posted 03-11-2004 04:21 PM               

quote:

---

Edufer, you probably believe that HIV causes AIDS, and there is no cancer cure!

---

I always thought that Dr. Peter Duesberg is the person who really knows about this issue. At least, he is the guy who started all about retroviruses, back in the early 70s. And I also think that the AIDS scare is another scam - as global warming, the ozone hole, desertification, deforestation, pesticides in the environment, etc.

I will tell you something that not many people know: Dr. Eduardo Leschott, a well know medical researcher in Argentina (and a personal friend of mine), made extensive research in Africa some years ago on the AIDS subject. He took blood samples from 5,000 prostitutes in Tanzania, and made a screening with an electron microscope to find the HIV virus in the samples. The normal HIV test had given a 60% rate of infection in those women, but the electron microscope screening showed that only 5% of the samples were infected.

This test was performed because Dr. Leschott had always claimed that the 60% rate of HIV infection in Africa is the consequence of 60% of the people being malaria carriers - and the malaria plasmodium always gives false HIV positive results.

You can also see that the HIV rate in Northern Africa (Morocco, Algiers, Tunisia, etc) is about 3%, while in the Subsharian regions (where malaria is endemic) the rate goes up to 60% - the same rate of malaria infected people. But the HIV scare is exploited by corrupt African governments to get money from scared Americans and Europeans for fighting malaria. (AIDS researchers in the west have also found the gold pot at the end of their rainbow!)

The problem is that money goes right into Swiss secret accounts. You know the story.

And really, I have nothing to do with oil companies - but if believing that I have ties with EXXON makes you happy, then go ahead. It's your problem, not mine. I see that you have the same kind of tunnel vision as Sore Throat.

posted 03-11-2004 04:41 PM               

My periodical checkups show no sign of cancerous cells in my body. Mi prostatic antigen tests has been under 1.0 for the last five years.

posted 03-11-2004 10:02 PM               

Climate Change: All provisions of the Kyoto Protocol now legally binding in the EU

Brussels, 10 March 2004

Climate Change: All provisions of the Kyoto Protocol now legally binding in the EU

Today, a Decision of the European Parliament and the Council enters into force, which makes all the remaining requirements under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol legally binding in all Member States. The targets of the EU and its individual Member States related to emissions of greenhouse gases became binding in 2002. The new Decision relates in particular to the way in which emissions have to be monitored and reported in accordance with the Protocol. With this step, all provisions of the Kyoto Protocol have become EU law and the EU has reaffirmed its global leadership in fighting climate change and implementing the Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is the only international framework to combat global warming.

"Now we have adopted all the necessary EU legislation to carry out our commitments under the Kyoto protocol," said Margot Wallström, European Commissioner for the Environment. "This means that we are fully implementing this important Protocol even before it has entered into force at international level. As a strong bloc of soon-to-be 25 countries, the European Union has a special responsibility to show global leadership and pave the way for other countries to follow suit."

The Kyoto Protocol and agreements reached at subsequent Conferences of the Parties envisage strict accounting, reporting and review procedures of emissions to ensure transparency as well as a high quality and comparability of data. This is one of the elements that make the Protocol one of the most advanced, innovative and comprehensive environmental treaties in the world.

The new Decision(1) provides concrete procedures for accounting, reporting and review of emissions, replacing and widening the previous Greenhouse Gas Monitoring Mechanism Decision, which only covered requirements arising from the 1992 UNFCCC. In addition, it addresses reporting and monitoring issues related to the EU's "Burden Sharing Agreement", under which each Member State has accepted an individual target for limiting or reducing its greenhouse gas emissions when the EU ratified the Kyoto Protocol in 2002.

The new rules will allow Member States and the EU to monitor their progress towards meeting their reduction targets and, based on this, take additional measures, if necessary. The Decision also provides for the necessary co-ordination between the EU and the Member States during the UN compliance and review procedures envisaged by the Kyoto Protocol. Within the EU, the Commission has to assess progress annually and, if necessary, propose suitable measures.

Background

The Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC was ratified by the European Union and its Member States on 31 May 2002. To date, 121 Parties have ratified. The Kyoto Protocol commits the EU to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 8% below 1990 levels during the first "commitment period" 2008 to 2012. Under the "Burden-Sharing Agreement", which became legally binding for the Member States when the EU ratified the Kyoto Protocol (Council Decision 2002/358/EC of 25 April 2002), this target is shared between the 15 Member States.

The rules require that, for the Protocol to enter into force, at least 55 Parties to the UNFCCC ratify it and that those account for at least 55% of the CO2 emissions in 1990. Apart from the US, who have decided not to ratify, Russia is the only country that has not ratified yet and whose 1990 emissions would help reach the 55% threshold.

Additional information can be found at:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/climat/home_en.htm

posted 03-12-2004 09:44 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edufer:
Go homeopathic, go natural - we'll see in hell!

---

Wrong again Stu,

NAtural cures have a higher percentage of cures than orthodox. The only cancer that shows any significant success rate with chemo or radiation is lymphoma.

Have you ever heard of Bryzynski's cancer cures? Or Hippocrates Institute?

Try healing diabetes with a standard diet and medicines. It gets worse. Vegetarian diet, exercise, and positive thoughts are the cure, not dangerous liver-load drugs.

Stu, you are more of a charlataan than I realized. A Big Business Hack and nothing more.

