|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
Scientists Find Climate Change 'Smoking Gun'
 Sat Apr 30, 2005 1:35 am
|
 |
|
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-warm29apr29,1,2782701.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
Scientists Find Climate Change 'Smoking Gun'
By Miguel Bustillo
Times Staff Writer
April 29, 2005
The Earth is now absorbing so much heat from the sun that the soot and greenhouse gases that humans are putting in the air appear to be the only reasonable explanation for the warming trend, according to research released Thursday by a team of prominent climate scientists.
The scientists from NASA, Columbia University and the U.S. Department of Energy determined that precise, deep-ocean measurements showed a rise in temperature that matched their computer model predictions of what would happen in an increasingly polluted world.
The scientists wrote that the findings confirmed the planet's "energy imbalance," a long-held theory on global warming.
"This energy imbalance is the 'smoking gun' that we have been looking for," said James Hansen, the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies at the Columbia University Earth Institute, and lead author of the study, published online Thursday by Science magazine.
"There can no longer be substantial doubt that human-made gases are the cause of most observed warming," added Hansen, who has long advanced the idea that human beings have been contributing to global warming, and in recent years has criticized the Bush administration for failing to take aggressive action on the issue.
Although the planet is now soaking up more energy from sunlight than it is reflecting back to space in the form of heat radiation, much of the excess energy remains effectively hidden in the oceans, the study found.
Just as the sands on a beach warm faster than the waters offshore, oceans respond more slowly to temperature changes than land masses.
But the heat trapped in the oceans will eventually manifest itself, with significant consequences for the world's climate, the scientists wrote.
As a result, the average global temperature, which has increased by about one degree Fahrenheit over the last century, will do so again over the next century, simply based on the heat stowed away in the oceans.
"The Hansen paper is important," said F. Sherwood Rowland, a UC Irvine professor who received the 1995 Nobel Prize for chemistry for finding that pollution from aerosol sprays and coolants was eroding the ozone layer.
"If you have that much [heat] stored up in the oceans, that is about another degree Fahrenheit that is lagging there, and we just haven't felt it yet."
Michael Prather, another UC Irvine professor, said that though Hansen and others had stated for years that the oceans could be a repository for much of the heat generated by the greenhouse effect, the latest paper represented the most convincing evidence yet that it was happening.
"I always believed Jim [Hansen] was right in the first place, but now I think he has proved it," said Prather, the former editor of the Geophysical Research Letters journal.
"You now see the heat building up in the ocean and you have a limited range of options to explain it."
In addition to increasing global temperatures, the warming could lead to an acceleration of the ice sheet disintegration taking place in parts of the polar regions, and even a rapid rise in sea levels, the authors concluded.
Sea levels have risen about 1 1/4 inches in the last decade, twice the rate of the preceding century, partly because the heat content of the oceans has caused the water to expand.
Based on major climate shifts in the planet's history, Hansen estimates that if temperatures increased beyond 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit over current levels, large-scale sea level increases could take place.
He argued that represents the threshold that human beings should strive not to exceed. Under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, countries around the world agreed in principle to avoid "dangerous anthropogenic interference" with the climate, though they never defined what that was.
Natural variables such as ocean circulation patterns could theoretically account for the high rate of heat storage in deep waters, the authors conceded. But they said that in such a scenario, cooler water would have been pushed to the surface of the oceans, and the measurements over the last decade showed surface temperatures warming.
By contrast, the researchers noted that the additional heat in the oceans corresponds closely with what their computer model predicted would take place due to increased emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, ozone and black carbon, making that the more likely cause.
Hansen estimated that if humans could slash the current amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in half, or eliminate potent methane emissions, the planet's heat would fall back into equilibrium. But such reductions, he said, are unrealistic, and thus the world probably will become warmer. |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
| Nuclear Looks Worse than Ever
Mon May 02, 2005 2:29 am
|
|
|
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0430-24.htm
Nuclear Looks Worse than Ever
by Meir Carasso
President Bush is promoting the use of nuclear power plants to generate electricity. It seems a political choice. Investing in nuclear power plants can be attempted only by very large corporations, of the kind that are in his support base. They belong to a very exclusive big-money club, and there are many billions of dollars at stake. But to belong, one also has to be willing to forget Three Mile Island, to forget market economics, nuclear proliferation, radioactive waste and, in particular, to forget nuclear terrorism.
