing that check," said Lynn Jensen, NCGA president-elect. It is unclear whether farmers would be paid a premium for separating grain or if they would simply face additional expenses.
TO USE, OR NOT TO USE AP, 27 Nov. 1999
Thailand and other smaller nations believe that they are being held hostage by the dispute between the USA and European Union over GMOs. The Thais worry that gene-altered products could contaminate their exports and close the doors to the EU market; they also fear that banning GMOs will alienate another important partner, the USA. "Labeling GMO food is sensitive, as it will affect import and export of food and raw materials," said Narong Chayakul, director of Thailand's Food and Drug Administration. "It's not an FDA issue alone. International trade measures must be taken into account." Commerce Minister Supachai Panitchpakdi, due to lead the WTO in 3 years, has banned imports of seed derived from GMOs for commercial aims, except for grain used in research or as animal feed. But serious doubts already exist about the country's ability to control the spread of GMOs. Reports from the countryside say that Bt cotton is being widely used despite the ban.
SENATE REJECTS MORATORIUM ON AG MERGERS NASDA News, 19 Nov. 1999
The Senate this week defeated a proposal that would have imposed an 18-month moratorium on agribusiness mergers and acquisitions. The measure was offered by Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.) during debate on Bankruptcy Reform legislation (S.625). Wellstone has tied up numerous bills in an ongoing effort to force the Senate to address the problem of concentration in agriculture. Specifically, his amendment would have imposed a moratorium on mergers and acquisitions among agribusinesses with annual net revenue or assets of more than $100 million for one party and $10 million for the other. The Senate rejected the amendment in a 71 to 27 vote. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) was the only Republican to vote for the moratorium saying he wanted to send a message to the Justice Department to study mergers.
NOVARTIS AND MONSANTO SETTLE @griculture Online, 15 Nov. 1999
Novartis Seeds and Monsanto today announced an agreement to settle all pending lawsuits between the companies. The legal actions involve contractual and intellectual property rights issues regarding Bt corn, specifically Novartis NK® Brand YieldGard corn and Novartis NK Brand Knockout corn. The settlement gives Novartis licenses for future sales of Bt corn, and glufosinate resistance in corn. Novartis also agreed to a license payment for past sales of NK Brand Knockout corn while Monsanto agreed to grant Novartis improved and simplified license terms and conditions for Bt corn. Specific financial details were not disclosed.
BIOTECH INDUSTRY RESPONDS TO CRITICS New York Times, 12 Nov. 1999
Above the fold and on the front page of the Times the headline is, "Biotech Companies Take On Critics of Gene-Altered Food." The paper reports that Dupont, Novartis, Monsanto, and others have formed an industry-wide alliance to fight what they believe has been an ugly campaign to vilify GMOs. The CEO of Novartis Seeds, Ed Shonsey, said, "The protest industry has gone too far. They've crossed the boundaries of reasonableness and now it's up to us to protect and defend biotechnology." The companies are said to have pooled tens of millions of dollars and hired three public relations firms to prepare a global advertising campaign. Jeremy Rifkin, a chief critic of GMOs and biotechnology in general, said that the campaign will back fire because the more information the companies put out, the more questions will be raised. Further, he said that these products are dangerous, not just a public relations problem. The full story can be seen on 12 Nov. only at http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/111299sci-biotech-gm.html.
THIS SHOULDN'T SURPRISE YOU @griculture Online, 10 Sept 1999
Strategic Diagnostics is one company making a profit because of the GMO debate. They sell an inexpensive test used by grain elevators to detect genetically altered soybeans; this test is a "rapidly increasing source of revenue" the company said. The diagnostic test, which has been on the market since July, costs about $5.75 per test. The test has come into play because elevators are paying a premium for non-GMO corn and beans destined for export. Reuters quoted one grain merchandiser in the northern Midwest as saying "Bids for non-GMO cash soybeans are generally structured at about a 10-cent premium." DuPont's non-GMO Synchrony Tolerant Soybeans (STS) are earning a 20 to 30 cent per bushel premium at Consolidated Grain and Barge Co.
WHAT DOES "ORGANIC" MEAN? Wall Street Journal, 7 March 2000
WSJ reports on what the Agriculture Department says that organic food is not: there can be no trace of biotechnology, irradiation, or sewage sludge. According to press reports, the rules will categorize descriptions of organic foods on the basis of content that is 100% organic, 95%, 50 to 90%, and under 50%. That's settled then.
SHORT TAKES @griculture Online, 11 Feb. 2000
American Home Products plans to divest its crop protection unit, Cyanamid Agricultural Products, by year's-end....Monsanto's fourth-quarter operating profits more than quadrupled, matching analysts' forecasts, with the company crediting "strong performances" from agriculture and pharmaceutical businesses...AgriBioTech, which recently announced bankruptcy proceedings, says it has begun exploring the sale of "non-strategic assets"...Farmers in Saskatchewan began a sit-in protest at the provincial legislature... More than 200 farmers from across Saskatchewan showed up at the provincial capital building with sleeping bags in hand. On Monday, farmer representatives met with the province ag minister and premier to discuss compensation for farmers facing dire commodity prices, but talks collapsed. The farmers then invaded the legislature and began the protest.