Back to Topic-Commnet on this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1120510,00.html

posted 03-12-2004 07:20 PM               

Corporate America can't ignore global warming, Gore says

By RACHEL KONRAD
The Associated Press
3/12/04 1:15 AM

STANFORD, Calif. (AP) -- Detroit automakers and other American companies must stop ignoring the mounting scientific evidence of global warming or else the United States will become an economic laggard and the environment will deteriorate beyond repair, former Vice President Al Gore told students at one of the nation's top business schools.

"The American auto companies have sat around, and instead of hiring more engineers to solve the problem they hired more lawyers to fight the requirement that they do the right thing," Gore said Thursday night to about 200 students at Stanford University's Graduate School of Business.

The former Democratic presidential candidate seemed particularly upset at a deal announced this week in which Ford Motor Co. will purchase hybrid engine technology from Japanese giant Toyota Motor Corp., which can't keep up with demand for its fuel-efficient Prius sedan.

"Detroit should be embarrassed," Gore admonished, arms flailing and voice booming in a campus auditorium on Stanford's palm-studded campus. "We ought to make this a massive strategic goal -- an organizing principle whereby we focus our research dollars and attention and effort to focus on these problems," he said of environmentally friendly technology.

Gore, a Tennessee native and frequent visitor to Silicon Valley, said development of solar and other alternative energy sources could create thousands of new jobs and revive the flagging U.S. tech sector.

The Arctic ice cap will disappear within 50 years if it continues melting at its current pace, causing massive flooding, heat waves and catastrophic storms, Gore warned.

During a question and answer session, one student asked why many U.S. citizens seemed unconcerned about the environment and why politicians seemed more focused on terrorism.

Gore said that the Bush administration has misled Americans about the connections between Saddam Hussein and the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and mainstream media have failed in their jobs as watchdogs on the government.

"Television induces a quasi-hypnotic state," said Gore, a former newspaper reporter. "The immune system that used to protect our democracy against big lies and faulty perceptions no longer protects us as it used to."

posted 03-12-2004 07:29 PM               

Global Warming: The D.C. Freeze

BY WALTER CRONKITE
King Features Syndicate

The contempt of the Bush administration for environmentalists and their concerns certainly is well enough known by now. While the evidence of man-made environmental damage continues to mount, the Bush team stubbornly resists its implications like a defeated army whose rear guard fights off its pursuers as it retreats. That has been especially true of its handling of the most serious of all the environmental issues -- global warming.

At first, the administration simply claimed that it wasn't proven, that it was the work of liberal hysterics and had been discounted by what the administration called more sober scientists. Its next begrudging retreat was the acknowledgement that it was happening but that there was no proof that human activity -- such as polluting smokestacks and exhaust pipes -- had anything to do with it, and therefore there was nothing we could do about it.

Retreat No. 3 was the White House discovery that, yes, indeed, some of the warming was due to human activity, and we should take steps, say, to reduce emissions, but those steps should be voluntary on the part of industry.

There are two scientific theories that have been gaining credence in recent years that challenge the sanity of that kind of resistance to fact -- and make no mistake about it, global warming is a fact.

Both theories begin with a phenomenon that is taking place right now. Scientists are beginning to understand climate as a complex interactive system that is affected by everything from the emission of greenhouse gases, to deforestation, to the condition of Arctic and Antarctic glaciers.

It is a system with a feedback mechanism. For example, higher temperatures lead to the melting of sea ice, which exposes more water to the sun. The water absorbs more solar energy, which accelerates global warming, and so on. Scientists fear that such feedbacks might produce a self-sustaining and accelerating warming that is beyond human control.

The second theory goes by the name of Abrupt Climate Change. It suggests that catastrophic results of global warming might not occur gradually, as most have expected, but quite suddenly -- within a few years. This theory also starts with the melting of glaciers and sea ice, but involves the dilution of seawater's salinity -- or salt content -- that results. That salt content is a key element in an ocean current that takes heat from the tropics northward and cold water southward and in the process moderates temperatures in the Eastern United States and much of Europe.

The collapse of this so-called conveyor could, in the worst case, produce a new ice age. The best case would give us severe winters, increasingly violent storms, flooding, drought and high winds around the globe, disrupting food production and energy supplies and raising sea levels high enough to flood coastal cities and make them unlivable.

These are not predictions but real possibilities -- far more possible today than scientists had previously believed. And while the politicos in the White House continue to stick their heads in the sand, some people at the Pentagon have been taking the issue very seriously. Two scientists (one of them a Pentagon official) took on the task of studying the national-security implications of Abrupt Climate Change.

What they came up with was a world whose "carrying capacity" -- the number of people the globe can sustain -- is being progressively lowered, a world where war becomes the rule, not the exception, and where wars are no longer fought for ideological, religious, or geopolitical reasons -- but for resources and survival. This unclassified Pentagon study, completed last fall, has been released to several news organizations and was highlighted in the Feb. 9 edition of Fortune magazine.

One thing we have to keep in mind: While these might only be worst-case scenarios, many of the conditions and processes scientists think might trigger them already are present or under way. Global warming is at least as important an issue as gay marriage or the rising cost of Social Security. And if it is not seriously debated in the general election, it will measure the irresponsibility of the entire political class. This is an issue that cannot, and must not, be ignored any longer.