The nuclear industry, unlike, say, the automobile industry, is not a self-sufficient, commercial industry. From its inception in the late 1950s, the commercial nuclear-power enterprise in this country developed a dual personality, as it were. It is schizophrenic. It had to be, and is entirely, dependent on agencies of the federal government. The reason is that what makes a nuclear power plant "nuclear" is its fissionable fuel, and nuclear fuel is radioactive. Because radioactive materials are toxic, and concerns of national security, the government today has to be a party to every phase of nuclear power generation, from beginning to end.
Consequently, the "first personality" of the nuclear industry is that of a compliant, highly dependent and regulated industry. The federal government manufactures the industry's radioactive fuel and lends it to a power plant for temporary use. The government has to certify and license the detailed design of each power plant, approve each site, supervise and certify each construction detail, certify fuel loading and initial operation, certify and monitor the power plant's operating procedures and personnel, and finally, the government has to reclaim the irradiated fuel when it is no longer useful for electric power production — that is, when it is considered spent.
The "second personality" of the nuclear industry is similar to that of any other industry in a market economy. The ground rules are simple: As a business necessity, a nuclear power plant has to be insured, and to prove itself profitable and economically competitive against other technologies in the market for producing electricity.
Here you meet two fatal shortcomings of the nuclear industry: No insurance company has ever agreed to insure a nuclear power plant. A nuclear plant is too risky to insure. Congress had to step in and pass a law that limits the owner's liability (called The Price Anderson Act of 1957. You and I, dear taxpayer, are the industry's insurance). And regarding competitiveness, Nuclear News, the American Nuclear Society's magazine of March 2005, had this to say:
"Nuclear advocates have made it clear in recent months that even if all regulatory matters were settled ... the actual ordering and building of new power reactors would depend heavily at first on financial incentives to reduce the cost burden to those organizations that build the first plants."
So much for competitiveness.
Since the events of Sept. 11, 2001, operating nuclear power plants include a huge new vulnerability. Because of insurmountable safety and technical challenges, and public resistance to siting of a federal repository for radioactive wastes, the government has failed to reclaim spent nuclear fuel from any of the 103 operating nuclear power plants. Consequently, spent fuel continues to be "temporarily" stored at each plant site, by the plant owner, in water-filled, spent-fuel pools. These pools are now recognized as a nuclear terrorism hazard.
On March 28, the Washington Post revealed that the National Academy of Sciences completed a study commissioned by Congress, and in a classified report raised concerns about terrorist attacks on spent fuel pools.
The existence of the NAS report was made public only when the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which regulates nuclear power plants and is responsible for certifying their safety, responded to the NAS report with a defensive, but unclassified, letter that disagreed with its findings.
On April 6, the NAS released a declassified version of its report, titled: "Safety and Security of Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage: Public Report." In the section called "Summary for Congress" the report states:
"(1) Spent fuel pools are necessary at all operating nuclear power plants to store recently discharged fuel.
(2) The committee [of the NAS] judges that successful terrorist attacks on spent fuel pools, though difficult, are possible.
(3) If an attack leads to a propagating zirconium cladding fire, it could result in the release of large amounts of radioactive material.
(4) Additional analyses are needed to understand more fully the vulnerabilities and consequences of events ..."
The report uses declassified, guarded language. It raises new doubts and unanswered questions about specific nuclear terrorist attacks, and the release of radioactivity with possibly devastating consequences. Yes, they should indeed be "understood more fully."
In summary: It is a fact that in the last 50 years or so, electricity-generating nuclear power plants have been tested for competitiveness in the U.S. marketplace and have failed the test. In spite of ongoing government regulatory support and incentives, no new nuclear power plants have been ordered by industry in the last 32 years. Apart from failing the market test, the industry has failed to resolve the public's concerns about radioactive materials.
