posted 12-04-2003 09:06 PM            

and wouldn't mind clarifying,

when you said, "...the Medieval Warming Period of 800-1350AD showed that 2*C warmer temperatures than today are much better", what did you base that on exactly?

And secondly, when you said, "But there might exist neouritics that feel warming will cause an increase in droughts, hurricanes, floods, and all sort of catastrophes. And it did not happen in those times why should it now?"...what did you mean exactly? How do you know? I think a big group of people that are worried are Industry themselves. Insurance sees a HUGE potential for loss from even Regional instabiltiy, or inversely a HUGE savings by being able to control the climate.Big Agriculture as well. Chemtrails make alot of sense to industry. What does it say when Exon gives millions to Stanford in grants, and in return the Law School puts out a document advocating geoengineering as a way to maintain (or increase) profits?

One last thing in following what you were saying about global warming,(" that it doesn't exist") I was hoping you would tell more about which countries are having decreasing temperatures. I know you posted some results about increasing glaciers, but how about some countries that are actually experiencing cooling? Thanks again,

posted 12-04-2003 10:18 PM               

Climate change laid to humans
Report warns there's 'no doubt' industry is primary cause

New evidence found by teams of climate researchers leaves no doubt that industrial emissions of greenhouse gases are responsible for increasing global temperatures -- an ominous trend that has speeded up in the past 50 years and threatens to continue for centuries, according to a report by two of the nation's leading atmospheric scientists.

The two government experts said climate change "may prove to be humanity's greatest challenge" and warned that "it is very unlikely to be adequately addressed without greatly improved international cooperation and action."

Thomas Karl, a meteorologist at the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., and Kevin Trenberth, chief of the climate analysis section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., are publishing their analysis in Friday's edition of the journal Science.

Neither scientist criticized the Bush administration's refusal to ratify the Kyoto treaty, which is designed to regulate emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases worldwide. But their published comments reflected the growing concerns of most climate experts over the White House stance.

The two disagreed with assertions by some scientists that swings in worldwide temperatures over the years are normal and natural. "Modern climate change is dominated by human influences, which are now large enough to exceed the bounds of natural variability," they said.

Karl and Trenberth also agreed that many uncertainties remained about how swiftly global temperatures are rising, how much they are likely to rise and how long ago the problem began.

However, "there is no doubt," they say, "that the composition of the atmosphere is changing because of human activities, and today greenhouse gases are the largest human influence on global climate.''

They estimate that by the end of this century there is a 90 percent chance that the world's climate will heat up between 3.1 and 8.9 degrees Fahrenheit because of those human influences.

Among the consequences, they predict, are more frequent heat waves, more widespread droughts in some parts of the world and "extreme precipitation events" in others.

They also predict more wildfires, abrupt changes in vegetation and continued melting of glaciers and of the great Greenland Ice Sheet, causing floods along many continental coastlines.

Additionally, as snow cover melts on land and icebergs shrink at sea, both the darker ground and the darker ocean surfaces will be exposed to solar radiation, increasing temperatures even more, the climate forecasters say.

While some climate analysts have noted that the vast quantities of soot emitted by many industries and volcanic eruptions can actually cool the atmosphere, that kind of cooling can last only a few years, with little or no effect on the long-range trend, the scientists say.

The report by Karl and Trenberth adds new data to scores of previous international studies and computer models of future climate changes as well as analyses by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The new conclusions met with some disagreement Wednesday from James Mahoney, a noted meteorologist and the Bush administration's assistant secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere, who directs all the government's weather and climate research and forecasting agencies.

In a telephone interview, Mahoney agreed that climate change is indeed a global problem that "has no political boundaries." He noted that the United States has a large delegation of experts attending an international conference on climate change in Milan right now.

Mahoney also insisted that the United States under President Bush had developed a "substantial involvement" in international activities aimed at researching the problems of global warming and at resolving their uncertainties.

But he took issue with Karl's and Trenberth's insistence that there's clear evidence that human activity far outstrips natural variation as the main cause of global warming.

"That's their assertion," Mahoney said. "They are extremely competent, and there are many in the climate community who would agree with them. That's not surprising, but there are many others who would disagree with them. My own view is somewhat more open-minded, and from my perspective we don't really understand these things as well as we might.''

No one disputes that there has been a sharp rise in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere during the past decades, Mahoney said, "but there remains disagreement about just how severe its impact has been."

posted 12-04-2003 11:55 PM            

This is important in and of itself.

It's not a small thing. Please think about this for exactly what it is, no more, no less.

posted 12-04-2003 11:56 PM               

America's war on nature
For decades, US corporate interests have systematically sabotaged efforts to protect the environment. But the Bush years have seen the polluters encouraged to despoil as never before.

Robert F Kennedy Jr laments

George Bush will go down in history as America's worst environmental president. In a ferocious three-year attack, the Bush administration has initiated more than 200 major rollbacks of America's environmental laws, weakening the protection of our country's air, water, public lands and wildlife. Cloaked in meticulously crafted language designed to deceive the public, the administration intends to eliminate the nation's most important environmental laws by the end of the year. Under the guidance of the Republican pollster Frank Luntz, the Bush White House has hidden its anti-environmental programme behind deceptive rhetoric, telegenic spokespeople, secrecy and the intimidation of scientists and bureaucrats.

The Bush attack was not entirely unexpected. George Bush had the grimmest environmental record of any governor during his tenure in Texas. Texas became No 1 in air and water pollution and in the release of toxic chemicals. In his six years in Austin, Bush championed a short-term pollution-based prosperity, which enriched his political contributors and corporate cronies by lowering the quality of life for everyone else. Now President Bush is set to do the same to America. After three years, his policies are already bearing fruit.

I am angry both as a citizen and a father. Three of my sons have asthma, and I watch them struggle to breathe on bad-air days. And they are comparatively lucky: one in four African-American children in New York shares this affliction; their suffering is often unrelieved because they lack the insurance and high-quality healthcare that keep my sons alive. My kids are among the millions of Americans who cannot enjoy the seminal American experience of fishing locally with their dad and eating their catch. Most freshwater fish in New York, and all in Connecticut, are now under consumption advisories. A main source of mercury pollution in America, as well as asthma-provoking ozone and particulates, is the coal-burning power plants that President Bush recently excused from complying with the Clean Air Act.

Furthermore, the deadly addiction to fossil fuels that White House policies encourage has squandered our treasury, entangled us in foreign wars, diminished our international prestige, made us a target for terrorist attacks and increased our reliance on petty Middle Eastern dictators who are hated by their own people.

When the Republican right managed to install George Bush as President in 2000, the movement's leaders once again set about doing what they had attempted to do since the Reagan years: to eviscerate the infrastructure of laws and regulations that protect the environment. For 25 years it has been like the zombie that keeps coming back from the grave.

The attacks began on Inauguration Day, when Bush's chief of staff and former General Motors lobbyist Andrew Card quietly initiated a moratorium on all recently adopted regulations. Since then, the White House has enlisted every federal agency that oversees environmental programmes in a co-ordinated effort to relax rules aimed at the oil, coal, logging, mining and chemical industries as well as car-makers, real-estate developers, corporate agribusiness and other industries.

This onslaught is being co-ordinated through the White House Office of Management and Budget - or, more precisely, OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, under the direction of John Graham, the engine-room mechanic of the Bush stealth strategy. Graham's speciality is promoting changes in scientific and economic assumptions that underlie regulation - such as recalculating cost-benefit analyses to favour polluters. Before the White House, Graham was founding director of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, where he received funding from America's champion corporate polluters: Dow Chemical, DuPont, Monsanto, Alcoa, Exxon, General Electric and General Motors.