Write to Walter Cronkite c/o King Features Syndicate, 888 Seventh Ave., New York, NY 10019, or e-mail him at mail@cronkitecolumn.com.

posted 03-12-2004 07:45 PM               

Glacier Change and Related Hazard in Switzerland

In Switzerland, glaciers play an important role as water reservoirs for hydro-power production (generating 50% of all electricity). Glacier are also an important economic factor for tourism. Moreover, they were frequently associated with natural hazards, endangering humans and infrastructure in this densely populated mountain region. Their well documented retreat since 1850 (up to 2 km) is a key indicator for climate warming. In 1973 an inventory of all Swiss glaciers (obtained from aerial photography) reveals 1828 glaciers covering 1342 km2. Since 1973, major changes in glacier extent have taken place.

Glacier changes from Landsat TM

Landsat TM data have been used to derive a new Swiss glacier inventory for the year 2000. Glacier change between two dates can be visualized by digital overlay of classified TM images (left). Since 1985, most glaciers have retreated, and some small glaciers have totally disappeared. Glacier extent in 1850 was reconstructed from old maps and field surveys. These glacier outlines and satellite imagery were overlayed on a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) to visualize glacier retreat in perspective view.

Between 1850 and 1973 Swiss glaciers lost 27% of their area. Based on satellite observation, a sample of 270 glaciers also lost 20% of their area between 1973 and 1998. This value is close to the 30% expected as derived from model calculations for 2025.

The relative loss of glacier area increases with decreasing glacier size. Glaciers smaller than 1 km2 account for about 40% of the total area loss, although they cover only xx% of the total area. Only satellite observation is able to reveal these changes at tolerable costs for large and remote areas. For climate change detection, hazard prevention or assessment of drinking water resources.

posted 03-13-2004 11:29 AM               

quote:

---

Stu, you are more of a charlataan than I realized. A Big Business Hack and nothing more.

---

Swamp Gas: you couldn’t have chosen a better nickname for you, because most of what you say is just that: fetid swamp gas. You were sure I believed cancer has not cure – I said it has, and millions of people in the world are living testimonies of that. Roughly about 25% of the world’s population gets cancer during their lives, about 50% of those recover from the illness, the rest (12% of world’s population) starts a long fight that leads to death.

Nothing strange, cancer has been with humans since the creation. And since the earliest time in history, witch doctors, sorcerers, and other charlatans have been trying to cure men with herbs, sorcery and esoteric remedies. And naive or desperate people are falling into the hoax every day. You can read all about it in Paul Tabori’s wonderful book of the 50s, “The Natural Science of Stupidity”. Don’t try to read it – you’ll find yourself portrayed there more often than you’d like. A proof is your link to:

quote:

---

Giant space shield plan to save planet

Mark Townsend
Sunday January 11, 2004
The Observer

Humanity could not exist without it - yet in an extraordinary plan that underlines the catastrophic implications of climate change, scientists now want to curb the Sun's life-giving influence to save mankind from its biggest threat: global warming.

---

Biggest threat to mankind is not the inexistent catastrophic warming, but the corporate environmentalists that have already killed about 2 million people a year since 1973 by their banning of DDT, and have helped to kill many more by their opposition to advanced technologies in the third world. Rachel Carson and her “Silent Spring” book made Hilter holocaust’s look like children’s play. Hitler and his gang of loonies killed 6 millions in 6 years – Carson’s followers have been killing 2 million a year for the last 30 years!

quote:

---

Hundreds of thousands of tonnes of metallic 'scatterers' would be ejected into the upper atmosphere under the plans. In addition, billions of tiny barrage balloons could serve as a secondary barrier to block rays from the Earth's nearest star.
On land, giant reservoirs holding saline water could be built to offset the rise in sea levels caused by the melting of the polar ice-caps. The oceans, too, would be modified to cope with the planet's increasingly warmer weather. Massive floating cloud-making machines would be dotted across their surface while, below, large plantations of algae would be grown to absorb greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.

---

quote:

---

They included the Government's chief scientist, Sir David King, who warned last week that climate change was the most severe problem facing civilization... Professor John Schellnhuber, former chief environmental adviser to the German government…

---

quote:

---

Environmentalists maintain that the solutions are so radical they serve only to underscore how unprepared governments are to deal with the threat. Last week researchers predicted that a quarter of land animals and plants will die out because of global warming over the next 50 years.

---

quote:

---

Scientists, however, argue that until the United States and Russia ratify international agreements to limit the emission of greenhouse gases they will have little choice but to explore new methods to save the planet.

---

quote:

---

These would be specially built to allow space-bound rays to pass while at the same time absorbing a significant amount of solar energy before bouncing it back into space. They would be designed to stay in place for a century.

---

Those Dr. No type of “scientists” are pushing this kind of stupid thing because they know that is the best way to steal money from stupid and scared politicians and people. They will never go into that kind of moronic project. They will spend billions in just “preparing” the blueprints and then they’ll find – suddenly – that the Earth is cooling FAST, so there they will ask for more money for WARMING UP the planet!

Haven’t you learnt the lesson?

quote:

---

Academics from California's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, … claim it will increase crop yields, because plants would be less damaged by the Sun's harmful rays.

---

There is not enough space in this thread to comment all items in that stupid article, so I won’t go on commenting it.

