|
Post by KNOWTHIS on Mar 18, 2006 17:34:44 GMT -5
They can dig deep in to the ice shelves and analyze the CO2 levels from those periods, millions of years ago and they still can’t find levels as high as they are now. The current levels are expected to DOUBLE. Cycle, cycle, cycle is easy to rehearse but not to prove. And when we force ourselves in to water shortages, then you’ll see true threats of tax, tax, tax, control, control, control, war, war, war, for the remaining clean water supplies.
|
|
|
Post by Mech on Mar 18, 2006 17:35:48 GMT -5
Swamp Gas:
Yeah..they sure do.
Lets take a look at some socialists of the 20th century.
Josef Stalin:
MURDERED millions of people who disagreed with his "peoples revolution".
Mao Se Dung:
MURDERED millions of dissidents and jailed hundereds of thousands of people in the name of "the peoples revolution".
Pol Pot:
MURDERED Millions of people and intellectuals for being "too smart" or against the peoples revolution.
Ah yes...collectivisim and socialism is the future.
Ummmmmm....NOT!!!!!
By the way swamp..people who have changed things not necessarily "all liberals" or "all from the 60's".
Nice try.
|
|
|
Post by KNOWTHIS on Mar 18, 2006 17:39:28 GMT -5
What kind of scientific background does he even have to be speaking about these issues with such certainty? Of course everyone has the right to their opinions but he often declares his truths as absolutes. And how often does he interview scientists that do feel that man-made global warming is an issue? If he doesn't at least do that much he's as bad as Bill O'reilly in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Swamp Gas on Mar 18, 2006 17:39:56 GMT -5
Facists
Hitler
GW Bush
Marcos
Mussolini
Franco
Caesar
Napoleon
What's your fucking point? You won't even comment on the social changes enacted by Liberals?
You go off on a tangent about Dictators.
What The Fuck does that have to do with Social Change?
Name me an important social change made by a Conservative?
|
|
|
Post by Mech on Mar 18, 2006 17:41:08 GMT -5
KT,
If anything...the SOCIALISTS and GLOBALISTS are calling for a global tax on fuel and water resources.
If you dig deeper you will realise its all CRONYISM...nothing more.
Control over resources by the few so they can CONTROL US.
They create the phony crisis, guage the reaction (oh my god theres too much carbon dioxide and we are running out of water!)and OFFER THEIR "Solution"....Global tax....regulation and tax of all resources..HENCE TYRANNY.
Thats the REAL threat.
But think what you want man.
|
|
|
Post by Swamp Gas on Mar 18, 2006 17:43:51 GMT -5
What kind of scientific background does he even have to be speaking about these issues with such certainty? Of course everyone has the right to their opinions but he often declares his truths as absolutes. And how often does he interview scientists that do feel that man-made global warming is an issue? If he doesn't at least do that much he's as bad as Bill O'reilly in my opinion. Because him and O'Reilly are both Conservatives. Conservatives are by nature anti-woman, anti-government, and anti-social.
|
|
|
Post by Swamp Gas on Mar 18, 2006 17:49:46 GMT -5
KT, If anything...the SOCIALISTS and GLOBALISTS are calling for a global tax on fuel and water resources. If you dig deeper you will realise its all CRONYISM...nothing more. Control over resources by the few so they can CONTROL US. They create the phony crisis, guage the reaction (oh my god theres too much carbon dioxide and we are running out of water!)and OFFER THEIR "Solution"....Global tax....regulation and tax of all resources..HENCE TYRANNY. Thats the REAL threat. But think what you want man. The Real Threat is Fascism, not Socialism. Sweden is solicalist, Finland is socialist, and Norway is socialist. They have happy societies. Lowest crime, highest age, are working with wind, solar, and other alternative forms of energy, on a MASS SCALE. They have the freest press. They have naked people on TV, and nobody blinks. They have low rates of rape. Suicide is high in the farthest north areas becasue of 6 month days/nights. The Fascists want people to think socialism is bad. If we created a government that was by the people and for the people, then we would have a Socialist Republic, where nobody would be forced to suffer. When Alex Jones and Company are calling for is ANARCHY, and nothing less.
|
|
|
Post by Mech on Mar 18, 2006 17:52:32 GMT -5
Ummm.....