Penalties imposed for environmental violations have plummeted under Bush. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed eliminating 270 enforcement staffers, which would reduce staff levels to the lowest ever. Inspections of polluting businesses have dipped by 15 per cent. Criminal cases referred for federal prosecution have dropped by 40 per cent.

The EPA measures its success by the amount of pollution reduced or prevented as a result of its own actions. Last year, the EPA's two most senior career enforcement officials resigned after decades of service. They cited the administration's refusal to carry out environmental laws.

The White House has masked its attacks with euphemisms that would have embarrassed George Orwell. George Bush's "Healthy Forests" initiative promotes destructive logging of old-growth forests. His "Clear Skies" programme, which repealed key provisions of the Clean Air Act, allows more emissions. The administration uses misleading code words, such as streamlining or reforming instead of weakening, and thinning instead of logging.

Bush seems to be trying to take us all the way back to the Dark Ages by undermining the very principles of our environmental rights, which civilised nations have always recognised. Clean-air laws in England, passed in the 14th century, made it a capital offence to burn coal in London, and violators were executed for the crime. These "public trust" rights to unspoiled air, water and wildlife descended to the people of the United States after the American Revolution. Until 1870, a factory releasing even small amounts of smoke on to public or private property was operating illegally.

But during the Gilded Age, when the corporate robber barons captured the political and judicial systems, those rights were stolen from the American people. As the Industrial Revolution morphed into the postwar industrial boom, Americans found themselves paying a high price for the resulting pollution. The wake-up call came in the late Sixties, when Lake Erie was declared dead and Cleveland's Cuyahoga River exploded in colossal infernos.

In 1970, more than 20 million Americans took to the streets protesting about the state of the environment on the first Earth Day. Whether they knew it or not, they were demanding a return of ancient rights. During the next few years, Congress passed 28 major environmental statutes, including the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, and it created the Environmental Protection Agency to apply and enforce these new laws.

Earth Day caught polluters off guard. But in the next 30 years, they mounted an increasingly sophisticated and aggressive counterattack to undermine these laws. The Bush administration is a culmination of their three-decade campaign.

In 1980, the candidate Ronald Reagan declared: "I am a Sagebrush Rebel," marking a major turning point of the modern anti-environmental movement. In the early 1980s, the Western extractive industries, led by one of Colorado's worst polluters, the brewer Joseph Coors, organised the Sagebrush Rebellion, a coalition of industry money and right-wing ideologues that helped to elect Reagan president.

The big polluters who started the Sagebrush Rebellion were successful because they managed to broaden their constituency with anti-regulatory, anti-labour and anti-environmental rhetoric that had great appeal both among Christian fundamentalist leaders such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, and in certain western communities where hostility to government is deeply rooted.

Coors founded the Mountain States Legal Foundation in 1976 to bring lawsuits designed to enrich giant corporations, limit civil rights and attack unions, homosexuals and minorities. He also founded the right-wing Heritage Foundation to provide a philosophical underpinning for the anti-environmental movement.

From its conception, the Heritage Foundation and its neoconservative cronies urged followers to "strangle the environmental movement," which Heritage named "the greatest single threat to the American economy". Ronald Reagan's victory gave the Heritage Foundation and the Mountain States Legal Foundation immeasurable clout. Heritage became known as Reagan's "shadow government" and its 2,000-page manifesto, "Mandate for Change," became a blueprint for his administration.

Coors handpicked his Colorado associates: Anne Gorsuch became the EPA administrator; her husband, Robert Burford, a cattle baron who had vowed to destroy the Bureau of Land Management, was selected to head that very agency. Most notoriously, Coors chose James Watt, the president of the Mountain States Legal Foundation, as the Secretary of the Interior. Watt was a proponent of "dominion theology," an authoritarian Christian heresy that advocates man's duty to "subdue" nature. His deep faith in laissez-faire capitalism and apocalyptic Christianity led Watt to set about dismantling his department and distributing its assets rather than managing them for future generations. During a Senate hearing, he cited the approaching Apocalypse to explain why he was giving away America's sacred places at fire-sale prices: "I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns."

Meanwhile, Anne Gorsuch gutted the EPA's budget by 60 per cent, crippling its ability to write regulations or enforce the law. She appointed lobbyists fresh from their stints in paper, asbestos, chemical and oil companies to run each of the principal agency departments. Her chief counsel was an Exxon lawyer; her head of enforcement was from General Motors.

These attacks on the environment precipitated a public revolt. By 1983, more than a million Americans and all 125 American-Indian tribes had signed a petition demanding Watt's removal. After being forced out of office, Watt was indicted on 25 felony counts of influence-peddling. Gorsuch and 23 of her cronies were forced to resign following a congressional investigation of sweetheart deals with polluters, including Coors. Her first deputy, Rita Lavelle, was jailed for perjury. The indictments and resignations put a temporary damper on the Sagebrush Rebels, but they quickly regrouped as the "Wise Use" movement. The Wise Use founder, the timber-industry spokesman Ron Arnold, said: "Our goal is to destroy, to eradicate the environmental movement. We want to be able to exploit the environment for private gain, absolutely."

By 1994, Wise Use helped to propel Newt Gingrich to the Speaker's chair of the House of Representatives and turn his anti-environmental manifesto, "The Contract with America," into law. Gingrich's chief of environmental policy was Tom DeLay, the one-time Houston exterminator who was determined to rid the world of pesky pesticide regulations and to promote a biblical world-view. He targeted the Endangered Species Act as the second-greatest threat to Texas after illegal aliens.

Gingrich and DeLay had learnt from the James Watt débâcle that they had to conceal their radical agenda. Carefully eschewing public debates on their initiatives, they mounted a stealth attack on America's environmental laws. Rather than pursue a frontal assault against popular statutes, such as the Endangered Species, Clean Water and Clean Air acts, they tried to undermine these laws by attaching silent riders to must-pass budget bills.

But the public got wise. Moderate Republicans teamed up with the Clinton administration to block the worst of it. My group, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), as well as the Sierra Club and the US Public Interest Research Group, generated more than one million letters to Congress. When President Clinton shut down the government in December 1995 rather than pass a budget bill spangled with anti-environmental riders, the tide turned against Gingrich and DeLay. By the end of that month, even conservatives disavowed the attack. "We lost the battle on the environment," DeLay conceded.

Today, with the presidency and both houses of Congress under the anti-environmentalists' control, they are set to eviscerate the despised laws. White House strategy is to promote its unpopular policies by lying about its agenda, cheating on the science and stealing the language and rhetoric of the environmental movement.

Even as the pollster Luntz acknowledged that the scientific evidence is against the Republicans on issues like global warming, he advised them to find scientists willing to hoodwink the public. "You need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue," he told Republicans, "by becoming even more active in recruiting experts sympathetic to your view."

In autumn 2001, the Interior Secretary, Gale Norton, provided the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources with her agency's scientific assessment that Arctic oil-drilling would not harm hundreds of thousands of caribou. Not long afterwards, Fish and Wildlife Service biologists contacted the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which defends scientists and other professionals working in state and federal environmental agencies. "The scientists provided us the science that they had submitted to Norton and the altered version that she had given to Congress a week later," said the group's executive director, Jeff Ruch. There were 17 major substantive changes, all of them minimising the reported impacts. When Norton was asked about the alterations in October 2001, she dismissed them as typographical errors.