Swampie, I wish you better luck next time!

posted 03-13-2004 11:46 AM               

Strange thing, isn’t it? The Upsala glacier, 50 km away from the Moreno is “melting” (according to Greenpeace’s experts - and Sore Throat too), but the Moreno is growing like hell!

posted 03-13-2004 12:31 PM               

AFL-CIO Executive Council

February 20. 1997

Statement

U. N. CLIMATE CHANGE NEGOTIATIONS

The U.S. government is involved in United Nations negotiations pursuant to the "Berlin Mandate" for an amendment to the Rio Treaty on Climate Change. The Rio Treaty committed the United States and other nations to voluntarily stabilize carbon emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. Current negotiations am aimed at mandatory reductions below 1990 levels after the year 2000,

The Berlin Mandate specifically excludes developing nations from emission reduction requirements while legally binding the United States to future emission reductions. By exempting developing nations from any future commitments, the Berlin Mandate ensures that there will be no meaningful worldwide effort to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide.

We believe the parties to the Rio Treaty made a fundamental error when they agreed to negotiate legally-binding carbon restrictions on the United States and other industrialized countries, while simultaneously agreeing to exempt high-growth developing countries like China, Mexico, Brazil and Korea from any now carbon reduction commitments. As much as 60 percent of global carbon emissions are expected to come from such countries in the next few decades, with China becoming the single largest emitter in the near future. The exclusion of new commitments by developing nations under the Berlin Mandate will create a powerful incentive for transnational corporations to export jobs, capital, and pollution, and will do little or nothing to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of carbon. Such an uneven playing field will cause the loss of high-paying U.S. jobs in the mining, manufacturing, transport and other sectors.

Carbon taxes, or equivalent carbon emission trading programs, will raise significantly electricity and other energy prices to consumers. These taxes are highly regressive and will be most harmful to citizens who live on fixed incomes or work at poverty-level wages.

As corporations shut down domestic factories, mines and mills as a result of higher energy costs, they will have additional incentives, beyond the search for cheap labor and anti-labor regulatory regimes, to locate new capacity off-shore, in countries with no carbon reduction commitments. Carbon emissions, therefore, will be transferred to the developing world along with the jobs, thus providing no real benefit to the environment.

The U.S. government has not completed a thorough economic analysis of the effects of a treaty amendment on the U.S. economy, even though U.S. negotiators have been at the bargaining table for over 18 months and have agreed to a December 1997 deadline for reaching agreement on this far-reaching treaty amendment.

The AFL-CIO Executive Council calls upon the responsible agencies of the U.S. government to provide it and its affiliates with any existing studies of the economic impact of future treaty obligations and, further, make available the results of the economic modeling effort currently being undertaken by the government within 30 days of completion.

The AFL-CIO Executive Council further urges that in the ongoing negotiations to amend the Rio Treaty on climate change, the United States insist upon the incorporation of appropriate commitments from all nations to reduce carbon emissions; and seek a reduction schedule compatible with the urgent need to avoid unfair and unnecessary job loss in developed economies. The President should not accept and the Congress should not ratify any amendment or protocol that dots not meet these standards

posted 03-13-2004 12:57 PM               

"There are ominous signs that the earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production ‹ with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impacts are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and [Russia] in the north, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas ‹ parts of India, Pakistan Bangladesh, [Vietnam] and Indonesia ‹ where the growing season depends upon the rains brought by monsoons.”

"The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant over-all loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree ‹ a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

"To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three-quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down."
-------------------------------
The Cooling World by Peter Gwynne, Newsweek, April 28, 1975, p. 64
(Courtesy of Tom Randall, Winningreen LLC)

Does it ring some bells in your ears? Where have we heard this before? Or lately?

posted 03-13-2004 03:26 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by swamp gas:
Stuart Allsop/Edufer,

You need a good colonic irrigation.

---

posted 03-13-2004 05:00 PM            

Like your psionic Partner in Excess Blood-Brain Barrier Blockage, Mooliani....

You are full of crap! Prove to me your not!

For every stupid Medical-Industrial Lie you will dig up, I will counter with a Natural Healing testimony.

Now, go back to your "Global warming is a Hoax" Master, Rush Limbaugh, and repeat after him...

"I will back Big Business, Big OIl, Big Religion, Big Medicine, and Big Government....

The Individual is un-important!"

"Medical Science is not a pseudo-science"

"Hawthorne Berries Don't Lower Blood Pressure"

Keep repeating the Lie...You will eventually believe it 100%

posted 03-13-2004 06:44 PM               

Film on global warming may turn up heat for Bush

Los Angeles, March 13. (Guardian): Here’s the pitch: a dullish candidate, outflanked by his opponent’s serious money, attacked for his liberal leanings, is swept to an unlikely victory thanks to a blockbuster movie that focuses on the effects of big business and the agro-industrial complex.

Audiences throw their popcorn aside, pick up their ballot papers andrealise that they too can make a difference. The studio behind the movie:20th Century Fox, owned by Rupert Murdoch. The director: Roland Emmerich;no Martin Sheen-style bleeding heart Democrat but the brawn behind Independence Day.

It sounds unlikely, but this summer might just see an alliance ofcommerce, populist entertainment and feel-good concern combine to weaken President George Bush and hand votes to his expected Democrat rival John Kerry.

On the other hand, the film could tank, like one of its director’s othermonster-budget summer openings, Godzilla. May 28 sees the worldwide release of The Day After Tomorrow, the eco-armageddon story to beat all others.

The first trailers for the film, released on the internet last week, give a taste of the scale of the eco-horrors to come. Filmed in a combination of slick computer generated special effects and faux newscast verite, tidal waves sweep across cities and snow piles halfway up the towers of Manhattan as disjointed voices articulate the chaos around them.“What you are seeing is happening now,” says a breathless newsreader.