Rejection of nuclear power in the United States is the result of failure to resolve conflicts between the business objectives of privately owned corporations, and the extraordinary public safeguarding and security needs (including nuclear terrorism) necessitated by the use of fissionable materials and relegated to government. Our energy future is elsewhere. |
| |
|
|
ssallen
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
Posts: 145
|
| global warming
Tue May 03, 2005 7:55 am
|
|
|
Sore throat, you are getting your information from the government controlled media. The scientist are always scaring us with global warming
so they can get goverment grants for research.
Global warming has only risen 1% over the past 100 years.
The goverment always have and predict disasters so they can control
and manipulate the population. This planet has been around for
millions of years and it's not going anywhere.
Now if our governments continues spraying man-made chemicals
in an effert to erradicate global warming then we are in big trouble.
Powdered aluminum is drying up the atmosphere which will eventually make global warming a reality.
_________________
ssallen |
| |
|
|
Swamp Gas
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4254
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands |
| Re: global warming
Tue May 03, 2005 2:21 pm
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ssallen
Sore throat, you are getting your information from the government controlled media.
The ones funding the anti-global warming "research" are Energy Companies, mainly Exxon/Mobil. This is reverse-Bizarro World Logic. Pure and simple Cointelpro type propaganda. The government is trying to deny Global Warming accelerated by combustion of fossil fuels, above ground nuclear testing from the 50s, and ozone depletion. Henry Makow and Lush Bimbo think the same on the Global Warming issue, and also that Women's Rights, the 60's, Civil Rights, the Beatles, the anti-war movement, and Beatniks were all CIA plots. Amazing!!!!!
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html
_________________
Heard it from a pilot who spoke real gooooood! |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
| ssallen ...ignorant or disinformation ?
Sat May 07, 2005 1:30 am
|
|
|
Swamp Gas,
Great post of the "Some Like It Hot" article at Mother Jones...a definite must read.
It's difficult to tell whether the "skeptic" ssallen is either:
- woefully uneducated, gaining his outlook on the realities of the world from the likes of Rush Limbaugh...laughing about the consequences of global climate change as if he were a drunken frat boy....
"Limbaugh calls concern about the ozone layer: "balderdash. Poppycock." The only people who worry about it are "environmental wackos," "dunderheaded alarmists and prophets of doom."
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895
Ozone layer most fragile on record
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1470944,00.html#article_continue
or
- an agent of disinformation on the payroll of Exxon/Mobil, the API or any number of energy companies or corporations that profit from maintaining the status quo.
http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/News/18news04.htm
Oil Company Profits Show Dramatic Increases
While Gasoline Prices At The Pump Soar
IRVING, Texas — Exxon Mobil Corp., the world’s largest publicly traded oil company that is based in Irving, posted a 44 percent profit gain during the first quarter of this year, as its net income jumped to $7.86 billion, up from $5.44 billion a year ago.
Royal Dutch/Shell Group also saw increased profits, from $4.33 billion a year ago to $5.55 billion during the first quarter.
With the price of gasoline at the pump reaching record highs forcing consumers to adjust personal budgets or limit travel, oil companies claim that demand is rising faster than the supply, thereby allowing them to justify dramatic increases in the cost of the fuel they sell. Much of the increased demand, they say, that is allowing them to reap record profits, is economic growth in Asia and North America that is tied to consumption of oil products.
They claim that the trend in rising prices appears to be solid, with no signs of abatement.
Combined net income at four of the biggest oil companies — Exxon Mobil, BP Plc, Shell, and ConocoPhillips — saw a rise of 39 percent during the first quarter.
******************************************************
Either way, I am hopeful that there will be an ultimate day of reckoning for those who chose short term personal gain to the detriment of the many.
Last edited by Sore Throat on Sat May 07, 2005 2:03 am; edited 4 times in total |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
| Global warming plus natural bacteria could release vast carb
Sat May 07, 2005 1:34 am
|
|
|
http://www.physorg.com/news4009.html
Global warming plus natural bacteria could release vast carbon deposits currently stored in Arctic soil
Increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will make global temperatures rise. By studying soil cores from the Arctic, scientists have discovered that this rise in temperature stimulates the growth of microorganisms that can break down long-term stores of carbon, releasing them into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. This will lead to further increases in global temperatures.