There is no scientific debate in which the White House has cooked the books more than that of global warming. The Bush administration has altered, suppressed or attempted to discredit close to a dozen major reports on the subject. These include a 10-year study by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), commissioned by the President's father in 1993 in his own efforts to dodge what was already a virtual scientific consensus blaming industrial emissions for global warming.

After disavowing the Kyoto protocol, the Bush administration commissioned the federal government's National Academy of Sciences to find holes in the IPCC's analysis. But this ploy backfired. The NAS not only confirmed the existence of global warming and its connection to industrial greenhouse gases; it also predicted that the effects of climate change would be worse than previously believed, estimating that global temperatures will rise by between 2.5F and 10.4F by 2100.

In July this year, EPA scientists leaked a study, which the agency had ordered suppressed in May, showing that a Senate plan ­ co-sponsored by Republican Senator John McCain ­ to reduce the pollution that causes global warming could achieve its goal at very small cost. Bush reacted by launching a $100m 10-year effort to prove that global temperature changes have, in fact, occurred naturally ­ another delay tactic for the fossil-fuel barons.

There is no better example of the corporate cronyism now hijacking American democracy than the White House's cozy relationship with the energy industry. The energy industry contributed more than $48m to Republicans in the 2000 election cycle, with $3m to George Bush. Both Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney came out of the oil patch. Thirty-one of the Bush transition team's 48 members had energy-industry ties. Bush's cabinet and White House staff is an energy-industry dream team ­ four cabinet secretaries, the six most powerful White House officials and more than 20 high-level appointees are alumni of the industry and its allies.

Days after his inauguration, Bush launched the National Energy Policy Development Group, chaired by Cheney. For three months, the task force held closed-door meetings with energy-industry representatives ­ then refused to disclose the names of the participants.

For the first time in history, the nonpartisan General Accounting Office sued the executive branch, for access to these records. The NRDC put in a Freedom of Information Act request, and when Cheney did not respond, we also sued. On 21 February 2002, under a court order, the NRDC obtained some 20,000 documents. Although none of the logs on the Vice-President's meetings have been released yet and the pages were heavily redacted to prevent disclosure of useful information, the documents still allow glimpses of the process.

In the winter and spring of 2001, executives and lobbyists from the oil, coal, electric-utility and nuclear industries tramped in and out of the cabinet room and Cheney's office. Many of the lobbyists had just left posts inside Bush's presidential campaign to work for companies that had donated lavishly to that effort. Companies that made large contributions were given special access. Executives from Enron Corp, which contributed $2.5m to the Republicans from 1999 to 2002, had contact with the task force at least 10 times, including six face-to-face meetings between top officials and Cheney.

After one meeting with the Enron chief executive Kenneth Lay, Cheney dismissed California Governor Gray Davis's request to cap the state's energy prices. That denial would enrich Enron and nearly bankrupt California. It has since emerged that the state's energy crisis was largely engineered by Enron. According to The New York Times, the task-force staff circulated a memo that suggested "utilising" the crisis to justify expanded oil and gas drilling. President Bush and others would cite the California crisis to call for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

When it was suggested that access to the administration was for sale, Cheney hardly apologised. "Just because somebody makes a campaign contribution doesn't mean that they should be denied the opportunity to express their view to government officials," he said.

The energy task-force plan is a $20bn subsidy to the oil, coal and nuclear industries, which are already swimming in record revenues. In May this year, as the House passed the plan and as the rest of the nation stagnated in a recession abetted by high oil prices, Exxon announced that its profits had tripled from the previous quarter's record earnings. The energy plan recommends opening protected lands and waters to oil and gas drilling and building up to 1,900 electricity power-plants. National treasures such as the California and Florida coasts, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the areas around Yellowstone Park will be opened for plunder for the trivial amounts of fossil fuels they contain. While increasing reliance on oil, coal and nuclear power, the plan cuts the budget for research into energy efficiency and alternative power sources by nearly a third. "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue," Cheney explained, but it should not be the basis of "comprehensive energy policy".

On 27 August last year ­ while most of America was heading off for a Labor Day weekend ­ the administration announced that it would redefine carbon dioxide, the primary cause of global warming, so that it would no longer be considered a pollutant and would therefore not be subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. The next day, the White House repealed the act's "new source review" provision, which requires companies to modernise pollution control when they modify their plants.

According to the National Academy of Sciences, the White House rollback will cause 30,000 Americans to die prematurely each year. Although the regulation will probably be reversed in the courts, the damage will have been done, and power utilities such as Southern Co will escape criminal prosecution. As soon as the new regulations were announced, John Pemberton, the chief of staff to the EPA's assistant administrator for air, left to work for Southern.

On 30 August this year, President Bush nominated Utah's three-term Republican Governor Mike Leavitt to replace his beleaguered EPA head, Christine Todd Whitman, who was driven from office, humiliated in even her paltry efforts to moderate the pillage. In October, Leavitt was confirmed by the Senate.

Like Gale Norton, Leavitt has a winning personality and a disastrous environmental record. Under his leadership, Utah tied for last as the state with the worst environmental enforcement record and ranked second-worst (behind Texas) for both air quality and toxic releases.

I was taught that communism leads to dictatorship and capitalism to democracy. But as we've seen from the Bush administration, the latter proposition does not always hold. While free markets tend to democratise a society, unfettered capitalism leads invariably to corporate control of government. Corporate capitalists do not want free markets, they want dependable profits, and their surest route is to crush competition by controlling government. The rise of fascism across Europe in the 1930s offers many lessons on how corporate power can undermine a democracy.Mussolini complained that "fascism should really be called 'corporatism'".

Today, George Bush and his court are treating our country as a grab bag for the robber barons, doling out the commons to large polluters. Last year, as the calamitous rollbacks multiplied, the corporate-owned TV networks devoted less than 4 per cent of their news minutes to environmental stories. If they knew the truth, most Americans would share my fury that this president is allowing his corporate cronies to steal America from our children.

posted 12-04-2003 11:58 PM            

.....I think a big group of people that are worried are Industry themselves. Insurance sees a HUGE potential for loss from even Regional instabiltiy, or inversely a HUGE savings by being able to control the climate. Big Agriculture as well.....

posted 12-05-2003 12:21 AM            

.....I suppose it would be risky to suggest that this was a reflection of a compensation issue...

...but then, what the hell.

It seems that many on this planet are choosing to live dangerously.....

I don't post much from my heart on these boards anymore for obvious reasons but I'm going to do it now:

I would add that not only are many on this planet "choosing to live dangerously", but they are choosing for the rest of us - and for those coming up behind us - our children.

This is what makes me crazy - and, believe me, I do realize that the best researchers in the field don't know *exactly* what we are up against [and say so] and that none of us really know *exactly* [and don't pretend to.]

However, it's becoming more obvious with each passing year that the integrity of our interdependent life-support systems is slowly decompensating - and that this is, in fact, an actual trend - and that this trend is, in no insignificant part, directly related to the cumulative effects of 100 years of synthetic air, water and soil pollution - and is, in that regard, a therefore unprecedented situation in human history.

posted 12-05-2003 02:07 PM               

quote:

---

Robert Kennedy Jr. :”… According to the National Academy of Sciences, the White House rollback will cause 30,000 Americans to die prematurely each year.”

---

it was a NAS press release? Based on what study? Or just the opinion from the political branch of the NAS? But this presumed claim by the NAS is not shared by many other good scientists.

And look who's quoting the NAS: Bobby Kennedy Jr., the little watermelon that will go to any lenghts to discredit anything G. Bush does. I, myself, think G. Bush, as his father, rank among the worst presidents the US ever had, almost as bad as Jimmy Carter. Not for what they did to the US, but what they did to the rest of the world. I also believe that the only good thing Bush did was opposing to the Kyoto treaty. But my bad opinion on other matters are still in ggod health.