What did the USSR stand for Swamp.
United Soviet...SOCIALIST REPUBLIC.
No WAY.
A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC is the only way to put things right.
Period.
Alex is for small government...and I am in complete agreement.
Prove to me that Alex Jones is calling for so-called "Anarchy"?
|
|
|
Post by Thetaloops on Mar 18, 2006 18:14:43 GMT -5
The NWO is not everything. We come from long line of hard working, union organizing, average Joe and Joans who are into Paganism and Earth Watching. So, all this pushing of your ideas in our face is not going to change our roots. I'm not sure I understand why a person who likes to walk in nature, so much would take this stance? It is going to take an organized effort of all of us to stop from destroying ourselves and the planet. What is your plan? How do we stop the NWO, if that is your main concern?
|
|
|
Post by Swamp Gas on Mar 18, 2006 18:25:12 GMT -5
The NWO is not everything. This is what we have been saying for years. We are the dreamers, we are the creatives, and we are treated like crap by the Corporatists. It's almost a hypnosis...."NWO...NWO...NWO...NWO...NWO". Maybe this is what the NWO wants, is to be thinking about them all the time. Maybe Lex Jones is NOT on our side, by constantly singing the NWO tune. Then when Mech comes in here, pushes corporate and Limbaugh lines, and then ridicules me, there is a line to be drawn. We appreciate what he has done for us (and I hope vice versa), but we do not allow members to ridicule each other. And Yes, I will listen to Randi Rhodes, MIke Malloy, and Janeane Garafalo. They are brighter than Alex Jones, believe 9/11 was an inside job, and have 10x the audience that Alex has.
|
|
|
Post by Swamp Gas on Mar 18, 2006 18:40:58 GMT -5
Ummm..... What did the USSR stand for Swamp. United Soviet...SOCIALIST REPUBLIC. No WAY. A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC is the only way to put things right. Period. Alex is for small government...and I am in complete agreement. Prove to me that Alex Jones is calling for so-called "Anarchy"? The Constitution is only as good as the people and society behind it. The USSR was a totalitarian Regime, not even close to Socialism. Sweden and Finland are socialist. How small of a government? What does it take care of? The size of the government is not as important as what the laws and morals are. By advocating small government, we are treading dangerously close to Anarchy. Too big of a government is Nazism or the Bush Administration.
|
|
|
Post by Jeanie on Mar 18, 2006 21:38:49 GMT -5
Well, who's going to do something about anything??? I think I need a vacation, no, I know I need a vacation.
|
|
|
Post by Swamp Gas on Mar 18, 2006 23:25:44 GMT -5
Thetaloops and I think the same way. Too much concentrating on the negative. Time to create more new ideas. Seriously, we will all drive ourselves insane thinking about chemtrails, NWO, Bush, Global Warming, Ice Age, 2012, Apocalypse, End Times, Nazis, Globalists, on and on.
Old Chinese Proverb..........If you fight Dragons long enough, you become one.
We have the tools, and we are putting our energy into Designing Future Worlds.
1) Look within - The saying has more meaning than ever. Do we have the same traits as the people we dislike? Can we find the point of equilibrium inside?
2) Look without - The stars beckon everyone.
3) Life Extension - Enough of buying the propaganda of people who want us to die. It starts in the mind and brain. When those age, the body follows. DNA says we are immortal. The Clergy, Heart Surgeons, and Insurance Companies think differently. Stop the Cross-Links and Decreasing oxygen and we are on our way
4) Get smarter - Use the herbs, vitamins, Nootropics, Exercise, and positive thinking to regenerate dying and dead brain cells.