Carbon is held in soil either in material that is easily degraded by chemical and bacterial action (labile soil carbon), or in material that is less easily degraded by microorganisms (resistant soil carbon). About one third of the world’s soil carbon is located in high latitudes such as the Arctic, and much of this effectively locked away in recalcitrant stores.
If this carbon were ever released into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, the concentration of this ‘green-house gas’ would increase considerably, leading to a substantial increase in global warming.
The question that researchers in Austria, Russia and Finland asked was whether increasing global temperatures that are already predicted could enable micro organisms to use this carbon. Their results are published in this week’s edition of Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry.
The researchers incubated soil cores at 2oC, 12oC and 24oC. They found that resistant soil carbon was preferentially respired by arctic microbes at higher temperatures, presumably due to a shift in microbial populations.
They also found that the change in the relative proportion of different microorganisms in the soil was not driven by a depletion of more readily available carbon, but simply by the change in temperature.
“This temperature driven change in availability of resistant carbon is of crucial importance in the context of climate change,” says co-author Andreas Richter who works at the Institute of Ecology and Conservation Biology at the University of Vienna, Austria. “It may be that the whole idea of ‘resistant carbon compounds’ in arctic soils may only be relevant within a cool world and have no place in a future warmer world.” |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
| And on the Eighth Day, Man Destroyed the Earth
Sat May 07, 2005 1:47 am
|
|
|
http://www.buzzflash.com/whitehurst/05/04/whi05003.html
And on the Eighth Day, Man Destroyed the Earth
Confronting Conservative Apathy to Environmental Destruction
by Dr. Teresa Whitehurst
“Poet Maya Angelou poignantly noted, “When somebody tells me, “I’m a Christian”, I always say, “Already? All these years, and I’m still trying!” Though joking, she was making an important point: If we are serious about following Jesus’ teachings, we must never assume that we are “done” or have reached the point in life wherein we can stop holding ourselves accountable…” Jesus on Parenting: 10 Essential Principles That Will Transform Your Family
Why do so many conservatives yawn, laugh derisively or change the subject at the first mention of Earth Day? How can they be so apathetic to the same earth that their preachers praise as “God’s creation”? Why don’t all Christians hold the Bush administration accountable for decisions that threaten our water, our air, and life itself? Having listened to countless conservative sermons on the subject, and to evangelicals and fundamentalists (not necessarily the same people), I’ve discovered that their denials of scientific evidence regarding environmental destruction aren’t really believed at a deep level. Instead, this “reactive thinking” has been learned from others.
Reactive thinking is a rehearsed mental security system of sorts, composed of unexamined assumptions and learned replies that defend the individual from complex, unpleasant or frightening realities. Reactive thinking accounts for most of the trouble that environmentalists are running up against, now that the pollution-friendly Bush administration is in control. This applies especially to the conservative Christian Bush supporters who should, being Christian, care that human beings are ruining the world that they believe God created in seven days.
Conservative Christians need clean air and water as much as anyone else (the former is especially difficult to package for the rich), but many have been taught to sneer at even the mention of environmental protection. As political science professor Judith Layzer correctly noted, “There is clearly a backlash against environmental protection in America…The fact that people get distracted from environmental issues shows they really don’t care about them.” Earth Week Kicks Off With Speaker
From Alarm to Apathy: How It Happens
Human beings are designed to react to dangers by immediately scanning their environment for threats and escape routes, then using either the “fight” of “flight” response, and then, once the threat is minimized, avoided or eliminated, reflecting on what caused that particular danger and how to avoid it in the future. But here’s the point: This works only for short-term and/or manageable threats.
If the threat appears to be long-term and/or unmanageable, only the most capable individuals can manage the emotional distress. More anxious individuals will resort to reactive thinking for reassurance and anxiety control. A recent study (PDF) found that conservatives tend to be more anxious and less able tolerate conflicting facts and ambiguity, than are liberals. Greater anxiety makes reactive thinking and outright denial of dangers more likely.