But going back to the alleged NAS claim, it is not shared at all by Dr. Richard Lindzen, famous climatologist, member of the National Academy of Sciences panel that wrote the scientific chapters for the IPCC Third Report. He not only disagrees on the human influence on climate, he claims the warming – if any – will be highly beneficial for mankind, crops will increase yields, crop fields will extend farther north, and much more.

He disagrees with the claims on increase of tropical diseases, storms, droughts, floods, and all the green litany. It did not happen during the Medieval Warm Period (called the Climatic OPTIMUM, by climatologists – before the global warming hype). Sore Throat would say Lindzen is another solitary voice in the emptiness. But then we've found that the number of all these solitary voices have grown to an alarming size, and the first “solitaries” are no longer alone, out in the cold – as you say I am. There is a crowd there. And what's worse (for the greens) this is a crowd of respected scientists. An worse yet, governments are listening to what they say.

posted 12-05-2003 02:13 PM               

quote:

---

Sore Throat. “It seems that many on this planet are choosing to live dangerously.” And Deborah: “I would add that not only are many on this planet "choosing to live dangerously", but they are choosing for the rest of us - and for those coming up behind us - our children.

---

We became used to live dangerously, the world was conquered by the fearless. The timid and cowards were left behind to starve and die. Those who live in fear are not living - they are agonizing, and I can feel the agony you are going through when I read your posts.

The Green movement has chosen to live in fear and horror, and have chosen for the rest of us that we must follow them and live in agony, fearing the imminent fall of the sky on our heads. “The sky is falling!” – cried Chicken Little. And has been crying that for thousands of years now. Isn’t he going to get tired of doing it? No way! There always be cowards that live afraid of their own shadows.

The trouble – for the rest of us – is that they have gained political and economic power and have been taking decisions for too many years, trying to slow down progress and development – in behalf of a small number of powerful groups that like to play God.

quote:

---

Quite a mighty list of miscreants that SEÑOR Ferreyra has demonized ...most quite well known: NASA, NOAA, National Academy of Sciences, US Environmental Protection Agency, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, British Antarctic Survey, Nobel Prize winners

---

Sore Throat is wrong, as usual. Those marked in red have not been “demonized” by me, as I have not demonized the rest. I don’t believe in the Devil, or associate demons. I believe that some “scientists” in those institutions are playing their own game, in their own personal interest, and in the interest of higher powers.

I have criticized, not the National Academy of Sciences, but the political staff there, not scientists but lawyers and public relations experts. How can I demonize an Institution that has a branch to which I belong? I show next an email received just minutes ago:

From: AAAS Member Services
To: shuara@fullzero.com.ar
Date: Viernes, 05 de Diciembre de 2003 02:51 p.m.
Subject. 2004 AAAS Annual Meeting

AAAS Annual Meeting
12-16 February, 2004
Seattle, Washington

4 December 2003

Dear Colleague:

I invite you to learn firsthand about the latest innovations in science, technology and engineering that impact the lives of people around the world by registering for the 2004 AAAS Annual Meeting in Seattle.
Advance registration ends 16 January and AAAS members are eligible for special rates. Rates for students, both members and non-members, are greatly reduced. If you have not already registered, please go to http://www.aaas.org/meetings for details.

Unfortunately, I cannot attend the meeting, as I would have liked to do. There are not industries and polluters that would pay me a cent for going there. Darn it!

The article that Sore Throat linked us to (It's official, global warming does exist, says Bush) is a tragic example of how misinformation works. It is a clear distortion of facts made by dishonest journalists. Judge for yourselves. I highlight the important things from the British The Guardian –green newspaper if there is one….

He should have said that models have been proved flawed, unrealistic and not dependable when it comes to predicting future climate. Mankind cannot trust fairy tales when it comes to decide its future.


[Edited 4 times, lastly by Edufer on 12-05-2003]

posted 12-05-2003 02:50 PM               

quote:

---

when you said, "...the Medieval Warming Period of 800-1350AD showed that 2*C warmer temperatures than today are much better", what did you base that on exactly?
…”And it did not happen in those times why should it now?"...what did you mean exactly? How do you know?

---

My assertion is based on many, many historical records and chronicles in different places in the world, Japan, Europe, Bolivia, Iceland, Greenland, North America, etc. One chronicle I saw myself in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia, at their historic archives, was aboiut the foundation of the foundation of tghe city, back in 1591. The chronicler described the region as "fertile, with balm and pleasant summers, but winters so harsh that tree trunks usually split in half due to severe frosts." There are other accounts of sever snowtorms, blizzards, etc. When you consider that Santa Cruz, at 300 meters a.s.l. is at 15ºS - full tropic! - then you see the Little ice Age was for real, and it was GLOBAL. The same for Japanese and Chinese chronicles on the Warm Period of 850-1350. They were better off with more warmth, than they do today.

Historical chronicles are based on factual observations of the weather for centuries, recording things as earlier arrival of spring, short and balm winters, extension of crop areas into north of Russia, etc. Then there are so many proxy records of tree rings, studies of sediments in lakes and the Sargasso seas, ice cores, and so on, showing the Warmth was there and was not detrimental to the environment 8and much less to humans), that there is no doubt at all that a 2º C increase will take us to the same temperatures that proved to be beneficial to every living creature in this planet.

posted 12-05-2003 08:34 PM               

About countries that have experienced cooling, there are many. This show that warming and cooling are regional, but summing up cooling areas and warming areas (total surface area), the trend is toward cooling. There are some regions that have experienced warming, and much more that show no trend at all. Even in countries were there is no trend, some regions show cooling, and other regions show slight warming. This depends on which kind of station is measuring the area: if it is a station in urban areas, it will show warming, due to the UHIE (Urban Heat Island Effect). Take the case of Newkirk, Oklahoma, a rural area station that show a slight cooling since the 30s, as shown in the graph:

Then, in Argentina we had some cooler than normal years in the last two years. In 2003, we had a very mild summer (Dec-2002- March 2003), with normal rains, then a normal fall, a very long and persistently cold winter, with many snowstorms and blizzards not seen in about 60 years. The spring came very late, and was a cool one, with few days of normal temperatures, three days of temperatures 2º C above normal, and about 70% days of temperatures 2 or mopre degrees below normal (or average on annual basis). There was a blizzard on mid November this year in the international pass from Argentina and Chile in Mendoza, in the Cordillera pass of Cristo Redentor, that blocked more than 300 trucks for three days. Never seen this time of the year.

In Perú and Bolivia there have been extremely low temperatures and blizzards in the high mountains, that killed more than 100 people near Sucre, Bolivia, 60 children in Perú. In the tropical region of Santa Cruz de la Sierra, where minimum temperatures rarely go below 7º C (two or three days a year), this winter schools had to be closed for three consecutive days due to the subzero temperatures - they have no winter clothes there. Many homeless died during those three days. I lived there for three years, and my friends keep me informed, but I read Bolivian newspapers (on line editions) to see whats going on, on a weekly basis.

Brazil also showed quite low temperatures this winter, with a snowfall in Curitiba, and -9ºC below zero, never, never recorded before.

Then there is a graph that shows the temperature changes (on average) according to latitudes. here it is:

This show tempèrature changes occurred during the period 1979-2002, as measured by NOAA's satellites, for the southern Hemisphere, from latitudes 55ºS ti 80ºS. From 50ºS to 55º30'S, temperatures were below normal. From 55º30'S to 77º30'S, temperaures warmed according to values shown at the left. Anf from 77º30'S to 90ºS (the South Pole) temperatures cooled a lot. That means Antarctica has cooled between 1979 through 2002, casting serious doubts to the validity of those press releases and newsbriefs about Antarctic ice melting.