WSJ RANT AGAINST GMO PROTOCOL Wall Street Journal, 10 Feb. 2000
A Wall Street Journal editorial said, "What wimps. That may well be the verdict future historians deliver on the human race at the dawn of the third millennium...Nowadays, if you believe the propaganda of European governments and radical environmentalists, flabby couch potatoes are panicked at the thought their potato chips might be made with oil from genetically modified soybeans... So great is that threat, apparently, that representatives of over 130 of the world's governments recently convened in Montreal to draft something called the Biosafety Protocol. The agreement requires shipments of food products that "may contain" genetically modified organisms to be labeled as such...The precautionary "principle" is an environmentalist neologism, invoked to trump scientific evidence and move directly to banning things they don't like--biotech, wireless technology, hydrocarbon emissions. In other words, science got in their way, so they shoved it aside...the benefits of vitamin-A rice will probably be small potatoes compared to much else to come--if only we have the courage to let it."
VERY EYE CATCHING: CRIMES AGAINST THE SOIL New York Times, 7 Feb. 2000
A full-page advertisement caught Press Briefing's eye with the lead in huge type, "Crimes against the soil, the air & the water: The conversion from family farms to factory farming is bring ecological catastrophe." The ad was fourth in a series of full-page ads in the Times sponsored by the Turning Point Project on industrial agriculture. From the ad, you learn that an inch of topsoil is created in 500 to 1000 years, pesticides kills all soil life, farmers must use commercial fertilizer because pesticides stop nutrient cycling, if any pesticide moves into the groundwater it becomes undrinkable, and forget about swimming in surface water with pesticide contamination, and biotechnology is creating a global suicide plant. Thinking about the average Times reader with a cup of coffee and a bagel, this is a very persuasive ad about agriculture. You can check out the series of ads as they appear in the Times at www.turnpoint.org.
TUDY SAYS PREPARE FOR THE WORST New York Times, 8 Feb. 2000
A report in Nature says to expect a "megadrought" in Africa in the next 50 to 100 years. Researchers base their conclusion on examination of lake bed sediments that show extended periods of droughts that are much longer than have occurred in recorded weather history. Lake bed core samples were analyzed for three types of indicators of moisture: varying kinds of soils, the pattern of different species of algae (some thrive in low, saltier water, others in high, fresher water), and patterns of different species of tiny insects called midges, which are also sensitive to salinity. Researchers found that over the last millennium, the region experienced a constant succession of wet and dry periods. They suggest that one way to prepare for a coming megadrought, would be to switch to drought-resistant crops and reduce dependence on irrigation which requires large quantities of water. The study said that the effect on rainfall of global warming will probably be small in comparison with the natural variations revealed by the geologic record. Full story can be found today only at www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/national/index-science.html.
WILL FOOD PROCESSORS STAY UNIFIED ON GMOs Washington Post, 6 Feb. 2000
Food companies believe, insiders say, that biotechnology is key to future profits, with foods to be engineered to lower cholesterol or for other health-boasting benefits. This belief has pressured U.S. companies to maintain their support for biotechnology. So far, only baby food companies and Frito-Lay have said they will not use GMOs. The rest of U.S. food processors have said that GMOs are safe and see no sign that consumers are worried. But the Frito decision caught much of the industry off guard and has rattled Frito's competitors who fear its products might have a GMO-free label. This is unlikely because Frito would probably use oil made with some GMOs; it would then be difficult for them to guarantee GMO-free products. The company said it has no plans use such a label. Not surprisingly, Greenpeace said that the Frito decision to back away from GMOs is the start of a trend.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PRESIDENT Washington Post, 4 Feb. 2000
President Clinton has announced two major proposals to address global environmental issues. Yesterday, the White House unveiled proposals for $4 billion in spending on combating global warming. That initiative included $2.4 billion on tax breaks to encourage energy-efficient technology and $1.7 billion for new research. Today the president will announce the $150 million "Greening the Globe" initiative that would represent the biggest increase in U.S. aid for rain forest conservation on record; last year Congress approved $80 million. Under the White House proposal, the biggest single chunk of money---about $100 million---would be channeled through the U.S. Agency for International Development for targeted programs in countries where rain forests are under assault. The spending would, for example, train new forest managers in Indonesia, the top producer of tropical timber, while helping Kenyan officials develop economic alternatives to logging, such as eco-tourism. The president's rain forest proposal drew rave reviews from Conservation International and World Wildlife Fund.
OWN WORST ENEMY New York Times, 17 Dec. 1999
Times' Columnist, Floyd Norris said the biggest enemy of the biotech industry may be the industry itself. Industry lobbyists were too successful in their effort to defeat labels for GMO-based foods. Because there are no labels, there was no effort to education consumers about the safety of the food. He said the industry's huge effort to sell the technology to farmers without a companion effort to sell it to the public was also a mistake. He concludes, "It would have been better if Monsanto and its competitiors had insisted, rather then resisted, putting labels on genetically modified products. Perhaps they could have portrayed the labels as indicating a superior product with environmental benefits. Instead they left the public education to the industry's foes."
RIFKIN FILES CONSPIRACY SUIT AGAINST MONSANTO New York Times, 15 Dec. 1999
A suit filed yesterday in Washington, DC, Federal District Court accuses Monsanto of rushing genetically engineered seeds to the marketplace without properly testing them for safety and of forming an international cartel that conspired to control the world's market in corn and soybean seeds. The initiator of the lawsuit is Jeremy Rifkin, the environmental activist who has repeatedly criticized biotech crops as potentially dangerous and likely to lead to "genetic pollution" and the creation of "superweeds" that could drastically alter the environment. The real force behind the suit is a coalition of environmental groups, including Greenpeace, that are serving as advisers in the case. They have put together a "dream team" of lawyers including attorneys that have pursued suits against Microsoft and Exxon. "We are extremely disappointed that the plaintiffs have filed a lawsuit without merit," said David Snively, an assistant general counsel at Monsanto. "We have complied with every part of the law and now we're dealing with lawyers who don't care about science and are trying to make a political statement."