Reactive thinking is what environmental activists and journalists must come to grips with, anticipate, and counteract. It’s essential to understand how and under which conditions it gains a foothold and spreads to others. Three overlapping stages, each lasting several years or even decades, have lead conservative Americans to defend themselves from bad environmental news with reactive apathy and cynicism:
STAGE 1. Serious threats elicit fear. One piece of bad news is the fact that our icecaps are melting and the earth’s climate is going bonkers. Another is the fact that our water is becoming “enriched” with brain-injuring chemicals like mercury, lead, and other toxins. Yet another is the reality that more and more Americans are coming down with asthma, emphysema, lung cancers and other horrors because the nation’s air is becoming saturated with something called “particulates”, tiny little nasties that blow around in the wind, do not respect state boundaries, and lodge in your lungs. These threats make people worried and frightened because they’re beyond our direct control. Anxiety rises.
STAGE 2. People begin to realize that technology/science can’t—and political leaders won’t--take action to protect them from those threats. In the 1940’s and ‘50’s, Americans began to believe that “someday technology will solve all our problems”. If you listen carefully to the arguments of people who routinely resist any regulation or sacrifice that could de-contaminate or preserve the environment, you can still hear echoes of this belief system. Note the ubiquitous “why don’t they just invent…” questions, revealing the assumption that “if technology caused the problem, technology [not regulation, responsible behavior, etc.] can fix it”:
Can’t they just invent a machine to restore the ozone layer? Can’t NASA invent something to repair our wetlands, creeks, rivers, and water supply? Why doesn’t some enterprising doctor devise a new laser or something to simply blast those particulates out of your lungs? If free-market forces can solve all our problems, can’t we just do more deregulation, freeing competition and “letting the market decide” how to restore the ozone layer so that people stop getting all these cataracts and deadly skin cancers?
STAGE 3. Cognitive dissonance results, triggering the need for reassurance the threat is either false or “not that bad”. “There’s a serious threat” and “nothing can/will be done about it” wage war in the human mind, heightening anxiety and feelings of powerlessness. For anti-conservation conservatives, this is an intolerable combination that conflicts with the “Don’t worry, God is in control” mantra they’ve been told is the only Christian response to (apparently) uncontrollable events such as violence, war, illness, death, etc. Their solution is to reframe environmental destruction as something that God wants, since it’s what is happening.
This goes along with the fundamentalist mindset that “what is, is God’s will” (except, that is, when progressives get their way). Furthermore, today’s brand of conservative Christians are hammered with the idea that to question their (Republican) leaders is to sin against God. Persuaded that their leaders have been “granted” authority not by elections, honest or otherwise, but by God—a once-fringe notion based on a verse in Romans that was somehow “forgotten” during the Clinton era but “remembered” once the GOP got their man in the White House—that their leaders are allowing to happen.
As we watch pollution ruining our world while our leaders do nothing to stop it—especially when it’s harming not just a fish we’ve never heard of but our own health—progressives get the blues. Conservatives, by contrast, get anxious and start looking to authority figures for reassurance once it’s clear they can’t (won’t) provide protection.
The Usual Stuff Isn’t Working: Some Ideas for Environmentalists
To counteract this kind of reactive thinking and the apathy it creates, make environmental crises personal—i.e., linked to human needs, desires, and health—and make them now, not in some distant future that the average American doesn’t think about (except when it comes to money). The usual appeals clearly aren’t working. It’s time to change strategy:
-- Forget talking to the public about what global warming, logging or pollution holds for the future; most people can barely figure out how they’ll get through today.
-- Save your breath when tempted to appeal to the protective instincts of Americans (saving the environment for their children and grandchildren), because the right has already reframed the duty to act in a responsible way for future generations as somehow “doing for others what they should do for themselves”.
-- For those who still believe that the majority of Christians care about being “stewards” of the environment, please note that in most conservative churches “steward” = “master” and “stewardship” = “dominion”. I realize that some evangelicals are pinning their hopes on reframing environmental or animal protection as Christian responsibilities, but as a longtime insider in that subculture, I don’t see this working on any but those who already care. And that’s not many.