Then the famous snowfall in Moscow on the first week of June, the early blocking of sea channels in the Baltic sea on the coast of Finalnd, abnormal low summer temperatures in Alaska, China, and many more places. If there is a pronounced warming, as they claim, it has not shown yet.

posted 12-05-2003 08:48 PM            

One might claim you were biased if you were willing to take the word of a "chronicler, back in 1591" as evidence, while denying everything here cross presented about NASA,etc. as being contrived (for what reasons???)

But say you are right. Maybe the Earth did warm during that period. And maybe as you say it did in many agricultural ways benefit the time period. Does that mean that the same is true for Now? How many condos were out on the coasts then, how many billions of dollars in collective hurricane damage? How many industry payouts?
Are you claiming a 2* warming would be good now at this time, when the economies of the world are sputtering? NO added effects, are you SURE? Based on 1591 data?

I'm not doubting you Eduardo, and I know as you said you are not here to "convince anyone". But as I said before. Perhaps chemtrails are designed as much to control the climate to SAVE money, as they are to save us from global warming. The two could co-exist. The fact is we all KNOW chemtrails exist. And industry seems to be paying for studies that ADVOCATE geoengineering to solve polution or perhaps to intervene to save Corporate Interests money. The big questions in my mind, are these trails hazardous, to what degree, and are we going to become dependent on these geoengineering methods at the expense of directly addressing causes. Are Chems being used as weapons and if so on whom? Domestic? Foreign? People want answers, and it's past time.

posted 12-05-2003 09:30 PM               

quote:

---

I think a big group of people that are worried are Industry themselves. Insurance sees a HUGE potential for loss from even Regional instabiltiy, or inversely a HUGE savings by being able to control the climate.Big Agriculture as well. Chemtrails make alot of sense to industry. What does it say when Exon gives millions to Stanford in grants, and in return the Law School puts out a document advocating geoengineering as a way to maintain (or increase) profits?

---

Insurance companies are raising their rates "just in case" and will make lots of money when they will not have to pay the foreseen damages. Hurricanes do now more considerable damage to properties than 40 yars ago for the simple reason that there is now much more properties built on the seafront (condos as you call them) than in the 40s.

Hurricanes in the past just passed through deserted areas. Now they do, with the same intensity, over highly populated areas, causing damages to properties that were not there 40 years ago. I you take a look at the records from 40 years ago, you'll see there were as many (not more not less) hurricanes class 4 and class 5 in those areas.

Tornadoes in "tornado alley" were much more destructive 40 years ago than today - and we keep seeing this in those Discovery Channel documentaries about old days tornadoes (in the 20s and 30s) that really wiped out entire cities.

The bottom line here is: all the smart guys have profiting from the predicted warming, making money from the fear people have of those "prophecies" becoming true. I see you have kind of a religious belief in Chemtrails, and I can do nothing for aventing your fears away from global warming, because the faith you have in the sprayings is based in the belief that they are doing it for reversing the warming. No warming, then why spraying? No ozone depletion, then why spraying?

I cannot discuss with you about Chemtyrails, just because you are an expert on the issue, and I know nothing. You have seen many, many planes spraying your skies, while I have only seen our lonely daily plane from Buenos Aires to Santiago de Chile, at 3:00 pm, flying at 10,000 meters.

You have seen many things, and I believe what you say you've seen. I don't know, as it seems you also ignore, the reason behind of what you've seen. There seem to be no hard evidence on the "spraying project", and the conspiracy, and lots of other things surrounding Chemtrails, and all I have seen is a lot of speculation and theories. It might be true, and I hope someday the truth will surface. But until then, the issue looks more as religiuos stuff than scientific facts.

posted 12-05-2003 10:07 PM               

quote:

---

One might claim you were biased if you were willing to take the word of a "chronicler, back in 1591" as evidence, while denying everything here cross presented about NASA,etc. as being contrived (for what reasons???)

---

But historical accounts, written accounts (they are called chronicles), well preserved in museums, university archives, libraries all over the world, along with thousands of proxy studies on fossils, lake sediments, tree rings, Carbon-14 and other isotopes, makes a very strong case (nowadays undisputed) that there was The Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. And temperatures then have such a close correlation with sunspots number that is amazing.

And the following graph show the amazing correlation between ozone values and sunspot number. Believe it ot not, but no one has disputed this K. Angel's peer-reviewd paper.

posted 12-06-2003 02:59 AM               

"And look who's quoting the NAS: Bobby Kennedy Jr., the little watermelon that will go to any lenghts to discredit anything G. Bush does."

Perhaps Henry Kissinger is an example of a neoconservative that SEÑOR Ferreyra would approve...

...you know what they say about birds of a feather:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031205/ap_on_re_la_am_ca /argentina_dirty_war_2

Kissinger-Argentine Junta Talks Detailed

By KEVIN GRAY, Associated Press Writer

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina - Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger lent verbal support to Argentina's military junta, which had been cracking down on dissidents, according to newly declassified documents obtained by a U.S. watchdog group.

"We would like you to succeed," Kissinger told Argentine Foreign Minister Adm. Cesar Augusto Guzzetti during a meeting in New York Oct. 7, 1976, according to the U.S. government records.

His comments were revealed in papers obtained and released Thursday by the National Security Archives, an independent Washington-based group that monitors Freedom of Information Act issues.

Kissinger did not immediately respond to calls for comment from The Associated Press. But he has repeatedly denied ever condoning human rights abuses.

He has increasingly faced criticism for U.S. backing of authoritarian governments in Latin America and Southeast Asia as part of Washington's bid at the time to contain the spread of communism.

In the seven-page transcript marked "secret", Kissinger is quoted as telling Guzzetti that human rights issues were growing in Argentina.

According to the document, he offers support, nonetheless, to the military rulers who seized power in a coup in March 1976.

"Look, our basic attitude is that we would like you to succeed," Kissinger said, according to the documents, first reported by The Miami Herald. "I have an old-fashioned view that friends ought to be supported. The quicker you succeed, the better."

The Argentine military launched its systematic crackdown on leftists groups in March 1976, beginning six years of iron-fisted rule that saw 8,900 people disappear, according to a government report. Human rights groups put the number at around 30,000.

Last year, declassified State Department documents suggested junta officials increasingly believed Washington was willing to overlook their methods to contain political dissent.

In the New York meeting, Kissinger insisted what was happening in Argentina was not being fully understood by American lawmakers who had raised concerns about rights issues in the country.

"What is not understood in the United States is that you have a civil war," he told Guzzetti. "We read about human rights problems but not the context."

At the time, American lawmakers were beginning to raise questions about the Argentine regime.

"If you can finish before Congress gets back, the better," he said. "We won't cause you unnecessary difficulties. Whatever freedoms you could restore would help."

Guzzetti assured Kissinger the country's "struggle" against the leftists would conclude by the end of 1976.

"The terrorist organizations have been dismantled. If this direction continues, by the end of the year the danger will have been set aside," Guzzetti was quoted as saying.

The military government remained in power until democracy was restored in 1983. Following Argentina's dictatorship, many ranking military officers were tried on charges of abduction, torture and execution of suspected leftist opponents of the regime. They were imprisoned in 1985 but later pardoned in 1990 by then-President Carlos Menem.

posted 12-06-2003 03:07 AM               

Hot debate on global warming

The climate is changing, and human activity plays a part in that change, according to a growing body of scientific evidence and even top U.S. government experts on global warming.