REPORTS SAY WE ARE LOSING GROUND NASDA News, 13 Dec. 1999
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) announced that data from the National Resources Inventory (NRI) is available on its Web site at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/. The NRI, a statistical survey taken every 5 years, describes conditions and trends of soil, water, and related resources on the Nation's privately owned lands. Significant issues in the NRI include gain and loss of wetlands, loss of agricultural land to development, stabilization of soil erosion rates, and regional change in the demand for irrigation water. Each year 3 million acres of forest and agricultural land is lost, double that lost each year from 1982 to 1992. Despite gains in erosion control during the past 15 years, there has been no additional improvement in erosion control since 1995. Currently, nearly 2 billion tons of soil is eroding into waterways each year. Gross wetland losses have increased to 54 000 acres annually on land covered under agricultural wetland preservation efforts, like the Wetland Reserve Program. The figures show that the loss of farmland is not limited to major metropolitan areas---small and medium sized cities are affected also. States with the highest acreage conversion rates include California, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.
BRAZIL WANTS GMOs GONE @griculture Online, 10 Dec. 1999
The Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul plans to use a drug plant substitution program to encourage farmers to plow up genetically modified (GM) soybeans, Reuters reported. In treating GM soybeans like drug plants, the state will offer farmers a total of 10 million reais (US$5.37 million) in special low-interest loans if they destroy the soybeans, which are illegal throughout Brazil, and replant conventional varieties. "What we are telling them it is better to lose seedlings than lose their entire crop," said the state's agriculture secretary, Jose Hermeto Hoffmann. Roundup Ready soybeans account for about 8% of Brazil's upcoming 31.5 million ton crop and a third of production in Rio Grande do Sul, according to the Brazilian Association of Seed Producers.
GERMPLASM SUIT SETTLED Wall Street Journal, 20 Oct. 1999
Cargill and Monsanto announced today that they have reached an agreement resolving problems related to Monsanto's purchase of Cargill's international seed business, whichMonsanto acquired in 1998. Pioneer Hi-Bred later alleged that Cargill had wrongly obtained some Pioneer genetic material prior to the sale. Cargill admitted to problems in the way germplasm was acquired. "Both Cargill and Monsanto have thoroughly investigated the problem to ensure that any material that should not be for sale has been removed from our research program and the market. We deeply regret the situation and are pleased we have reached this agreement," said Fritz Corrigan, president of Cargill's Agriculture and Biosciences Group. Under the terms of the settlement, Monsanto and Pioneer will also exchange an undisclosed amount of cash and unspecified technology to resolve additional disputed claims. Pioneer said the settlement announced Wednesday doesn't resolve its pending litigation with Cargill, Dekalb Genetics Corp., and Asgrow Seed Co. LLC.
ACTIVISTS PLAN ASSAULT ON GMOS Wall Street Journal, 12 Oct. 1999
Activists from 12 countries met last week in upstate New York to establish a public relations campaign to gear U.S. public sentiment against GMO foods and selected corporate targets. The theme of the PR effort is that the biotech industry is treating people as "guinea pigs" because long-term safety studies have not been conducted. A participant at the New York meeting from India said, "The problems of the entire world have been created in the U.S., so we have to bring the issues back home." The activists also discussed class-action law suits for people suffering from "genetic pollution." These would follow up suits against FDA which are designed to force labeling of GMO foods. Another hot topic was fund raising---reaching out to mainstream foundations such as Ford and Rockefeller to back the anti GMO campaign.
CSSA–ASA MEMBER TESTIFIES IN HOUSE ON GMOs Washington Post, 7 Oct 1999
Excerpts below are the testimony by R. James Cook, at Washington State University, before the House Science subcommittee on basic research: "Genetic modification of plants for food, agriculture and the environment is nothing new. In the United States, for example, we grow some 200 different crops, nearly all of which were imported as alien species over the past two to three centuries and then genetically modified by plant breeding to make them more adapted to our farming conditions, resistant to local pests and diseases and accepted by U.S consumers and our foreign customers. . . .The use of plants as crops to produce food, fiber and other products has an amazing record of environmental safety. . . . I am not aware of a crop plant having become an invasive weed because of plant breeding. In fact, just the opposite occurs: through plant breeding and selection, wild plants with their tendency to be weeds are made into high-yielding crop plants increasingly more dependent for their survival on human nurturing. . . .Of the risks to the environment and our natural resource base that have been associated with crop plants, virtually all are the consequence of the management practices needed to grow our crops. This includes the soil deterioration, erosion, and demise of earth worm populations because of tillage used to form a seedbed and control weeds; and the effects of pesticides on nontarget organisms. . . . Genetic modification of crop plants is the best route to mitigation of these environmental impacts."