5) Love more - Self Explanatory
6) Know your friends - Important
7) Vote for the people that are for the people - Of any party
8) Be Creative
9) Heal thyself and the Planet
|
|
|
Post by CDsNuTz on Mar 18, 2006 23:40:04 GMT -5
What in the hell is gong on here? ? We can agree on 90% of the whats going on but let this only thing drive a wedge between us..Jay would be elated and bragging that he caused this.If you really take a hard look at the whole scheme of things from the early part of the twentieth century to present day there has alway been something happening to help control a certain amount of people. From WWI, thegreat depression,WWII,ColdWar,Vietnam,Cold War Kennedy,Cold War, Beatnicks,Hippies,Cold War,Cults,Cold War,UFO's,Cold Wars over,Enviromentism, The great snooze through the Clinton years,Enviromentism, Religious Fanatics, Enviromentism, Terrorism, Enviromentism, And finally More UFO/Aliens.All of which control certain amounts of people in any given area.Now look at the great GLOBAL CATASTROPHIE before us. The weather affects every single person on earth whether you like it or not.We can all agree on a certain amount of Geo-Engineering,But you can't seem to fathom the thought that it might be used as a means of total control?I mean what in the hell is so different about this??
|
|
|
Post by Swamp Gas on Mar 18, 2006 23:54:59 GMT -5
I fathom completely what's going on. Do you?
You and Mech take the stance of Oil Companies, GW Bush, and Rush Limbaugh when it comes to Global Warming, and I'm supposed to say, "great, that's really enlightened"
I noticed all of your "control" movements are all liberal and creative lifestyles. Gun Owners are controlled by their fear. Christians are not controlled?
Nobody seems to be addressing my question.What have Conservatives done for society?
First off, when you speak of hippies and beatniks being controlled, is that something you read, or is it something you experienced? Just as I thought. Alex and Makow nonsense.
Alex Jones was a barely born when Kennedy was shot. I was thinking about the NWO when Alex was still in grammar school.
Before you were born I marched for the Vietnam War. I protested. I was an environmentalist when the term was not even invented yet. My heritage was farmers, Composers, ship captains, Liberals, and Democrats. I am proud of who I am, and no one will tell me I don't fathom what's going on.
So, CDs, please don't start anything with me. I have been polite to you for years. If you want to follow Mech, and see no value in "Liberal" ideas, than perhaps you should go to his site.
If I want to fight with Neo-Cons and Conservatives, then I'll invite Jay Reynolds, Seeker, and Smell over here.
|
|
|
Post by CDsNuTz on Mar 19, 2006 0:03:03 GMT -5
WOW!!
PEACE ALL!!!
|
|
|
Post by Swamp Gas on Mar 19, 2006 0:13:19 GMT -5
you can't seem to fathom the thought that it might be used as a means of total control?I mean what in the hell is so different about this?? Or is Total Control to put corporations in charge of the environment, and have anti-social ideas pushed through a filter of "Constitutionalist?" I have seen this crap from the 50s. Make the Unions, Hippies, Beatniks, Socialists, Democrats, Environmentalists, Animal Rights Activists, Black Rights Activists, Woman's Rights Activists, Anti-War Activists, Liberals, Progressives, and Pagans, all look bad through various methods. The Right-Wing Conservatives always wanted to make us look bad. When people come into our house, this site, and attack me for my well threaded ideas, I see the same Right-Wing crap I saw from 50 years ago. It is disguised as "Constitutionalist" or "Libertarian". It is the same old story. Some things never change.
|
|
|
Post by CDsNuTz on Mar 19, 2006 1:22:39 GMT -5
I never once said anything about making anyone look bad,My point was they use these groups and events as a means of controlling certain aspects of one veiws and ideals.And if they can only control specific amounts of people through these means, then they'll be looking for a way to control everyone at once.Hence they'd use something that affects everyone, everyday, on a very real basis..ie the weather,Global warming,Geo-Manipulation..
|
|
|
Post by BigBunny on Mar 19, 2006 8:02:03 GMT -5
I don't rely on labels to characterize people other than to suggest that there are really only 3 groups - US, THEM and the ordinary people. The free thinkers (US) are not to be tolerated because we are a threat to the control exerted by THEM. Many of US simply lead our lives in such a way as to facilitate the spread of ideas which challenge the conventional thoughts and "wisdom" espoused by THEM. And then some of US (myself included) are a little more overt in our criticism of THEM. But the point remains that whether you are taciturn in your views or otherwise free thought is an intolerable thought to THEM.
And this rubbish about a NWO. Lets be honest - it is not a NWO but yet another attempt at totalitarian control albeit on a planet-wide scale. In truth a NWO would be living in harmony with Nature and the natural order of things.