“Look over behind me,” shouts a TV reporter, “that’s a tornado, yes, atwister.” The film cuts to a volcano erupting next to the Hollywood signin Los Angeles. A huge flock of birds flies across the sky, a mass of people is seen crossing the Rio Grande between Mexico and the United States.

Filmed with a budget of more than $100m and special effects said to bethe greatest thing since, well, since the last big budget movie, the filmhas one other difference to other Hollywood blockbusters: it has a conscience.“At some point during the filming we looked around at all the lights,generators and trucks and we realised the very process of making this picture is contributing to the problem of global warming,” the directorand producers say in a statement on the film’s official website. “We couldn’t avoid putting CO2 into the atmosphere during the shoot, but we discovered we could do something to make up for it; we could make the film Carbon Neutral.”

The film’s website includes a lengthy list of internet links to organisations that have researched the effects of global warming. During filming last year, Emmerich described the film as “a popcorn movie that’s actually a little subversive”.

Whether this is the typical hype that surrounds a Hollywood blockbusteror the heartfelt statement of a tortured artist does not really matter.What seems certain is that the film will help to propel global warming andthe environment high up the political agenda.

President Bush is known to be sceptical about the possibility of global warming, while the environment is a traditional strong card for the Democrats. With issues such as oil drilling rights in Alaska playing strongly among some voters, the president’s opponents have regularly attacked him for the favouritism he is perceived to have shown to the fossil fuel giants that dominate the US economy. The Pentagon even got in on the act, releasing a study last month that suggested that one outcome of global warming could be the rise of mass civil unrest. In one scenario, drought, famine and rioting erupt across theworld, spurred on by climate change. As nations face dwindling food supplies and scarce natural resources, conflict becomes the norm.

“Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,” says the Pentagon study. “Once again, warfare would define human life.”“The climate is going to play a significant role in the campaign,” said Luke Breit, chairman of the Democrat’s environmental caucus in California,where the environment is traditionally a key political issue. “John Kerry is mentioning clean air and water at every opportunity. It’s going to be on the first tier of issues. Our job is to make clear how anti-environment the government has been.”

But while it can be fortuitous for an event such as a mass appeal movie tocome along and propel an issue to the forefront of voters’ consciousness,there are also pitfalls. “The danger is it could make it look more trivial,” said Mr Breit. “My guess is that people in the environmental leadership around the country are holding their breath. I’m hoping that it’s going to be very good and that we have great entertainment value butthat at the same time it treats the science seriously.”

One US environmental pressure group has already enlisted the help of one of the film’s stars, Jake Gyllenhaal, to help promote its agenda while promoting the film.The Day After Tomorrow’s advance publicity suggests a typical Hollywood mix of fact, fantasy and hype: fake weather reports and testimonies from fans about where they would like to be the day the world dies are mixed with earnest exhortations to help avert global warming.

And Hollywood has been here before. The Perfect Storm, Armageddon and Twister all combined Hollywood’s love of little people battling insurmountable natural - and unnatural - powers while giving great specialeffects.

“In Independence Day Roland Emmerich brought you the near destructionof the earth by aliens,” says the website. “Now, in The Day After Tomorrow, the enemy is an even more devastating force: nature itself.” It’ll have them voting in the aisles.

posted 03-13-2004 06:47 PM               

Global warming worsening: WRI

Washington, March 12. (PTI): Concerned over the "worsening" global warming, despite a decade since the ratification of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC), [b]the World Resources Institute (WRI), a major think tank, has said that a concerted effort by international communities could only address the problem.

"We have not made significant progress in curbing global warming in the last decade. In fact, the latest scientific reports indicate that global warming is worsening," said Dr. Jonathan Pershing, director of WRI's Climate, Energy and Pollution Programme.

"We are quickly moving to the point where the damage will be irreversible. Unless we act now, the world will be locked in to temperatures that would cause irreparable harm. To stabilize the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases that lead to global warming, we must ultimately bring net emissions of these gases to near zero," he said.

Leaders from 154 countries signed the UNFCCC with much fanfare during the 1992 Earth Summit in Brazil. It was ratified in March, 1994 and today, 188 countries are signatories.

An implementing treaty, the Kyoto Protocol, is in limbo as Russia remains undecided whether it will ratify it or not. The Bush Administration has refused to sign it.

David Jhirad, WRI's vice president for research and an international energy expert, said unprecedented technology innovation, policy leadership and private capital investment will be needed to solve the problem.

posted 03-13-2004 06:55 PM               

QUOTEWORTHY

"We've known for some time that we have to worry about the impacts of climate change on our children's and grandchildren's generations. But we now have to worry about ourselves as well."

-- Margaret Beckett, British Secretary of State for Environment (April, 2002)

"To me the question of the environment is more ominous than that of peace and war...I'm more worried about global warming than I am of any major military conflict."

-- U.N. Weapons Inspector Hans Blix, (March 14, 2003)

"The most populous and wealthiest of the world face a moral challenge greater than colonialism or slavery. They are failing in that challenge. Men have lost reason in the fossil fuel economy. . . Inhabitants of small islands have not agreed [to be] sacrificial lambs on the altar of the wealth of the rich."

-- Ambassador Lionel Hurst, of Antigua-Barbuda (March, 2003)

"Our house is burning down and we're blind to it...The earth and humankind are in danger and we are all responsible. It is time to open our eyes. Alarms are sounding across all the continents . . . We cannot say that we did not know! Climate warming is still reversible. Heavy would be the responsibility of those who refused to fight it."