SARAH CONNOR, ITS SAFE TO COME OUT @griculture Online, 4 Oct 1999
Monsanto today informed stakeholders that it will not commercialize seed technologies, like the controversial one dubbed "Terminator technology," that render seeds sterile. Bob Shapiro, Monsanto's CEO, said the decision is based on input from Dr. Gordon Conway, the President of the Rockefeller Foundation, and from other experts and stakeholders, including growers. In a letter to Dr. Conway dated October 4, 1999, Shapiro wrote, "last April, after hearing concerns about the potential impact of gene protection systems in developing countries and consulting with a number of international experts and development leaders, we called for a thorough, independent review of gene protection systems.... Though we do not yet own any sterile seed technology, we think it is important to respond to those concerns at this time by making clear our commitment not to commercialize gene protection systems that render seed sterile." He noted that the need for companies to protect and gain a return on their investments in agricultural innovation is real. "Without this return, we would no longer be able to continue developing new products that growers have said they want." Monsanto holds patents on technological approaches to gene protection that do not render seeds sterile and has studied one that would inactivate only the specific gene or genes responsible for value-added biotech traits, according to Shapiro. "We are not currently investing resources to develop these technologies, but we do not rule out their future development and use for gene protection or their possible agronomic benefits." |
| |
|
|
nodebbunker
Joined: 01 Nov 2000
Posts: 200
Location: Indiana USA |
|
Mon Nov 13, 2000 11:50 pm
|
|
|
Well, that about says it, huh, Brent? What's left beside the environment? And this is precisely why I say that anyone clamoring about the contrails are supporting the NWO agenda. And, for my own integrity, this is why I had to prove to myself, rather than follow 'the power of suggestion' that the contrails were anything more than that - contrails. Why would I support an entity and plan I detest and encourage the loss of the US sovreignty? Especially without tangible proof?
------------------
just a housewife from Indiana |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
|
Wed Nov 15, 2000 6:10 am
|
|
|
"Emissions = prosperity" - seeker
"why I say that anyone clamoring about the contrails are supporting the NWO agenda" -Chickie Deb, aka nodebunker
You express concern for the disappearing independent family farmer. Ever stopped to ask them just what their loses are from severe weather?
I am continually amazed by your ignorance and denial. You don't need "Experts" to know that our atmosphere, and global climate, is undergoing rapid and dramatic changes. Have you ever considered that you are the pawns of TPTB? ...the multinational coorporations that are actually calling the shots?
But then again, if you're on their payroll you're not technically a pawn are you?
"Welcome to the new world"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0%2C3604%2C397235%2C00.html
Floods in Yorkshire. Millions facing drought in China. Permafrost melting in Russia. Malaria spreading across Africa. And that's just the start. Guardian writers on how global warming is wreaking havoc around the world.
Special report: global warming
But of course, Jay Reynolds will say that all this accumulating evidence is in error...it's all a hoax...that only the Rooster sees the Truth. It's just a "natural" cycle, man's activities have no effects...
What a Darwin Award Winner!
[Edited 3 times, lastly by Sore Throat on 11-15-2000] |
| |
|
|
nodebbunker
Joined: 01 Nov 2000
Posts: 200
Location: Indiana USA |
|
Wed Nov 15, 2000 8:01 pm
|
|
|
>You express concern for the disappearing independent family farmer. Ever stopped to ask them just what their loses are from severe weather?<
ST, you forget that I live in Indiana and actually I do know what their losses are because I see it, literally 1,000 feet from where I sit now as my property is surrounded by an independent farmer's corn/soybean field. I also see how a bad weather year effects the economy here and I also know that's what's left of independent farm families here, the family members also have full-time employment off the farm so they can afford things like health insurance and the general support of their families. But they keep going. Their biggest concern IS NOT THE WEATHER, because they see it as an act of God, as most insurance companies, who do want to control the weather in order to prevent losses. The famers concern, at least the ones I know, is the ability of the big ag companies who now control the prices of everything in that industry from the crop market to the price of equipment to make their hard work and red necks for naught.
As far as the devestating weather around the world, this is an old arguement regarding record keeping history, etc. Also, before the internet, how much did you know or were aware of what was happening in other parts of the world other than the evening news?
Biggest question here is why do you dwell on doom and gloom and things out of your control? When are you going to realize nothing, not even our votes as US citizens are in our control any more, more or less the weather?
>But then again, if you're on their payroll you're not technically a pawn are you?<
As for my pay, I work for a national chain pharmacy that sells globalist pharmaceuticals and I am not happy about that. In fact, it's quite ironic because of the way I feel about the pharmaceutical industry as a whole. But there isn't many corporations that aren't global any more and I thought it would be a good place to observe contrail-related illness, if there is such a thing. My career days are over, my husband provides a wonderful life and we are blessed and I don't have to work. I work part-time to support MY activities that you see on the internet and other hobbies. Whose payroll are you on?
|
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
|
Wed Nov 15, 2000 11:47 pm
|
|
|
"As far as the devestating weather around the world, this is an old arguement regarding record keeping history, etc. Also, before the internet, how much did you know or were aware of what was happening in other parts of the world other than the evening news?" -nodebunker
I hope you truly realize just how LAME this argument is...that we only know of such matters because there is now the information media to make such reports on a global scale...that nothing has actually changed.
There are a wide variety of tools (tree rings, ice and sediment cores, frozen gas samples, etc.) that provide a SCIENTIFIC MEANS of evaluating the current rate of climate change. Your position is unsupported by facts.
As far as your comment "Their (family farmers) biggest concern IS NOT THE WEATHER, because they see it as an act of God" is also painfully simplistic. Human activities are having a substantial impact on global weather. To deny this is to live in a fantasy land.
"Evidence piles up against human profligacy
Scientists paint a grim picture of global warming in the 21st century"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0%2C3604%2C397627%2C00.html
"The world is getting warmer, and by the end of the 21st century could have warmed by another 6C, according to research published this month. Warming on such a scale, over so short a time, has no precedent. And climate scientists at the heart of the research are now convinced that human action is to blame for some or most of this warming.
"We are increasingly confident that a substantial proportion of the warming can be attributed to human activity," says Geoff Jenkins, of the Hadley centre for climate prediction at the Meteorological Office."
And on a final note: "Biggest question here is why do you dwell on doom and gloom and things out of your control? When are you going to realize nothing, not even our votes as US citizens are in our control any more, more or less the weather?"