I do agree that THEY already control many aspects of our lives but THEY have not found a way to stop you exercising your freedom to think. When THEY do achieve this it will only be because all of US have been rendered impotent to stop THEM. A word to the wise - that is not happening any time soon.
|
|
|
Post by Swamp Gas on Mar 19, 2006 8:39:36 GMT -5
I never once said anything about making anyone look bad,My point was they use these groups and events as a means of controlling certain aspects of one veiws and ideals.And if they can only control specific amounts of people through these means, then they'll be looking for a way to control everyone at once.Hence they'd use something that affects everyone, everyday, on a very real basis..ie the weather,Global warming,Geo-Manipulation.. CD, What i said was the "Them" that BigBunny talks about. If you were around in the 50s and 60s, you would know what I'm talking about. The views that Alex Jones, Henry Makow, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and GW Bush espouse towards environmentalists, woman's libbers, Anti-war activists, animal rights activists, union organizers, gay rights activists, and hippies are the "them". "Them" being corporations like Exxon/Mobil, Lockheed, General Electric, Raytheon..the polluters and war profiteers. ALex's only escape clause is he supports anti-war. Other than that, his social views are definitely on the "them" side. Hiding behind the Constitution does not change these very anti-human ideas. As I said, the Constitution is only as good as the people who live it. Corporations have created laws which treat themselves as individuals. Randi Rhodes was dragged into this conversation. You see, she is a true liberal (Horrors, I said the Evil Word again!!!). Perhaps the point should have directed at Al Franken, who is to the left what Alex is to the right.
|
|
|
Post by KNOWTHIS on Mar 19, 2006 21:45:32 GMT -5
www.earthfiles.com/news/news.cfm?ID=1065&category=EnvironmentPlanet Earth's Ice MeltInterviews: Greenland Calving front, or break-off point into the ocean, of this Helhiem Glacier located in southeast Greenland. The image, taken in May 2005, shows high calving activity associated with faster glacial flow. This glacier is now one of the fastest moving glaciers in the world. Image credit: NASA/Wallops. Antarctica Mt. Kilimanjaro, Tanzania, Africa"What will happen to the water supply for these people when the glaciers disappear? And disappear they surely will." - Lonnie Thompson, Ph.D.Contrasting photographs taken in 2000 and 2006, looking northward towards Mt. Kilimanjaro, Tanzania, Africa. The southern ice fields which hang on the flank of the mountain are markedly reduced in the 2006 image. Photos courtesy of Lonnie Thompson, OSU.Above: The margin, or edge, of the Furtwangler Glacier atop Kilimanjaro's summit as it looked in 2000. Below: 2006 image shows the retreat of the massive ice field. Rocks in front of tripod were against ice wall in 2000. Since then, the ice wall has shrunk back as much as 5 meters (16.5 feet). Photos courtesy of Lonnie Thompson, OSU.
...............................
|
|
|
Post by KNOWTHIS on Mar 19, 2006 21:46:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by KNOWTHIS on Mar 19, 2006 22:01:34 GMT -5
The big oil companies and think tanks are politicizing this issue and playing the media and the public for fools about the real dangers of global warming by claiming that it's not real. It's a contrived right-wing propaganda campaign where the goal is to diminish the voluminous findings of real science with garbage bogus science. This false debate has been created for no other reason than corporate self gain and profitability and that's exactly why the Bush administration is on the bandwagon. The Weather Makers: How Man Is Changing the Climate and hat It Means for Life on Earth
|
|
|
Post by Jeanie on Mar 20, 2006 0:19:11 GMT -5
No question about it, the evidence is there to see, melting of the ice in the poles. Today, Sunday, 60 Minutes had a segment on global warming with a scientist who, according to him, tells what the gov. doesn't want you to know. I believe his name is Jim Hansen, he says unless serious steps are taken within the next ten years, to lower the CO2 level there will be no turning back.