-- Avoid appeals based on the value of protecting natural elements, resources, or beings for their own sakes; as obvious as it may be to you that “cute”, “innocent” seal pups shouldn’t be bludgeoned to death or that the arctic wilderness shouldn’t be spoiled because it’s “untouched” and “pure”, these words suggest the value of the-thing/animal-itself; rightwingers don’t share those kinds of values. Furthermore, many Americans are too stressed or miserable in their personal lives to care, as revealed in common knee-jerk reactions such as “I couldn’t care less about some damn fish in the everglades…”. This appeal will also offend those who’ve been taught that caring about anything other than people (especially “Americans”) is unChristian and unpatriotic.
Counteracting Conservative Apathy
These are hard realities, but if environmental advocates hope to start having real successes, we must face the facts—which is that “facts” (statistics, alarming news, etc.) cannot sway most Americans, nor penetrate their reactive apathy.
To overcome the reactive thinking that results when anxiety-prone Americans are presented with scary statistics about huge threats to the entire earth, we must speak to a far more tangible, personal fear: that environmental degradations will greatly harm human health and happiness now and in the near future. When the corporate right appeals to average Americans through its mouthpieces at the White House and in Congress to allow more pollution, deregulation, and exploitation because of the supposed economic benefits, we must anticipate this by appealing just as powerfully to a far more tangible, personal benefit: that protecting the environment and its beings from these greedy demands will benefit human health and happiness now and in the near future.
What the environmental movement desperately needs is a communication and marketing makeover. Focus groups can tell us how much information, presented in which frames, work best with most Americans. Marketing must convey risks and benefits to the public that are urgent, personal and current—but not so overwhelming that reactive thinking is triggered.
Study the anti-environmental writings on conservative websites: Note how they seduce worried readers with a friendly tone; use fear to motivate readers towards their goals; and simultaneously use words and imagery to soothe those aroused fears and anxieties, reassuring readers that if they support corporate “freedom” and keep believing that “God is in control”, the problems will disappear and “everything will be alright”.
Environmental advocates with diverse passions and perspectives must come together on this one point: Learn how to walk that thin line required to woo public opinion by simultaneously soothing intolerable anxieties and feelings of powerlessness and making your appeals urgent, personal, and current. Otherwise, we’ll keep watching the earth turn into muck and fragrant breezes into smelly, toxic particulate carriers from one sad Earth Day to the next. We will succeed only when we become as savvy about real (not ideal) psychology and public opinion as the corporate guys have always been.
* * *
Dr. Teresa Whitehurst is a clinical psychologist, author of Jesus on Parenting: 10 Essential Principles That Will Transform Your Family (2004) and coauthor of The Nonviolent Christian Parent (2004). She offers parenting workshops, holds discussion groups on Nonviolent Christianity, and writes the column, "Democracy, Faith and Values: Because You Shouldn’t Have to Choose Just One" as seen on her website. |
| |
|
|
Swamp Gas
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4254
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands |
|
Sat May 07, 2005 3:38 am
|
|
|
Sore Throat, Either way, said "skeptic" serves the same purpose.......mouthpiece for enviornmental destroying governments and corporations.
He's either a half-wit like Yaak or an educated nutcase like Johnny Spray Reynolds. Could even be one of them.
I just want to thank you for your unceasing posting on the subject of Global Warming. I believe it is at the bottom of Geo-Engineering, such as chemtrails.
_________________
Heard it from a pilot who spoke real gooooood! |
| |
|
|
ssallen
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
Posts: 145
|
| global warming?
Sat May 07, 2005 6:14 am
|
|
|
I'm certainly not a debunker and I'm a her l.o.l. I am a skeptic.
I just don't (see) any evidence of global warming.
I live in Idaho where we have dramatic changes in temperature
year round. I don't think a few degrees off is a big deal.
But please don't think I'm a chemtrail debunker.
I'm just a little ol Idahoan that is out for the truth.
I have had lots of chemtrail poison symptoms....
burning eyes, burning nose, flue-like symptoms...ect.....
Sore throat I didn't mean any disrespect....
I just need to see it for myself..Have you talked to marine bioligist
about the depletion of planktin? please be nice!!!!!
sherri
_________________
ssallen |
| |
|
|
ssallen
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
Posts: 145
|
|
Sat May 07, 2005 7:11 am
|
|
|
Comparing me to Jay Reynolds is certainly a slap in the face.