I'm attempting to deal with and educate regarding the realistic consequences of current policies and lifestyles. I hope YOU are aware enough to see the ultimate irony of your question...re, "not even our votes...".
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Sore Throat on 11-15-2000] |
| |
|
|
nodebbunker
Joined: 01 Nov 2000
Posts: 200
Location: Indiana USA |
|
Thu Nov 16, 2000 6:42 am
|
|
|
ST, I regret that my simplicity does not meet your expectations and pains you so. However, there is one reality I have accepted and that is that the NWO is here and has been here and will get stronger. Fabricated junk science, such as the Artic ice caps melting that was published and then retracted are only re-enforcing the NWO's enviromental agenda. You and I aren't going to make any difference in this global society we have been forced in to without our consent by arguing our positions and dwelling on the doom and gloom of it all on message boards. Neither one of us is qualified to judge what is fabricated junk science and what isn't. But I do know, you can't believe everything you read on the internet.
>As far as your comment "Their (family farmers) biggest concern IS NOT THE WEATHER, because they see it as an act of God" is also painfully simplistic. Human activities are having a substantial impact on global weather.
>To deny this is to live in a fantasy land.<
Do you think we are exempt from the EPA? SO where do we cut back? On fossil fuels, industry, drive electric cars, AVIATION? What are you willing to give up as an individual?
"Evidence piles up against human profligacy."
"We are increasingly confident that a substantial proportion of the warming can be attributed to human activity," says Geoff Jenkins, of the Hadley centre for climate prediction at the Meteorological Office."<
And the greens' solution to this is what?
(Please don't answer that; we already know.)
You might be willing to accept those consequences, but there are those of us who prefer not to. Unless you are preparing or already living a life of self-sufficiency, you may be regretting your zeal a few years down the road.
The scare tactics they are using are working on some people, no? And speaking of irony, don't you find it strange that all the urls you provide for news reports regarding global warming, ozone depletion, "human profligacy," etc. aren't touching your "chemtrail" issue? The best kept secret world-wide.
Here's my favorite website for educational purposes: http://www.anxietycenter.com
------------------
just a housewife from Indiana |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
|
Fri Nov 17, 2000 2:01 am
|
|
|
Deb,
I really think that you are being manipulated to assume that the overwhemling body of evidence documenting global warming is "junk science".
"Arctic thunderstorms seen as latest signal of climate change"
http://www.sk.sympatico.ca/news/Fullstories/n111494.html
Do you really think that people are making this up? These are not trivial changes, and the rate of change is accelerating.
How do you know that you would feel so deprived driving a fuel cell car whose only emission was water vapor? Why are you so defeatist to believe that a switching to energy efficient, non-polluting "GREEN" technologies wouldn't create new jobs and new industries?
Why are you so stuck in the past?
Having trouble imagining that human's are having an impact on global climate? Perhaps these pictures will help you see the light.
"Lighting Up the Ecosphere"
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast15nov_1.htm
By the way, light isn't the only "pollution" being released by these pockets of "civilization".
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Sore Throat on 11-16-2000] |
| |
|
|
nodebbunker
Joined: 01 Nov 2000
Posts: 200
Location: Indiana USA |
|
Fri Nov 17, 2000 4:22 am
|
|
|
Stuck in the past. Hmmm. I really am not against the advancement of technology as it's a universal truth and a fact of our humanism. But I can't sit back and not speak up against the so-called Green Agenda because it is an arm of globalism. This is how I see it and I'll try to keep it short. The US was the premier industrial nation and as we became wealthy we shared with our global neighbors to create foreign relations.
But we maintained our sovreignty and super power status. Well, that idea is no longer "fair" to the rest of the world. They want what we have but we did all the work, kind of like global welfare. As technology develops and globalism snowballs, jobs that should be here for our citizens are taken away. And alot of them have been in the name of enviroment, NAFTA, etc. Sure, the govt. offers retraining, but do you know what it's like for a 50 year old man to lose the job he has done for the last 30 years and have to go back to school to learn something else? Not easy. Anyway, all these wonderful things the Greens are proposing to save the planet are just dandy, but where do you think the production for it is going to go? For example, when freon was banned and r-134A came into existence, new plants had to be built to accomodate the production. The US, Russia and China worked together on this and where do you think the largest r-134A plant has been built? China. Now we know that China who is starting to experience industrial growth is one of the biggest polluters worldwide, not to mention a major violator of human rights. The US has been sold out and all these wonderful things are great, but your country is going to feel the brunt of it all and so will your wallet as the jobs diminish.
And the unproven and argued theory about global warming may very well be an exaggerated scare tactic, playing on the fearful who will believe what they read. At least open your mind to the fact that there are 2 very decided sides to this issue and let the scientists fight it out. Granted, the weather has been strange, but maybe it's a cycle. The universe runs on cycles. But bear in mind and research just who is behind the Green movement - Maurice Strong, Gorbachov, GORE, - a very socialistic (communism) group. I like capitalism. I like reaping the rewards for my work and I certainly appreciate the fact that I am privileged to be an American and have experienced that for most of my life. And you're right - that is living in the past because it's just about gone and the "new way" has dawned. It has taken over 100 years to accomplish and it was done right under our noses while we were so obsessed with accumulating things, entertainment and the sexual revoultion creating the current society where morals are meaningless and an attitude of "I deserve it." It's not too late to change alot of things. |
| |
|
|
M. Magoo
Joined: 16 Nov 2000
Posts: 14
|
|
Fri Nov 17, 2000 7:03 am
|
|
|
>>I am continually amazed by your ignorance and denial. You don't need "Experts" to know that our atmosphere, and global climate, is undergoing rapid and dramatic changes. Have you ever considered that you are the pawns of TPTB? ...the multinational coorporations that are actually calling the shots?