l
|
|
|
Post by KNOWTHIS on Mar 20, 2006 1:21:20 GMT -5
I'm hearing about it on Coast-To-Coast-Am now. I think this is it? Rewriting The ScienceHansen- "In my more than three decades in the government I've never witnessed such restrictions on the ability of scientists to communicate with the public."It's so strange that some would rather trust NWO globalists like Bush who are busy redacting crucial information about our environment with a big black government marker and telling scientists and the media to seal their lips. It’s now the scientists that are the bad guys trying to fool us and not this administration. They’re winning the game of public thought control it seems?
|
|
|
Post by Swamp Gas on Mar 20, 2006 10:37:46 GMT -5
www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0615-07.htmDigging In Exxon Chief Makes A Cold Calculation On Global Warming by Jeffrey Ball ANNANDALE, N.J. -- At Exxon Mobil Corp.'s laboratories here, there isn't a solar panel or windmill in sight. About the closest Exxon's scientists get to "renewable" energy is perfecting an oil that Exxon could sell to companies operating wind turbines. Oil giants such as BP PLC and Royal Dutch/Shell Group are trumpeting a better-safe-than-sorry approach to global warming. They accept a growing scientific consensus that fossil fuels are a main contributor to the problem and endorse the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which caps emissions from developed nations that have ratified it. BP and Shell also have begun to invest in alternatives to fossil fuels. What particularly riles the green movement is Exxon's funding of several groups that continue to argue that the science doesn't justify caps. Among them is the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which received a total of $465,000 in 2003 from Exxon and the company's charitable foundation, according to a corporate-giving report that Exxon posts on its Web site. Not Exxon. Openly and unapologetically, the world's No. 1 oil company disputes the notion that fossil fuels are the main cause of global warming. Along with the Bush administration, Exxon opposes the Kyoto accord and the very idea of capping global-warming emissions. Congress is debating an energy bill that may be amended to include a cap, but the administration and Exxon say the costs would be huge and the benefits uncertain. Exxon also contributes money to think tanks and other groups that agree with its stance. Exxon publicly predicts that solar and wind energy will continue to provide less than 1% of the world's energy supply in 2025, a subject that others shy away from. Even if fossil fuels are the chief global-warming culprit, Exxon argues, the sensible response is to figure out how to burn them more efficiently. "We're not playing the issue. I'm not sure I can say that about others," Lee Raymond, Exxon's chairman and chief executive, said in a recent interview at Exxon headquarters in Irving, Texas. "I get this question a lot of times: 'Why don't you just go spend $50 million on solar cells? Charge it off to the public-affairs budget and just say it's like another dry hole?' The answer is: That's not the way we do things." The 66-year-old Mr. Raymond has emerged as the tallest lightning rod in the debate over global warming. At a London oil-industry dinner in February where he was the guest of honor, Greenpeace protesters poured red wine onto tables and called Mr. Raymond the "No. 1 climate criminal." Mr. Raymond, speaking on the same day the Kyoto treaty took effect, stuck by his prepared speech and called for a "reality check" on the treaty. Exxon's approach to global warming typifies the bottom-line focus of its entire business. It is slogging away to improve the energy efficiency of its refineries -- primarily to cut costs, although this is also shaving global-warming emissions. But it says the business case for making more sweeping changes is still weak. It's a conservative, hard-nosed approach that has helped make Exxon the most profitable oil company in the world, with 2004 net income of $25 billion. Even at its Annandale research lab, Exxon's focus is on adapting and improving fossil fuels -- not replacing them. Its researchers are trying to make cars burn fuel more efficiently and reduce emissions. Some futurists, and the Bush administration, think cars could run on hydrogen some day. Exxon is looking into the idea but puts its research dollars into extracting hydrogen from petroleum, not from water. A growing chorus of critics says Exxon's strategy is short-sighted. As nations crack down on global-warming emissions, they argue, the foundation of the oil business is threatened because carbon dioxide, the chief suspected global-warming gas, is produced whenever fossil fuel is burned. "There are two possible scenarios. One is that all the scientists in the world are wrong, in which case there's no climate change, in which case Exxon will do well," says Andrew Logan of Ceres, a Boston-based environmental group that's trying to put shareholder pressure on Exxon to go greener. "But if the scientists are correct and we have to find a way to transform the way we use energy, then Exxon is going to lag significantly behind its competitors." Exxon isn't ignoring global warming. Besides its research in New Jersey, it has pledged $100 million over a decade for research at Stanford University