-- French President Jacques Chirac, World Summit on Sustainable Development, (Johannesburg, August, 2002)

"Prehistoric and early historic societies--from villages to states or empires--were highly vulnerable to climatic disturbances. Many lines of evidence now point to climate forcing as the primary agent in repeated social collapse."

-- Harvey Weiss and Raymond S. Bradley (Science, Jan. 26 2001)

"There is no scientific consensus that greenhouse gases cause the world's modest global warming trend, much less whether that warming will do more harm than good, or whether we can even do anything about it."

-- Wall Street Journal editorial (April 8, 2003)

More about The Heat Is On

"Until you've read this book, you're ill-equipped to think about the planet's future." -- Bill McKibben, author of THE END OF NATURE

"No other reporter has told this story as comprehensively or explored the implications for human welfare as searchingly as Gelbspan."-- The New York Times Book Review

"People need to read this book, whether they are concerned about slowing global warming or about the use and abuse of science...or about the struggle between the haves and have-nots." -- Los Angeles Times Book Review

"A marvelously readable but devastatingly candid account of the brutal politics of debunking the scientific method by the opulent vested interests of the fossil-fuel lobby." -- Nature

"An urgent, take-no-prisoners, in-your-face expose."-- The Boston Globe

Planetary Heating

Sixteen of the 17 hottest years on record have occurred since 1980.

1991 to 1995 were the five hottest consecutive years on record.

1998 replaced 1997 as the hottest year in recorded history.

2001 replaced 1997 as the second hottest year.

2002 replaced 2001 as the second hottest year.

The decade of the 1990s is the hottest decade of the millenium.

The planet is heating at a rate faster than at any time in the last 10,000 years.

posted 03-13-2004 07:01 PM               

Your delirium tremens has broken loose. I haven’t got the slightest idea of what’s the meaning of “…psionic Partner in Excess Blood-Brain Barrier Blockage, Mooliani....” I understand each one of those words, but together it has not meaning at all – it looks as the subject lines in spam emails: “deflector honoree sweatband pituitary guru more effective than Via-gra”. Even Sore Throat has more brains than you (it should sound insulting).

quote:

---

"I will back Big Business, Big OIl, Big Religion, and Big Government....
The Individual is un-important!"

---

Besides, who’s Rush Limbaugh? A pizza delivery boy? (for the rush thing), A politician? A movie star? A baseball or basketball player? Remember that the US is not the center of the universe (fortunately).

posted 03-13-2004 07:17 PM               

quote:

---

Sixteen of the 17 hottest years on record have occurred since 1980.
1991 to 1995 were the five hottest consecutive years on record.
1998 replaced 1997 as the hottest year in recorded history.
2001 replaced 1997 as the second hottest year.
2002 replaced 2001 as the second hottest year.
The decade of the 1990s is the hottest decade of the millenium.
The planet is heating at a rate faster than at any time in the last 10,000 years.

---

Besides, all the claims made above are pure fables, constructions made falsifying data, twisting arguments, and fraudulent handling of computer modeling. Especially the claim that the 20th century was the hottest in the millenium has been proven (peer reviewed! By 5 distinguished scientists in England) that was a total fraud! So, in the mouth of the liar (Throatie), the truth becomes doubtful…

posted 03-13-2004 08:35 PM               

What would their motives be?

What do you call such people?

http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/eng/csa_sectors/space_science/atmospheric/scisat/ozone.asphttp://www.space.gc.ca/asc/eng/csa_sectors/space_science/atmospheric/scisat/ozone.asp

SCISAT (Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment):

Update on Canada’s Ozone Layer

Arctic Ozone Loss

The Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment (ACE) on the new Canadian science satellite (SCISAT) will take measurements of Canada’s ozone layer with a particular focus on the Arctic. Scientists are concerned about ozone depletion in the Canadian Arctic, where significant ozone losses of up to 45% have been observed during the late 1990s.

A recent Environment Canada report*, which reviews the recent findings of Canadian ozone scientists, states that serious thinning of the Arctic ozone layer could become more frequent over the next 10 to 20 years despite international action taken to reduce ozone destroying chemicals.

Preliminary studies indicate that climate change may be altering the Arctic atmosphere making it more susceptible to ozone loss. Ozone-depleting industrial chemicals, however, are still considered the major cause of ozone thinning.

Increased ozone depletion in the Arctic could be damaging to sensitive northern life forms. Ozone thinning over the Arctic could also reduce ozone levels over southern Canada as ozone is redistributed to compensate for losses in the far north.

Over the next 10 to 20 years, Arctic ozone depletion could even become as frequent and possibly as severe as that over the Antarctic. The ozone hole in the Antarctic has grown in extent every year since 1979 and has now reached record proportions. It covered nearly 25 million km2 with depletions of up to 70%. In the Arctic, however, weather conditions are more variable than those over the Antarctic, and the ozone layer is not expected to develop a large stationery "hole" each spring.

Other Recent Findings

Ozone thinning is continuing over the rest of Canada, where ozone values have decreased by an average of about 6% since the late 1970s, with greater losses of about 8 to 10% in the springtime.

Ozone depletion is not fully understood. Only about half of the observed ozone loss in the atmosphere can be definitely attributed to known ozone-depleting industrial chemicals; other factors, such as climate change may be also contributing to ozone depletion. Due to these uncertainties, changes in the ozone layer must be carefully tracked to determine the effectiveness of actions taken to reduce ozone-depleting substances. The new Canadian science satellite will contribute by taking measurements of the ozone layer from space.