The latest study supporting the theory that humans play at least a major role - though not necessarily an exclusive one - in climate change has been published in the journal Science. A similar conclusion comes in a report by the United Nations Environment Program about the impact of warming on ski resorts. The studies all point to the same conclusion - the climate is in fact changing. Humanity's role is shown by the fact that the carbon dioxide build-up occurring today exceeds anything in the past 400,000 years - a period covering several ice ages and natural warming cycles.

The mounting scientific evidence supporting the global warming theory is in stark contrast with the political fact that the major diplomatic effort to slow that warming - the Kyoto treaty - is virtually a dead letter.

After the treaty was signed in 1997, the U.S. Senate voted 97-0 against ratifying it on the grounds it would hurt the U.S. economy. That "sense of the Senate" resolution wasn't a formal rejection of the treaty, which the Clinton administration hadn't formally submitted for ratification, but it clearly presaged later moves by the current Bush administration to sideline the treaty.

Last week, some confusing news came out of Russia, indicating that country may also reject the accord. The Kyoto treaty must be approved by 55 industrial countries, representing at least 55 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, before binding its signatories to continue the cumulative fight to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But subsequent reports from top Russian government officials indicate that Russia may yet ratify the pact.

Regardless of the formal fate of the treaty, The Denver Post believes it is long past time to implement what President George H.W. Bush's EPA director, Bill Reilly, wisely called a "no regrets" strategy. Simply put, that called for doing things which were manifestly in the national interest in and of themselves and that had the added benefit of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Even if we later concluded that global warming was not a threat, Reilly argued, we would not regret such wise moves.

High on the list of no-regrets policies would be efforts to improve energy efficiency in the home, the office, the factory and in our motor vehicle fleet. Improved energy efficency means a more competitive U.S. economy and less dependence on politically unstable foreign energy sources - reducing carbon dioxide emissions is just a bonus. Boosting energy efficiency also boosts the U.S. economy. A 2000 U.S. Department of Energy report, "Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future," concluded that Americans could save as much as $124 billion and cut carbon dioxide pollution by adopting currently available energy technologies.

Likewise, The Post strongly urges development of alternative power sources, including nuclear power and wind power, that also increase energy security while reducing greenhouse gas.

Global warming is happening - and no-regrets solutions are available that will ease that problem while strengthening our economy. It's time to stop adding to the global warming problem by spewing out so much political hot air and start implementing the practical solutions that are already available.

posted 12-06-2003 03:13 AM               

Scientists say Earth's recent warming could not be due to natural cycles

OTTAWA (CP) -- Modern climate change now outpaces anything that might be explained by natural causes and must be due to human influence, say two top scientists with the U.S. Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

In an article in the U.S. journal Science, the two reject suggestions that the last half century of warming could be due to some natural phenomenon, such as fluctuating radiance from the sun.

"Modern climate change is dominated by human influences, which are now large enough to exceed the bounds of natural variability," say Thomas Carl and Kevin Trenberth.

There have been previous warm periods, for example in Europe from A.D. 1100 to 1200, leading some to suggest the current warming could be just another blip. Carl and Trenberth reject that view.

"Climate has varied naturally in the past, but today's circumstances are unique because of human influences on atmospheric composition."

Until now, many scientists have taken the line that greenhouse gas emissions should be cut on the precautionary principle -- without waiting for definitive proof they are to blame for warming.

"The rate of human-induced climate change is projected to be much faster than most natural processes, certainly those prevailing over the past 10,000 years," say Carl and Trenberth.

Climate change is likely to continue for many centuries regardless of efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions because of gases already in the atmosphere, they say.

"The rate of change can be slowed, but it is unlikely to be stopped in the 21st Century."

This warming trend will be manifest in "important and tangible ways, such as changes in extremes of temperature and precipitation, decreases in seasonal and perennial snow and ice extent and sea level rise."

Henry Hengeveld, climate expert at Environment Canada, said numerous recent studies have confirmed that recent warming can't be explained on the basis of natural variability.

"That has led to a number of papers saying, 'Yes, we now see the human signal above the natural noise'."

posted 12-06-2003 03:00 PM               

quote:

---

Perhaps Henry Kissinger is an example of a neoconservative that SEÑOR Ferreyra would approve...

---

How can you be so blind! Read the following post. You are not going to like it at all...

posted 12-06-2003 03:01 PM               

Today, Sunday, December 5th, 2003, in the midst of our usually warm summers, my soccer team, Belgrano Football Club, went to play against a rival in Mendoza, at the Andes foothills (400 mters a.s.l., same latitude = 34ºS), and guess what? It was snowing!!! It looks as if these summer snows are becoming customary in the world – snow in Moscow, June, 2003 … what next?

Well, I have been feeling quite low in the last days, especially because Sore Throat and Deborah proved that I was a “loner” in the world, with all my outlandish theories about global warming and ozone holes, so I felt my spirit was back on its previous levels when I got this morning the visit from a National TV crew at my home in the country, wanting to interview me regarding my book “Ecology: Myths and Frauds” (Spanish version only) and its related website, that you know about Ecology: Myths and Frauds .

They made some shots of how people take sunbaths at my pool, while I explained which were the risks and the appropriate way to expose oneself to the sun's rays. Curiously, the interviewer - the scientific editor of the program – agreed with me on the matter. What's more, he agreed with me with the rest of what I said in the interview. He really laughed (outside the camera) when we heard on the radio that there was snowing in Mendoza this time of summer! Here are some pictures of the crew in the swimming pool:

When they left, I went to my computer and read an email telling me to look at a lecture given by Michael Chrichton, (author of The Andromeda Strain, The Great Train Robbery, Congo, Jurassic Park, Rising Sun, and the newly released sequel to Jurassic Park, The Lost World.) to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, on August, 2003. It was enlightening. I uploaded to our website, and I invite you to read it at Michael Crichton's lecture

His opening remarks are:

posted 12-06-2003 04:15 PM               

Hence, all institutions agreeing with the IPCC conclusions (rejected by most scientists that prepared and supplied the scientific work and their conclusions for the IPCC - among them Dr. Richard Lindzen from the National Academy of Science panel on Climatic Change), either know nothing about climatology or they are being part of the fraud. And there is no conspiracy needed here. Many scientists simply look from where the money is coming, and they act accordingly. Big money comes from governmental funding, so better don't act as Joseph Scotto did with his UV readings, and risk losing all those grants. They just play along and make sure they get their monthly check. After all, their famiily have to eat.

Sore Throat posts are simply useless, as their origins are being questioned. He if wants to prove his point he must resource to other sources that are not questioned. It is as simple as that. As long as he keeps posting his long tirades of questioned studies, organizations and institutions, this discussion will remain in a vicious circle.

In the meantime, Kyoto began its way to the funeral. Ha! Sore should take his complaints to his beloved Prophets of Doom. I hope he doesn't forget to take along his soap box and new sign boards saying they have postponed Apocalypse for another couple of years...

posted 12-06-2003 08:16 PM               

quote:

---

http://www.canoe.ca/NationalTicker/CANOE-wire.Climate-Change.html
Scientists say Earth's recent warming could not be due to natural cycles
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~417~1809714,00.html
Hot debate on global warming
The climate is changing, and human activity plays a part in that change, according to a growing body of scientific evidence and even top U.S. government experts on global warming.

The mounting scientific evidence supporting the global warming theory is in stark contrast with the political fact that the major diplomatic effort to slow that warming - the Kyoto treaty - is virtually a dead letter.