Where I come from farmers are forced out of work daily because
of enviromentalist...... I have come not to like them very well.
That certainly does not make me chemtrail debunker like Jay.
I believe people come first, before rats....and bugs.....
On the other hand I am actively protesting against the production
of plutonium 238 at Idaho National Laboratory. See my letters to editorial
at magicvalley.com published May 7th, 2005 on plutonium 238
Plutonium is a toxic chemical that causes harm to
humans, animals and environment. They want to use it to go to Mars and
Pluto.
Sore Throat we are on the same side aren't we.
and as for christians standing up to Bush, He is not a christian.
Why would he listen to us. I apologize for voicing my opinion on your
forum.
sherri
_________________
ssallen |
| |
|
|
ssallen
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
Posts: 145
|
|
Sat May 07, 2005 7:29 am
|
|
|
I had the wrong date on the letter it was may 5th not 7th.
but if your interested here
is the letter I wrote and had published in The Times News.
Resist plutonium plans for Idaho National Lab
Originally published Thursday, May 5, 2005
NASA uses plutonium in space technology, satellites, Cassini and missions to Mars. There may be efforts under way to produce and manufacture plutonium 238 in southern Idaho at the Idaho National Laboratory.
Our government is currently purchasing plutonium from Russia but soon wants to turn the INL into a national laboratory for the production of plutonium 238, according to the Environmental News Source: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2005/2005-03-24-02.asp
With the loss of jobs overseas because of the North America Free Trade Agreement, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the Central American Free Trade Agreement, can we (American taxpayers) pay for Bush's world order? United Nations, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization is currently implementing laws against the use of our water, under the "Water for Life" decade, 2005-2015 rules.
Laws against the use of our water in Idaho are coming from foreign powers, the United Nations, World Meteorological Organization under the United Nations, Council on Foreign Relations and World Health Organization.
The illuminati families that either want the national $7.7 trillion debt paid back to them or they will continue implementing one-world laws. Along with all of this, can we still afford to pay for Idaho National Laboratory to manufacture plutonium for our government's to use in space toys?
Plutonium 238 is so toxic that one dust particle will contaminate a whole building.
We need to call, write and or e-mail our Idaho senators and governor and protest against this insanity of producing plutonium 238 in the beautiful state of Idaho.
Let's clean up Idaho and keep it toxic free and keep Idaho water laws in Idaho.
Visit these Web sites: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/d1v/pu238.htm and http://www.space.com/news/nasa_plutonium_020724.html.
SHERRI ALLEN
Buhl
_________________
ssallen |
| |
|
|
Swamp Gas
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4254
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands |
| Re: global warming?
Sat May 07, 2005 3:15 pm
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ssallen
I'm certainly not a debunker and I'm a her l.o.l. I am a skeptic.
I just don't (see) any evidence of global warming.
Obviously you have not read all of Sore Throat's posts, and you disregard the thousands of climatologists who 100% disagree with you.
What are you waiting for?.........glaciers melting at the highest rate in recorded history, melting Artic Sea Ice, Oceans Warming With Coral Bleaching & Disintegration, holes in the ozone, lichen growing in the South Pole, carbon dioxide and methane levels increasing in atmosphere, ....Wait! That already is happening.?
As Sore Throat said, you are in alignment with Rush Limbaugh, George Bush, Exxon/Mobil, Ann Coulter, and Jay Reynolds, as regards global warming. Can't cut into corporate profits can you now?
_________________
Heard it from a pilot who spoke real gooooood! |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
| There's no dimming, but it is global warming that's happenin
Sun May 08, 2005 2:48 am
|
|
|
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/2710.html#
There's no dimming, but it is global warming that's happening
Author : Martin Booth
NEW YORK: Two recent climatologic studies have nearly established that unlike the popular belief that there is global dimming, what is actually happening is a marked increase in the amount of sunlight falling on the Earth's surface.
The two studies, by a U.S. team and a Swiss team, and reported in the Science magazine, maintain that solar radiation has risen in the last two decades.