But then again, if you're on their payroll you're not technically a pawn are you?<<
Hello. Although this is my first post to this web site, I have been following the chemtrail discussions here (as well as at a number of other sites) for a considerably long time and...
With all due politeness, Thermit, I think if ugly derision is at least partly what got the skeptics banished to the basement as a group here at yours, perhaps this person deserves an entire room...like maybe the attic.. all to himself?
My sense, Thermit, is that your heart and your intentions are good, but I also doubt you are blind.
Oh well. Enuff about that.
How about some more of that "marginal fringe data" that the evil Rooster and MKUltra Deb keep spouting around as "resident board disinformation agents"?
Amazing what you find when you poke around in a few of Sore Throat's favorite url sources of Irrefutable Fact. This October article comes from the same NASA Headlines site just cited by the ST above. Clink on the link he posted and then go to the bottom to the archives for more headlines. Oh the irony.
****************************************
October 20, 2000 -- Newspaper headlines trumpet record-breaking temperatures, dwindling sea ice, and retreating glaciers around the world. Concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide, one of the greenhouse gases responsible for scalding temperatures on Venus and at least 33 degrees C of normal warming here on Earth, are on the rise. Our planet seems destined for a hot future!
But is it really? Or are we simply experiencing a natural variation in Earth's climate cycles that will return to "normal" in time?
Correlations between rising CO2 levels and global surface temperatures suggest that our planet is on a one-way warming trend triggered by human activity. Indeed, studies by paleoclimatologists reveal that natural variability caused by changes in the Sun and volcanic eruptions can largely explain deviations in global temperature from 1000 AD until 1850 AD, near the beginning of the Industrial Era. After that, the best models require a human-induced greenhouse effect.
In spite of what may seem persuasive evidence, many scientists are nonetheless skeptical.
They argue that natural variations in climate are considerable and not well understood. The Earth has gone through warming periods before without human influence, they note. And not all of the evidence supports global warming. Air temperatures in the lower atmosphere have not increased appreciably, according to satellite data, and the sea ice around Antarctica has actually been growing for the last 20 years.
It may surprise many people that science -- the de facto source of dependable knowledge about the natural world -- cannot deliver an unqualified, unanimous answer about something as important as climate change.
Why is the question so thorny? The reason, say experts, is that Earth's climate is complex and chaotic. It's so unwieldy that researchers simply can't conduct experiments to check their ideas in the usual way of science. They often rely, instead, on computer models. But such models are only as good as their inputs and programming, and today's computer models are known to be imperfect.
Most scientists agree that no single piece of data will likely resolve the global warming debate. In the end, the best we can expect is a scientific consensus based on a preponderance of evidence.
The canary in the coal mine?
The recent discovery that Greenland's ice sheet is thinning is a good example of our climate's sometimes vexing ambiguity.
About 85 percent of Greenland is covered by a massive ice sheet with an area of about 1,736,000 square kilometers and an average thickness of about 1,500 meters. The volume of ice in the Greenland sheet is estimated to be about 2,600,000 cubic kilometers -- enough ice to raise sea levels by 6.4 meters if it all were to melt.
While it is only about one-seventh the size of the Antarctic ice sheet, some scientists think that watching the ice on Greenland provides better clues about global warming.
"Even though Antarctica is seven times the size of Greenland, because (Antarctica is) kind of symmetrically positioned around the South Pole, it doesn't really interact with climate up in the more temperate regions the way Greenland does," said Dr. William Krabill at NASA's Wallops Flight Facility. Krabill is the project scientist for the team that discovered the thinning. "Greenland ... is likely to be a better indicator of global climate change than Antarctica," he noted.
Right: A map of Greenland showing the changes in surface elevation measured by Krabill's team. Gray indicates no change, white indicates an increase in thickness and shades of blue indicate a decrease in thickness, with darker blue denoting greater thinning. [more images]
Krabill's team used an airborne laser to survey the altitude of the ice sheet's surface during 1993 and 1994. They repeated their survey in 1998 and 1999, making certain to retrace their flight paths from the first survey as closely as possible.
After incorporating some assumptions that let them extend their measurements to the sheet's edges, the scientists compared the second survey to the first. They found that the ice sheet's surface was slightly higher at the center but considerably lower at the edges -- particularly the southeastern edge.
The overall result: The ice sheet lost at least 51 cubic kilometers of volume during that five year period. Greenland appeared to be melting!
Many newspaper headlines cried the discovery as a sign of global warming -- which most readers presumably took to mean "anthropogenic," or human-caused, global warming.
But is that the right conclusion?
"What you can say is, yes, carbon dioxide (in the atmosphere) is at levels higher than ever before, and carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, so it's reasonable to say that there's warming associated with the increase of carbon dioxide," said Dr. Waleed Abdalati, co-author of the paper that announced the Greenland discovery.
"But you can't make the leap yet that all the cars in the world have led to what we're observing in the thinning of the Greenland ice sheet," Abdalati said.
Left: A graph showing the Earth's average global surface temperature from 1880 to the late 1990s. The black dotted line follows the averages for each year and the red line traces the five-year average. There is a clear upward trend over that time.
If there's one lesson to be learned from science, it's that things are usually much more complex than they at first appear. The warming trend of the last century may seem to be the obvious explanation for the thinning seen on Greenland, but scientists are considering other possibilities.