into what it calls breakthrough "mega-technologies." Among them: capturing carbon dioxide after it's emitted and burying it deep underground. The Stanford researchers are also looking at ways to slash the cost of renewable energy. Exxon believes that if global warming really is a significant environmental problem, the only serious answer will be simple alternatives that even developing nations such as China and India can afford. Though Exxon is touting the size of its Stanford investment in a new ad campaign, $100 million represents less than two days of Exxon's earnings. Shell says it has spent about $1.5 billion since 1999 building a business in renewable energy, mostly solar and wind power. BP says it has spent $500 million on solar since 2000 and about $30 million on wind over the past three years. Both Shell and BP continue to invest the overwhelming majority of their money in finding and pumping oil and gas. Their renewable-energy investments are hardly big money makers. BP says its solar business has turned a profit but not its wind business. Shell says wind makes money but not solar. Both say short-term profits aren't the point. Enough is known about the likely contribution of fossil fuels to global warming, they reason, that it's prudent to start diversifying now as a kind of insurance policy. It's "all about growing a business," says Robert Wine, a BP spokesman. Mr. Raymond disagrees. Spending shareholders' money to diversify into businesses that aren't yet profitable -- and that aim to solve a problem his scientists believe may not be significant -- strikes the Exxon chief as a sloppy way to run a company. "If I were to ask you if you want to buy an insurance policy, you've got to ask yourself a couple questions. No. 1, what are you trying to insure against? And No. 2, what are you willing to pay on the premium? And I haven't heard a very good answer to either one of those," he says. In the late 1970s, as oil prices skyrocketed, Exxon diversified into an array of fossil-fuel alternatives, including nuclear and solar energy. In 1983 it opened the lab here in Annandale, a sprawling brick complex with 19 acres of interior space. But after several years, Exxon still couldn't see prospects for renewable energy turning into a money-maker, especially since oil prices were falling in the 1980s. In the mid-1980s, the company decided to get out of the business and tapped Mr. Raymond, a South Dakota native then in his 40s, to oversee the retrenchment. "I was sent to clean it all up," he recalls. "What all these people are thinking about doing, we did 20 years ago -- and spent $1 billion, in dollars of that day, to find out that none of these were economic," he says. "That's why I feel so strongly about it -- because I've been there and I've done that." In 1988, the United Nations established a panel of scientists to study whether the science justified clamping down on greenhouse-gas emissions, so called because they are thought to create a blanket in the atmosphere that traps reflected heat from the Earth's surface just as a greenhouse locks in heat. The panel's conclusions helped spawn the Kyoto treaty. Exxon had already hired a Harvard astrophysicist named Brian Flannery in 1980 to look into global warming using mathematical models. In 1987, he was joined in the climate-science group by Haroon Kheshgi, a chemical engineer who had come to Exxon the previous year and had earlier worked at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. Over the next several years the pair dug deeper into global-warming research and Exxon made grants to several prestigious universities, starting with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Mr. Flannery says he told the MIT researchers: "Embrace the uncertainty in all of this." On Mr. Kheshgi's office wall are pictures of a climbing trip he took to a Peruvian glacier in 1987. He has also climbed glaciers in New Zealand, where he notes glaciers are receding. But he insists it's not clear that human-induced emissions are the explanation. The link is "not that simple," he says. Messrs. Flannery and Kheshgi were among the scores of scientists who helped write the U.N. panel's latest broad assessment of climate science, published in 2001. It said atmospheric concentrations of CO2 had jumped by 31% since the start of the industrial age and the 1990s were "very likely the warmest decade in instrumental record." Most of the observed warming of the past 50 years, it said, is "likely" the result of "human activities." Still, the panel said, models of climate change remain a work in progress. Among the remaining uncertainties it cited is to what extent "natural factors" unrelated to human activity play a role. The Exxon scientists say they agree with much of the assessment. But they argue that policy makers often disregard the uncertainties noted in it. In 2003, Mr. Kheshgi and a University of Illinois scientist published a paper in an American Geophysical Union journal arguing that oceans, plants and soil suck up more of the carbon dioxide emitted from fossil-fuel burning than previously thought. As a result, the paper said, models that predict a big buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere need to be rethought. That's the kind of research Mr. Raymond, himself a chemical engineer, likes to cite. "Our view is it's yet to be shown how much of this is