The data collected after dedicated experiments employing several monitoring stations suggest that the dimming phenomenon reported earlier has been reversed to a certain extent, possibly due to less atmospheric pollution. Proponents of the theory of dimming extend the argument that tiny atmospheric particles, called aerosols, created as a result of human activities, reflect the sunlight back into space, giving an effect of dimming as well as cooling. The scientists in the two teams feel that this activity is in fact countering the efforts of any human-induced greenhouse effect. They say only when humans control the production of aerosols can the impact of global warming be measured.
Dr Martin Wild, who led one of teams -- from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich -- reports that based on scientific data collected from many monitoring stations since 1990, there is an increase in the amount of radiation reaching the Earth. Dr Wild, however, believes that global dimming indeed happened between 1960 and 1990, as found in data collected by earlier monitoring stations and from experiments measuring the rate of evaporation of water.
The second team, from the University of Maryland, the U.S., led by Dr Rachel Pinker, also reported that there was a dimming effect until the 1990s, but subsequently, there is an increase in the radiation amount.
The crucial question raised by climate scientists is -- why has there been a change since the 1990s. Dr Wild explains that since the 1990s, atmosphere has become cleaner largely because of legislative measures initiated by several governments. This has affected the aerosols, leading to a higher amount of heat falling on the Earth.
Dr Wild also believes that the break-up of the erstwhile Soviet Union in 1990 has a significant role in reversing the trend. It is simply because there is lesser output from the highly polluting industries in the dismembered countries.
Elaborate and rigorous studies and painstaking research are needed to establish what type of aerosols is required to contain the Sun's radiation reaching the Earth. Both Dr Wild and Dr Pinker agree on this count.
Climatologists also cite another factor -- changes in cloud cover -- which can also have a very lasting impact. Again detailed studies are required to reach any definite conclusions. |
| |
|
|
Sore Throat
Joined: 01 Sep 2000
Posts: 1802
Location: x |
| "Glaciers in Everest melting faster due to global warmi
Sun May 08, 2005 2:51 am
|
|
|
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/001200505071033.htm
"Glaciers in Everest melting faster due to global warming"
Beijing, May 7. (PTI): Chinese scientists have found that glaciers in Mt. Everest and adjoining areas are melting faster due to global warming, the state media reported today.
According to the findings of a comprehensive scientific expedition to the Everest region, the glaciers in the area are melting at a faster rate than expected, leader of the group, Professor Kang Shichang said.
Kang, with the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), who returned to the Everest base camp from the Everest advance camp 6,500 metres above sea level on May 1, said due to the effects of global warming, the Everest region's glacier area is decreasing rapidly.
The melting of glaciers in Everest's East Rongbuk region has expanded from last year's 6,300-metre-altitude region to 6,400-metres this year.
The East Rongbuk region has not only been affected by global warming, but also by the Everest region's drastic glacier melts in 2004.
While Everest's glaciers are melting quickly, those in China's Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau are also retreating rapidly, the report said.
Through remote geological monitoring and in-depth on-the-spot investigation, Chinese scientists have discovered that in the past three decades, the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau region's glacier area declined by 4,420.78 square kilometres, 147.36 square kilometres per year on average, a total decrease rate of 9.05 per cent.
Ice tongues of most glaciers are retreating, while most snow lines are on the rise. Some even rose by hundreds of metres. |
| |
|
|
ssallen
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
Posts: 145
|
|
Sun May 08, 2005 2:55 am
|
|
|
well lets not fight about this too much. I obviously stuck
my head in a rattle-snake pit.
i'm looking at it from the aluminum shield point of view.
[u]AND I DO NOT BELEIVE WE ARE IN SO MUCH TROUBLE THAT WE
NEED THE HELL SPRAYED OUT OF US EVERY f....... DAY!!!!!!
Did you read the science report that says we have a volcano
erupting under the polar ice caps and thats whats making them melt. Now what the hell
are they going to do about that. Bomb it!!!!
We can argue all day if you want. No one knows the absolute
on why these f....s are spraying us except the b..... that are doing it.
Keep researching global warming while I'm freezing my ass
off here in Idaho.
_________________
ssallen |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30,
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60,
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat May 26, 2012 5:47 pm
|
|
|
|
|
Login