"That's what science is about," said Dr. Ellen Mosley-Thompson, a research scientist at the Byrd Polar Research Center at The Ohio State University.
"Just because you have an hypothesis and immediately your experiment produces support for it, you can't simply accept those results (without a degree of skepticism)," Mosley-Thompson said. "The whole idea is to play devil's advocate on your own research before your colleagues do."
Last century's warming trend is not the only possible explanation for the thinning that Krabill's team saw on Greenland.
In fact, ice cores taken as part of another NASA-funded study suggest that natural variation in snowfall may be partly to blame, Mosley-Thompson said.
"The ice core data provide evidence -- not necessarily conclusive -- that Bill's results may in part reflect variability in snow accumulation over his five-year observational window," said Mosley-Thompson, who co-authored the paper reporting these results with Dr. Joseph McConnell, an associate research professor at The Desert Research Institute in Reno, Nevada. The results of the study were published in the August 24 edition of the journal Nature.
Other natural processes could account for the thinning as well. Ocean currents might have caused part of the change. Or the flux of warm water into the North Atlantic caused by the 1990-1996 positive phase of the slow-moving North Atlantic Oscillation could have had an influence. The ice sheet could also be thinning in response to the long-term warming of the planet since the transition from the last glacial period about 10,000 years ago. Krabill, Dr. Ron Kwok of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and Abdalati mentioned these scenerios during interviews with Science@NASA.
Scientists often refer to these alternate explanations under the umbrella term of "natural variability."
The ant on the hour hand
"For the ordinary person, it's a common misperception that weather is not changing ... that last winter is about as cold as this winter and last summer is about as warm ... and the world is pretty much constant," Krabill said. "That's not true. The Earth has gone through and continues to go through cycles of warming and cooling. It's just natural."
This natural variability often shows an astounding degree of complexity, much of which remains poorly understood.
"We've only begun making (large scale) measurements in the last 100 to 150 years," Abdalati said. "And climatic processes happen on very different time scales. There are some, like ice ages, that are in the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years long. An then there are atmospheric processes like weather, which happen on the scales of hours and days."
Other climate cycles fall in between, such as the North Atlantic Oscillation mentioned above, which is thought to complete one cycle roughly every 20 to 30 years.
"And so you have all these processes mixed together that have been going on for thousands of years, and you're in the difficult position of trying to separate something very recent from the natural cycle without fully understanding what that natural cycle is," Abdalati said.
Left: Knowing where a relatively short interval of observation fits into the long-term pattern is a difficult challenge for scientists. A steady increase that appears to be a trend may be a trend, but it may also be a small part of a larger cycle.
Observing a system like climate that varies on several time scales -- some of which approach geological slowness -- could be likened to an ant watching the hands of a clock, "perhaps with the ant sitting on the hour hand," Abdalati added.
Seen in this context, scientists don't give much weight to the five-year snapshot of the ice on Greenland.
"You know, five years is a pretty short amount of time in glaciological terms," Krabill said. "To try to make inferences about 'Global Climate Change' in capital letters from a five-year period of time is a pretty risky business."
Other modern data sets are not much longer. The era of satellite observation is only about 30 to 40 years old -- a mere blink in climatological terms. And the widespread network of weather-measurement stations in the developed world is about 150 years old.
The Ghost of Climates Past
Greater insight about the role of natural variability may come from the field of paleoclimatology -- a specialized branch of climatology that uses scientific sleuthing to summon the ghost of climates past.
The "fingerprints" of Earth's climate hundreds or even thousands of years ago remain imprinted in the rings of temperature-sensitive trees, the chemicals trapped in ancient ice, and the layers of sediment on the ocean floor.
Several studies by paleoclimatologists have suggested that natural variability can't fully explain the warming of the last century.
For example, Dr. Thomas J. Crowley, a geologist at Texas A&M University, used similar techniques to reconstruct basic climate data -- such as average global temperature -- back to 1000 A.D.
Crowley examined natural climate variations in a simple computer climate model caused by two external influences: fluctuations in the sun's intensity and aerosols injected into the atmosphere by volcanoes.
He deduced the history of solar flux from concentrations of carbon-14 in tree rings and of beryllium-10 in ice cores. Then, he deciphered past volcanic activity from sulfate aerosol deposits in ice cores.
Crowley ran the computer climate model with the solar and volcanic forcing terms, then compared the average temperatures it produced with a temperature record constructed from tree-ring data.
Despite the relative simplicity of his model, Crowley found good agreement between the temperature fluctuations it calculated for the years 1000 AD to 1850 AD and the fluctuations actually measured from tree rings during that interval. Over that 850-year period, fluctuations in solar intensity along with volcanic eruptions could account for roughly 50 percent of the variation seen in the tree-ring record -- give or take 10 percent.
Something happened, however, after 1850. Crowley's model could only account for about 25 percent of the observed temperature changes. Something else was needed -- volcanic eruptions and solar variability were not enough.
Crowley then introduced a human-triggered greenhouse effect to the model and it produced a much better match.
"It all comes out as indicating that you can't resort to (natural variability) to explain the recent warming," Crowley said. "The (recent) warming is consistent with a greenhouse effect but inconsistent with any explanation from natural variability."
So with the weight of a 1,000-year climate record on human shoulders, can scientists finally say that they've proven humanity is causing an unnatural warming of the globe?
Not necessarily.
"The time series we developed is statistically significant -- highly significant," Crowley said. "That doesn't prove something is right, but it still makes a good case that we're on the right track."
The problem with the "P" word --Proof!