really related to the activities of man," he says. "The world has gone through many cycles of climate change that man had nothing to do with, because man didn't exist." Messrs. Flannery and Kheshgi argue in their papers for more research into how the world can live with, rather than avoid, the effects of global warming. That concept, known as "adaptation," worries some environmentalists because they fear it will deflect attention from reducing fossil-fuel emissions. But it's one of the subjects that the U.N. climate-change panel has studied, and Mr. Kheshgi argues it's only prudent. "Climate change might pose serious risks," he says. "But it might not." Even some who advocate stricter curbs on emissions profess respect for Exxon's scientific work. "These are smart guys who shoot straight. I'm generally pretty impressed that their science is above-board and serious," says David Victor, who heads an energy-policy research program at Stanford. The program receives money from BP but isn't part of Stanford's Exxon-funded program. But most scientists take an approach to global warming that is fundamentally different from Exxon's: They choose to emphasize what is known, rather than what isn't. They believe it's clear by now that fossil-fuel emissions are warming the earth and leading to dangerous consequences -- or clear enough, anyway, that it's more prudent to act than to wait until the science is airtight. Last week representatives of scientific societies from 11 countries, including the National Academy of Sciences in the U.S., released an open letter saying global warming is prompting changes "such as rising sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems." The letter said humans are likely to blame and called the science "sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action." What particularly riles the green movement is Exxon's funding of several groups that continue to argue that the science doesn't justify caps. Among them is the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which received a total of $465,000 in 2003 from Exxon and the company's charitable foundation, according to a corporate-giving report that Exxon posts on its Web site. The antiregulatory Washington think tank has long opposed calls for a cap. Last week, one of its senior fellows, Iain Murray, wrote a column on a Web site calling the recent letter by the science academies an example of "climate alarmism" that has "needlessly thrown away the academies' reputations for unbiased information." Several years ago, the institute filed a lawsuit against the Clinton administration challenging a report the administration had released highlighting concerns about global warming. Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe also was among the parties to the suit. Sen. Inhofe has called the idea that fossil fuels are contributing to global warming a "hoax." What does Exxon's Mr. Flannery think about that? "If they're expressing a view that there's no risk that needs to be addressed, then yes, we would disagree with that," he says. For his part, Mr. Raymond downplays the importance of the money Exxon spends on groups that talk up doubts about climate science and climate caps. "The facts are you don't have to spend a lot of money to aggravate the proponents," he says. But he doesn't apologize for Exxon's role in keeping the debate alive. "We think we have a responsibility," he says. "If we think people are about to make some bad policy decisions that are going to have a big impact for a long period of time, somebody's got to say something."
|
|
|
Post by Swamp Gas on Mar 20, 2006 11:04:19 GMT -5
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4651876.stm Sea level rise 'is accelerating' There will be increased flooding of low-lying areas when there are storm surges Dr John Church Global sea levels could rise by about 30cm during this century if current trends continue, a study warns. Australian researchers found that sea levels rose by 19.5cm between 1870 and 2004, with accelerated rates in the final 50 years of that period. The research, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, used data from tide gauges around the world. The findings fit within predictions made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC's Third Assessment Report, published in 2001, projected that the global average sea level would rise by between 9 and 88cm between 1990 and 2100. In an attempt to reduce the scale of uncertainty in this projection, the Australian researchers have analysed tidal records dating back to 1870. The data was obtained from locations throughout the globe, although the number of tidal gauges increased and their locations changed over the 130-year period. These records show that the sea level has risen, and suggest that the rate of rise is increasing. Over the entire period from 1870 the average rate of rise was 1.44mm per year. Over the 20th Century it averaged 1.7mm per year; while the figure for the period since 1950 is 1.75mm per year. Although climate models predict that sea level rise should have accelerated, the scientists behind this study say they are the first to verify the trend using historical data. Floods and surges If the acceleration continues at the current rate, the scientists warn that sea levels could rise during this century by between 28 and 34cm. Dr John Church, a scientist