As a result of the thinning ozone layer, sunburn-inducing UV rays have increased by an average of about 7% in Canada, with levels increasing to 10 to 12% in the springtime. These increased UV levels, which are expected to remain higher than normal for the next 30-40 years, will affect human health, crops, forests and marine and freshwater ecosystems.

Verifying the Satellite’s Arctic Measurements

In 1987, Canada became the first country in the world to focus on the Arctic ozone layer, following the discovery of the ozone hole over the Antarctica. Ozone thinning in the Arctic is greatest during the winter months, when research must be carried out in 24-hour darkness and in temperatures which regularly drop to -40°C. To assist scientists working in this harsh northern environment, Environment Canada built a scientific ozone laboratory at Eureka, on Ellesmere Island, a remote weather station less than 1,000 km from the north pole. Opened in 1993, the observatory has enabled researchers to carry out intensive studies of the Arctic ozone layer and has now become a centre for international research.

As the new Canadian science satellite passes overhead, Environment Canada scientists will take measurements of the upper atmosphere from the Eureka Observatory. They will record ozone levels, as well as other chemicals and the occurrence of polar stratospheric clouds, a form of high level ice clouds which speed up the process of ozone depletion. These measurements will be later compared to data taken by the satellite, to verify the accuracy of the space observations.

Canadian Ozone Research

Canada has made a major contribution to global ozone science, both by monitoring ozone levels, and by conducting research into the causes and impacts of ozone depletion. Canadian research into the ozone layer began in the 1930s and was strengthened in the 1980s when decreases in ozone levels were first observed.

In 1993, Environment Canada scientists completed the first long-term study conclusively showing that the thinning of the stratospheric ozone layer has led to an increase in ultraviolet levels at the earth’s surface. As well, Environment Canada scientists developed the Brewer Ozone Spectrophotometer, a state-of-the-art scientific instrument. Recognized as the world’s most accurate ozone-measuring instrument, it is now in use in more than 35 countries.

Environment Canada operates a network of cross-country monitoring stations which has kept continuous watch on Canada’s ozone layer for more than three decades. The early records, which were taken before any major human influence on the ozone layer, are vital to understanding the changes that are occurring today.

Canadian scientists use a variety of techniques to keep tabs on the ozone layer, including high-altitude research balloons, satellite measurements and ground-based instruments. Two Canadian astronauts, Marc Garneau and Steve MacLean, have even used Canadian instruments to take readings of the ozone layer from inside the space shuttle.

Why is the ozone layer not recovering?

Considerable action has already been taken to reduce the industrial chemicals that are depleting the ozone layer. Canada played a key role in the development of the Montreal Protocol, the international agreement to protect the ozone layer signed in 1987. The build up of the most significant CFCs in the lower atmosphere has now been slowed, and in some cases, even reversed. For example, one of the key chemicals (CFC-11) is now decreasing. However, large concentrations of ozone depleting substances still remain in the atmosphere and are expected to persist for many years to come.

If all countries comply with the terms of the Montreal Protocol, scientists eventually expect to see improvements in the ozone layer, and a recovery should occur around the year 2050. However, scientists are uncertain how the rising levels of greenhouse gases and other pollutants may affect ozone loss, particularly in the Arctic. Ozone depletion over the Earth’s poles may well get worse before it gets better.

For further information, please contact:

David Wardle
Environment Canada
Telephone: (416) 739-4632

*The report, titled Arctic Ozone - the Sensitivity of the Ozone Layer to Chemical Depletion and Climate Change, is posted at http://www.ec.gc.ca/ozone/en/index.cfm. It is also available at Environment Canada’s Inquiry Centre, at 1-800-668-6767

posted 03-13-2004 08:38 PM            

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/2973

http://www.cnn.com/EARTH/9709/30/environment.climate.reut/

http://www.nationalcenter.org/dos7124.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1435009.stm

Lot's of Copies and pastes, long-winded conundrums, and general Bullshoot from Stuart, but the same Elitist Point of View, which like any history is totally based on disinformation.

Boring AND Dangerous

posted 03-13-2004 09:06 PM               

Don't forget to wipe your bummie...

posted 03-13-2004 10:26 PM               

Really ?

Let's start now:

THE STATEMENT

I. The review conducted by a distinguished international panel of scientists under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has determined that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." As economists, we believe that global climate change carries with it significant environmental, economic, social, and geopolitical risks, and that preventive steps are justified.

II. Economic studies have found that there are many potential policies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions for which the total benefits outweigh the total costs. For the United States in particular, sound economic analysis shows that there are policy options that would slow climate change without harming American living standards, and these measures may in fact improve U.S. productivity in the longer run.

III. The most efficient approach to slowing climate change is through market-based policies. In order for the world to achieve its climatic objectives at minimum cost, a cooperative approach among nations is required -- such as an international emissions trading agreement. The United States and other nations can most efficiently implement their climate policies through market mechanisms, such as carbon taxes or the auction of emissions permits. The revenues generated from such policies can effectively be used to reduce the deficit or to lower existing taxes.

Kenneth Arrow, Stanford University

Gerard Debreu, UC - Berkeley

John Harsanyi, UC - Berkeley

Lawrence Klein, University of Pennsylvania

Wassily Leontief, New York University

Franco Modigliani, MIT

Robert Solow, MIT

James Tobin, Yale University

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/2973

This is an easy opening bid Ferreyra.