From a statistical point of view, no single scientific result based on real-life data ever deserves absolute confidence. There always lingers the possibility -- however small -- that the apparent results are due to chance patterns in the data, i.e., "noise."
In the case of Crowley's study, statistical tests show that the probability of his results being due to chance is less than 1 percent. Usually, anything less than 5 percent is considered credible.
"This is not mathematics where you can prove something and write Q.E.D. at the bottom of the page," Crowley said. "This is geoscience. It's a dirtier field, and usually you make statistical arguments."
The abbreviation stands for the Latin phrase quod erat demonstrandum, which means, "which was to be demonstrated." Mathematicians use "Q.E.D." to indicate the end of the written proof of a theorem, which, if correct, is considered absolute.
Above: The general trend of average global temperatures from Precambrian time -- when multicellular organisms first evolved -- to the present. Notice that average global temperatures vary by roughly 10 degrees Celsius between warm and cool periods. Image courtesy of Dr. Chris Scotese.
In addition to the caveats inherent to statistics, conclusions from studies like Crowley's that are based on computer simulations of the world's climate are plagued by questions of how well computer models portray the real thing.
To prove causation, scientists must perform experiments under controlled conditions on the system being studied, manipulating the system to understand what causes what. Other scientists repeat the experiments to show that the explanation is reliable.
Since the Earth's climate is beyond the reach of such experimentation, scientists instead run computer simulations of global climate. These models are always much simpler than the Earth's climate itself. In fact, it's theoretically impossible to create a "perfect" model of climate that includes all the detail of the real system.
"The climate system is too complex," Mosley-Thompson said. "Even the most complex climate model doesn't get it right. And why is that? Because who writes the climate models? Humans. What is a climate model? It's a set of equations that describes what we think we know. If you're not cognizant of a particular phenomenon, then how can you incorporate it into a climate model?"
The fact that different computer models often produce different forecasts doesn't offer much reassurance. For example, one model predicted that the Southeastern U.S. would become more jungle-like in the next century, while another model predicted the same region would become a dried-out savanna, according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
However, scientists can establish some degree of confidence in their computer models by seeing if the model can accurately "predict" past climate patterns that are known to science.
"Models in isolation may not be believable, but when ... a model can simulate a number of different observed climate responses, the results have more weight than mere calculation," Crowley said. "That still doesn't prove the point, but it minimizes the value of the argument, 'It's only a model.'"
Putting the pieces together
Ultimately, the verdict from science about the extent and cause of global climate change may not come from one particular study or observation.
"I think from the viewpoint of thoughtful scientists, there's not going to be any single indicator, but rather there's going to be a concurrency of lots of indicators that's going to be convincing," said Dr. Tony Rosenbaum, a professor at the University of Florida who specializes in the politics of environmental issues.
Above: Much of the energy coming from the Sun is in the form of short-wavelength radiation, which passes through the atmosphere. The Earth's surface re-radiates that energy as long-wavelength radiation -- such as infrared -- which is trapped by greenhouse gases, primarily water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane.
While the "big picture" view of all the evidence from research around the world may offer scientists their best chance to understand global warming, no mathematical tools exist for combining all the data into a definitive, objective conclusion. Scientists' only option is to weigh the evidence and make a professional judgment.
"There is a dichotomy between what is realistic and achievable, and what some people would like to hold as the ideal proof," Mosley-Thompson said.
"I don't think this discussion lends itself to standard statistical testing," she continued. "Certainly you can test, statistically, the output of one climate model against another, a climate model against observation, an ice core data against observation -- but those are snippets .... What does it mean for reality? There's where the translation becomes difficult."
When drawing a conclusion from the mosaic of evidence, different scientists will use different criteria, Crowley said.
"I think that there are many scientists that are still locked into the idea that we have to prove something (about causes of climate change) beyond a reasonable doubt," Crowley said. "I don't think we necessarily have to do that. ... In a court of law you can convict based on a weight of evidence. ... That's the way you approach this type of problem."
Because such conclusions are based on a scientist's professional judgment, disagreement is inevitable.
"There is enormous room for differences of opinion among equally competent scientists of good will," Rosenbaum concluded.
"There are always people -- and reasonable people -- who fall on both sides of the argument," agreed Abdalati. "And there are reasons for that. So the best we can hope for is a consensus."
|
| |
|
|
elvis lives
Joined: 30 Sep 2000
Posts: 143
Location: Pismo Beach, California |
|
Fri Nov 17, 2000 7:43 am
|
|
|
Could you repeat that. |
| |
|
|
Thermit
Joined: 08 Jul 2000
Posts: 3136
Location: Texas |
|
Fri Nov 17, 2000 7:25 pm
|
|
|
Hi Magoo thanks for joining.
quote:
With all due politeness, Thermit, I think if ugly derision is at least partly what got the skeptics banished to the basement as a group here at yours, perhaps this person deserves an entire room...like maybe the attic.. all to himself?
Hehe...I hear what you are saying, there has been, shall we say, a bit of rambunctiousness all around, but now we have a Rumpus Room. And BTW, a new "Ozone Debate" thread has been created there for anybody that wants to weigh-in on whether that situation is getting better or worse...
|
| |
|
|
M. Magoo
Joined: 16 Nov 2000
Posts: 14
|
|
Sat Nov 18, 2000 6:21 am
|
|
|
The features of this board do seem very nice, and your customization of them. And no banner ads on every page. Even nicer.
Thanks for the welcome, Thermit. I'll try to be observant of the appropriate threads, topics and forums. |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page
1, 2, 3 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Fri May 25, 2012 10:38 pm
|
|
|
|
|
Login