---

Satellites measure the radiation of the sun directly, and newly published data shows the sun has been getting hotter in recent years.  The impact of the sun on global climate is an issue that is scarcely addressed by the IPCC, who basically don't want to know about it as it would mean an acknowledgement that recent climatic trends are caused by the sun, not to greenhouse gases.  The belief by the greenhouse industry that the sun has no significant effect on climate is just too absurd and is a measure of its collective incompetence.

Here is the chart published by our beloved NASA, of solar radiation reaching Earth as measured by their satellites.

Solar minima provide the opportunity for the Earth to "cool off" after the enhanced radiation of a solar maximum; however, the strong radiation of the 1990s minimum has kept earth's climate "on the boil" so to speak.

How much warmth are we talking about here? The average energy shown above of 1,366 watts/m2 results in a global average of 387 watts/m2 absorbed by the planet after deduction for reflected radiation. An increase of 0.05% equates to an increase of 0.77 watts/m2 in radiation absorbed by the earth (0.2% of 387 watts/m2). The Stefan-Boltzmann Law (I hope Sire Throat knows what is this) which relates radiant energy to temperature gives a temperature increase without feedbacks of 0.1°C.  

That doesn't sound like much, but the same time period is covered by the satellite temperature record of the lower troposphere, measured by NOAA's satellites. See graph:

That means that more than half the warming measured by satellites over the last 25 years is explainable exclusively by the sun (assuming no feedbacks), leaving only 0.09°C unexplained. If some positive feedbacks are assumed (as claimed by the IPCC), then the entire warming over the last quarter century is explainable by the sun alone.

If no feedbacks are assumed, then the small residual warming might or might not be attributable to greenhouse gases, but its magnitude suggests that even after 100 years, greenhouse warming will amount to little more than a few tenths of a degree, not the whole degrees claimed by the IPCC and the incompetent science it leads.

With such trivial warmings on offer, there is absolutely no reason for countries to impoverish themselves with draconian energy rationing or desecrate whole landscapes and seascapes with ugly, inefficient windmills in a vain attempt to head off a big warming that simply won't happen.

We might also ask - what will happen to global climate when the sun inevitably goes into a cooler phase as it did 350 years ago during the Little Ice Age?  Greenhouse gases will be but a feeble buffer to the resulting cooling.

This a scientific evidence that is irrefutable. It is pure good old physics. I know Sore Throat hates it, but "Journalism is saying something that somebody does not want it to be known. The rest is propaganda".

posted 12-06-2003 08:27 PM            

I'm still trying to follow your reasoning regarding chemtrails and global/regional warming.

Eduardo:"There are lots of people that have jumped onto the Warming coach, all for the same reason: Making a profit."

SmT: So then are you saying Exon gave Stanford millions to advocate geoengineering so that Exon could make a profit off of the investment? How would this work? How is geoengineering going to benefit Exon is the question? How does Exon benefit from paying for research that says global warming is real?

Eduardo:"I see you have a kind of a religious belief in Chemtrails, and I can do nothing for aventing your fears away from global warming, because the faith you have in the spraying is based in the belief that they are doing it for reversing the warming. No warming then why spraying?"...

SmT:I thought we already discussed that Eduardo, and both agreed that possible warming and chemtrails could theoretically be independent of each other. And though I do religiously observe Chemtrail spraying quite regularly, I wouldn't necessarily call their observation a "religious belief".
You are misreading the situation. And 'fear of global warming'? Absolutely not, as I have said before I am not a climatologist, and have no PROOF (myself) that GLOBAL warming is or is not over/under blown.

But one thing is certain. I personally KNOW chemtrails are real as do tens if not hundreds of thousands of people worldwide from REPEATED DIRECT observation. One thing you keep failing to address is the fact that Chemtrails may be being used by Big Business/Government/Military in order to try and play GOD and SAVE money from hurricane loss, storm loss,hail loss, lack of rain etc. etc. (i.e. Owning The Weather By 2025). How exactly do you think one might 'own the weather' Eduardo? Is that the "making a profit" you were earlier referring to?

posted 12-06-2003 09:11 PM               

quote:

---

SmT: So then are you saying Exon gave Stanford millions to advocate geoengineering so that Exon could make a profit off of the investment? How would this work? How is geoengineering going to benefit Exon is the question? How does Exon benefit from paying for research that says global warming is real?

---

But, if they did, they may have reasons we ignore. Perhaps oil prices will go up if there is a rationing, and when rationing and prohibitions are enforced, black markets spring immediately. See what happened with liquor in the 20s, what happened to Freons now, whose black market ranks fourth behind drugs, weapons, and cereals.

quote:

---

One thing you keep failing to address is the fact that Chemtrails may be being used by Big Business/Government/Military in order to try and play GOD and SAVE money from hurricane loss, storm loss,hail loss, lack of rain etc. etc. (i.e. Owning The Weather By 2025). How exactly do you think one might 'own the weather' Eduardo? Is that the "making a profit" you were earlier referring to?

---

They think they own the weather, and the entire world along with it. And they have shown this more times than we like to remember. Kings, Emperors and later presidents think the “Sun never sets in their empires”. You now something? It is true.

Is it ethical? Is it honest? No, of course not. But what do they care? They own us – unless we make something to change things. By the way: do you know the origin of the word “stupid”? It comes from ancient Greece, and was the name of people who VOTED. The Romans later changed its meaning. They needed voters for their corrupt Senate – as the rest of the world’s politicians now needs voters for legitimize the laws they pass in their own interest, and the looting they make on the people’s fortunes. But this is an entirely different story. You should read something from Noam Chomsky. He thinks.

And I will be totally honest with you. If the Chemtrails is really being performed on the US and Canada (I have not seen it in other countries) and this is made for reducing the US and Canadian population (as I've heard), then it seems it could be a good thing for people in the rest of the world. Perhaps reducing the population and the economy of the most powerfull country in the world will result in some benefit for the rest of us, poor countries of the world.

It is a hard thing to say, but I said I would never lie to you or anyone else. If Chemtrails will harm people in the US, I feel sorry for those millions of innocent people that will suffer the consequences. But I cannot help in any other way than exposing the fraud behing "global warming" that seems to be the main motive behind the sprayings.

posted 12-07-2003 09:49 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edufer:
[B] [QUOTE]SmT: So then are you saying Exon gave Stanford millions to advocate geoengineering so that Exon could make a profit off of the investment? How would this work? How is geoengineering going to benefit Exon is the question? How does Exon benefit from paying for research that says global warming is real?

---

Eduardo:"No. I did not say Exxon paid Stanford millions to advocate geoengineering. You are saying it. I don’t know if they did it or not, perhaps you know better, and I will believe you – for now."

Smt:Eduardo, I wanted to focus on this idea of companies profitting from geoengineering. Let's follow the money trail. Someone (Soar Throat?) posted a link earlier and I also found it on the net, an article from the New York Times, from May 27, 2003, that states:

"Exxon Mobil has publicly softened its stance toward global warming over the last year, with a pledge of $10 million in annual donations for 10 years to Stanford University for climate research."
http://www.greenhousenet.org/news/June-2003/exonbacks.html

Also from GreenBiz.com: (various quotes)

Exxon, GE to Fund Stanford Research on Climate and Energy

" STANFORD, Calif., Nov.22,2002-Stanford University has unveiled an unprecedented approach to addressing one of the world's most challenging energy and environmental issues....

The Global Climate and Energy Project(G-CEP) is an alliance of scientific researchers and leading companies in the private sector. Stanford University, as manager of the Project, will identify preeminent scientific researchers from around the world who will work with the private sector sponsors to conduct research into low greenhouse gas emission technologies of the future.