You owe 16.

posted 03-13-2004 10:51 PM               

Preeminent Scientists Protest Bush Administration's Misuse of Science

Nobel Laureates, National Medal of Science Recipients, and Other Leading Researchers Call for End to Scientific Abuses

Washington, D.C.—Today, more than 60 leading scientists—including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university chairs and presidents—issued a statement calling for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. According to the scientists, the Bush administration has, among other abuses, suppressed and distorted scientific analysis from federal agencies, and taken actions that have undermined the quality of scientific advisory panels.

“Across a broad range of issues, the administration has undermined the quality of the scientific advisory system and the morale of the government’s outstanding scientific personnel,” said Dr. Kurt Gottfried, emeritus professor of physics at Cornell University and Chairman of the Union of Concerned Scientists. “Whether the issue is lead paint, clean air or climate change, this behavior has serious consequences for all Americans.”

“Science, to quote President Bush's father, the former president, relies on freedom of inquiry and objectivity,” said Russell Train, head of the Environmental Protection Agency under Nixon and Ford, who joined the scientists in calling for action. “But this administration has obstructed that freedom and distorted that objectivity in ways that were unheard of in any previous administration.”

The statement notes that while scientific input to the government is rarely the only factor in public policy decisions, this input should be weighed from an objective and impartial perspective. However, the administration of George W. Bush has disregarded this principle.

“The Earth system follows laws which scientists strive to understand,” said Dr. F. Sherwood Rowland a Nobel laureate in chemistry. “The public deserves rational decisionmaking based on the best scientific advice about what is likely to happen, not what political entities might wish to happen.”

“We are not simply raising warning flags about an academic subject of interest only to scientists and doctors,” said Dr. Neal Lane, a former director of the National Science Foundation and a former Presidential Science Advisor. “In case after case, scientific input to policymaking is being censored and distorted. This will have serious consequences for public health.”

In conjunction with the statement, the Union of Concerned Scientists today released a report Scientific Integrity in Policymaking that investigates numerous allegations in the scientists’ statement involving censorship and political interference with independent scientific inquiry at the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Departments of Health and Human Services, Agriculture, Interior and Defense.

One example cited in the statement and report involves the suppression of an EPA study that found the bipartisan Senate Clear Air bill would do more to reduce mercury contamination in fish and prevent more deaths than the administration's proposed Clear Skies Act. “This is akin to the White House directing the National Weather Service to alter a hurricane forecast because they want everyone to think we have clear skies ahead,” said Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists “The hurricane is still coming, but without factual information no one will be ready for it.”

Comparing President Bush with his father, George H.W. Bush and former president Richard M. Nixon, the statement warned that had these former presidents similarly dismissed science in favor of political ends, over 200,000 deaths and millions of respiratory and cardiovascular disease cases would not have been prevented with the signing of the original Clean Air Act and the 1990 amendments to that Act.

The statement demands that the Bush administration’s “distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends must cease” and calls for Congressional oversight hearings, guaranteed public access to government scientific studies and other measures to prevent such abuses in the future. The statement further calls on the scientific, engineering and medical communities to work together to reestablish scientific integrity in the policymaking process.

# # #
Among the statement signers are:

Philip W. Anderson*†
David Baltimore*†
Paul Berg*†
Lewis Branscomb
Thomas Eisner*
Jerome Friedman†
Richard Garwin*
Walter Kohn*†
Neal Lane
Leon Lederman*†
Mario Molina†
W.K.H. Panofsky*
F. Sherwood Rowland†
J. Robert Schrieffer*†
Richard Smalley†
Harold E. Varmus*†
Steven Weinberg*†
E.O. Wilson*

* National Medal of Science
† Nobel laureate

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

That's another 12 Nobel laureates Ferreyra.

By your own unsubstantiated boast, you now owe the discussion 40 Nobel laureates who claim that "the “catastrophic warming” issue,
I can mention TWO Nobel Awards that say it is a flawed hypothesis."

Documentation is of course required.

You know the old saying about "putting up or shutting up"?

You can back up your own claims can't you Ferreyra?

You wouldn't be blowing more hot air would you?

posted 03-13-2004 11:43 PM            

Effects of Alcohol:

Nervous system

* Tingling and loss of sensation in the hands and feet.

Heart

* High blood pressure.
* Irregular pulse.
* An enlarged heart.

Lungs

* Greater chance of infections including tuberculosis.

Muscles

* Weakness.
* Loss of muscle tissue.

Liver

* Severe swelling and pain.
* Hepatitis.
* Cirrhosis.
* Liver cancer.

Pancreas

* Inflamed pancreas causing pain.

Sexual organs (males)

* Impotence.
* Shrinking of testicles.
* Damaged/less sperm.

Sexual organs (females)

* Greater risk of gynaecological problems.
* Damage to the fetus if pregnant.

Blood

* Changes in red blood cells.

Brain

* Brain injury.
* Loss of memory.
* Confusion.
* Hallucinations.

Skin

* Flushing.
* Sweating.
* Bruising.

Stomach

* Inflamed lining.
* Ulcers.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Effects of Peyote:

Lowered blood pressure (peyote/mescaline)

Higher body temperature (peyote/mescaline)

Goose bumps

Dilated pupils

Dizziness

Dry mouth

Numbness

Tremors

Nausea