Several private sector companies plan to invest up to $225 million over the next ten years to the Project. To date, ExxonMobil, the world's largest publicly traded petroleum and petrochemical company, plans to invest up to $100 million; General Electric, $50 million; and Schlumberger, $25 million to help fund the research. E.ON, Europe's largest privately owned energy service provider, has signaled its intention to contribute $50 million and join G-CEP, along with other academic and corporate sponsors from Europe. The combined amount is equal to the total of all the corporate-sponsored research at Stanford over the past 10 years."

Smt: So now Eduardo, one might wonder why exactly are these big companies pouring so much money into researching an alleged "non-existent problem"? You said:

Eduardo:" Whatever they do, it is for profit, and don’t you ever have any doubt about it."

Smt: Well, on that I have little doubt, but how? Are you sure they are not pouring money into this because it allows them to pollute more, while at the same time making a huge amount of money to clean up their own problem that perhaps they also PARTIALLY created? Again where is the money trail headed?

Also from that same article:
http://www.greenbiz.com/news_third.cfm?NewsID=23108

"Specifically, G-CEP will work to....Among the energy sources, systems and uses that will be considered:" "Geoengineering."

SmT: And when one follows further to the Stanford University:Global Climate and Energy Project (GCEP) site one finds the following:

"To combat the effect of global warming, alternatives to emision reductions are under consideration. Global scale atmospheric chemistry or infrastructure projects might reduce the amount of solar radiation being trapped as sensible energy or consume the CO2 and other greenhouse gases already present in the atmosphere.

One example of such a project is removal of C)2 from the atmosphere on a large scale. This could be accomplished through seeded gas-phase chemical reactions..."

Smt: Ok, to stop right there lets try and visualize what "large scale seeded gas-phase chemical reactions" might look like. Any pictures of squadrons of chemtrail spewing tankers come to mind??? But to finish the quote,

"...or through fertilization of the ocean for C)2 uptake. Another example involves application of a layer of reflective chemicals or particles to the upper atmosphere to reduce incident radiation at the Earth's surface...." (Smt: Ok, I'm really starting to visualize those chemplane fleets now)... " A third idea is to build a large reflective object in between the Earth and sun to block some incident radiation before it reaches the atmosphere."
Smt: Hmmm, Eduardo, if you dislike the looks of windmills as badly as you claim, let's imagine a sky full of "space junk" circling the Earth to act as giant reflectors. But to finish the quote,

"Geoengineering projects would INEVITABLY (my emp.) alter the climate on a GLOBAL SCALE. (my emp) It will be very importnt to understand fully the impacts of geoengineering approaches before they are implemented at large scale."
http://gcep.stanford.edu/research_geoengineering.html

Smt: So Eduardo, if you wish to see these money/geoengineering links there are many many out there, you don't have to take my word at all. So this brings us back to the important question? How does Big Business benefit from this huge outlay of cash to promote engineering? Any ideas?

Smt

posted 12-07-2003 10:04 AM               

But who knows what are they thinking? Perhaps they have envisioned more profits proving warming will be catastrophic, giving them reasons to start or proceed with weird programs as geoengineering, or sprayings, or solar shields or similar nonsenses.

posted 12-07-2003 10:07 AM               

I will be giving some lectures there about the issues found in my book “Ecology: Myths and Frauds”, on global warming, ozone hole, pesticides –and especially nuclear reactors and nuclear waste, an issue that Greenpeace is trying to bring to Brazil, after their serious defeat of some years ago.

It will be a long awaited holiday (Brazilian beaches, garotas and caipirinhas!) as my last trip to Brazil was four years ago. It will be a nice opportunity to practice my Portuguese that might have rusted somewhat.

Other topic: I recommend a visit to this site from Finland: “Astronomical Aspects of Mankind's Past and Present, and of Recent Climate”, by Timo Niroma, Helsinki, Finland
http://www.tilmari.pp.fi/tilmari.htm - it is full of interesting things about real old history, talking about "The late Third Millennium BC (2100-2400 BC): asteroid/comet impacts, meteor showers, floods, drop of temperature, drying around the Mediterranean??? Why did the first great civilisations collapse suddenly and at the same time around 2200 BC?".

And "The First Intermediate Period, The Curse of Akkad, Troy IIg, Third Millennium BC Climate Change and Old World Collapse, Natural Catastrophes during Bronze Age Civilizations, When did this happen? , Sodom and Gomorrah , Where did the impacts occur?, and much more, including the Mayans, etc.

It will keep you entertained until I return from Brazil.

And for just a glimpse of what is a discussion among scientists about the IPCC modeling and the CO2 increases, I recommend a visit to the link below, and try to understand what those fellows are saying. I followed their discussion, but sometimes I get lost in some very specific matters. But you'll see there is no such thing as a scientific consensus on climate matters.

http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/dietze/cmodcalc.htm

As an example, here are some excerpts from the long, long discussion. Hope Sore Throat can learn something from those people. Of course, he will copy & paste the “warmer is for sure” position, and dismiss the “IPCC is flawed” side.

******************************

Dear Peter,

thank you for the copy of your interesting discussion with Jan Goudriaan and Fortunat Joos.

I write to comment on your observation that IPCC's SAR Technical Summary p.15, states "Within 30 years about 40-60% of the CO2 currently released to the atmosphere is removed". Simply, the IPCC has at last admitted that CO2 atmospheric half-life is not at century time scales but is much shorter, only a few decades.

The admission is important for several reasons. Especially, the IPCC cannot now claim CO2 emission reductions will take "several centuries" to have significant effect. If atmospheric CO2 concentration were to double – and if this were to be seen to be a problem – then the concentration could be reduced to insignificant level in a few decades.

It remains for the IPCC to admit that isotope studies merely indicate that anthropogenic CO2 mixes in the air. The isotope studies do not indicate that the anthropogenic emissions are responsible for increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration [indeed only some 5% of the present atmospheric CO2 content is of anthropogenic origin – the rest has been mixed into other reservoirs (P.D.)]. When they admit that, then we can forget man-made global warming and return to doing real science.

All the best,

Richard Courtney

One other implication also springs to mind from this. If the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is only decades, not centuries, then the equilibrium level to which CO2 could rise to must also be much lower due to this more rapid loss of CO2 to the oceans/biosphere. It would explain why CO2 has not risen by 1% per year as often presented in model results, but has risen by less than half of that and not in the same exponential fashion either. In other words, excess CO2 from fossil fuel use decades ago is now leaching out of the system and it is this subtraction of 'old' anthropogenic CO2 from modern anthro CO2 emissions which can account for the much slower buildup of CO2 concentration.

For a control engineer a response solution for such a linearized first order system is indeed absolutely trivial. But there is nothing IPCC modellers seem to be more confused about than the CO2 excess lifetime T, i.e. the time that a concentration increment (caused by a small emission impulse) takes to be reduced to 1/e=36.8%. They assume 30 years at the "beginning" (but when do our emission impulses begin?), then 55 years (being valid for the last century as Dr. O'Neill admitted, but why not for the next century as well, as the mixed upper ocean layer is permanently exchanged?).

Then IPCC generally asserts some 120yr, but this must be rather a ficticious mean value or a misinformation, as my simulation has revealed that their effective lifetime is T=570yr (see  Fig.5). IPCC's models seem indeed to operate with this completely unrealistic CO2 lifetime which causes far too low sink flows and thus grossly exaggerated future and especially stabilization concentration increments (up to about a factor 7).

*********************************