with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation based in Tasmania and an author of the study, said that higher sea levels could have grave effects on some areas. "It means there will be increased flooding of low-lying areas when there are storm surges," he told the Associated Press. "It means increased coastal erosion on sandy beaches; we're going to see increased flooding on island nations." There is now a consensus among climate scientists that rising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide are the major factor behind rising temperatures. Increased temperatures can lead to higher sea-levels through several mechanisms including the melting of glaciers and thermal expansion of sea water. Through the 1997 Kyoto protocol, industrialised countries have committed to cut their combined emissions to 5% below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. But the US and Australia have withdrawn from the treaty. Dr Church urged: ""We do have to reduce our emissions but we also have to recognise climate change is happening, and we have to adapt as well." Story from BBC NEWS: news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/4651876.stm
|
|
|
Post by altitudelou on Mar 21, 2006 2:32:35 GMT -5
Rewriting The Science www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtmlQuote "In my more than three decades in the government I've never witnessed such restrictions on the ability of scientists to communicate with the public." James Hansen _____________ I can not but wonder if Dr. James Hansen might not become yet another scientist to be stricken by a sudden heart attack or be involved in fatal a hit and run accident or some other bazaar death causing incident as so many other scientist have in recent years.
|
|
|
Post by KNOWTHIS on Mar 23, 2006 17:51:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Swamp Gas on Mar 23, 2006 22:13:35 GMT -5
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2006/03/23/national/a110027S06.DTLMelting Ice Threatens Sea-Level Rise By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, Associated Press Writer Thursday, March 23, 2006 (03-23) 18:52 PST WASHINGTON, (AP) -- The Earth is already shaking beneath melting ice as rising temperatures threaten to shrink polar glaciers and raise sea levels around the world. By the end of this century, Arctic readings could rise to levels not seen in 130,000 years — when the oceans were several feet higher than now, according to new research appearing in Friday's issue of the journal Science. Even now, giant glaciers lubricated by melting water have begun causing earthquakes in Greenland as they lurch toward the ocean, other scientists report in the same journal. In principal findings: _ At the current warming rate, Earth's temperature by 2100 will probably be at least 4 degrees warmer than now, with the Arctic at least as warm as it was 130,000 years ago, reports a research group led by Jonathan T. Overpeck of the University of Arizona. _ Computer models indicate that warming could raise the average temperature in parts of Greenland above freezing for multiple months and could have a substantial impact on melting of the polar ice sheets, says a second paper by researchers led by Bette Otto-Bliesner of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Melting could raise sea level one to three feet over the next 100 to 150 years, she said. _ And a team led by Goeran Ekstroem of Harvard University reported an increase in "glacial earthquakes," which occur when giant rivers of ice — some as big as Manhattan — move suddenly as meltwater eases their path. That sudden movement causes the ground to tremble. Otto-Bliesner and Overpeck wrote separate papers and also worked together, studying ancient climate and whether modern computer climate models correctly reflect those earlier times. That allowed them to use the models to look at possible future conditions. The researchers studied ancient coral reefs, ice cores and other natural climate records. "Although the focus of our work is polar, the implications are global," Otto-Bliesner said. "These ice sheets have melted before and sea levels rose. The warmth needed isn't that much above present conditions." According to the studies, increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over the next century could raise Arctic temperatures as much as 5 to 8 degrees. The warming could raise global sea levels by up to three feet this century through a combination of thermal expansion of the water and melting of polar ice, Overpeck and Otto-Bliesner said. Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University, who was not part of the research teams, said, "One point stands out above all others and that is that a modest global warming may put Earth in the danger zone for a major sea level rise due to deglaciation of one or both ice sheets." Ekstroem and colleagues reported that glacial earthquakes in Greenland occur most often in July and August and have more than doubled since 2002. "People often think of glaciers as inert and slow-moving, but in fact they can also move rather quickly," Ekstroem said. "Some of Greenland's glaciers, as large as Manhattan and as tall as the Empire State Building, can move 10 meters in less than a minute, a jolt that is sufficient to generate moderate seismic waves." Melting water from the surface gradually seeps down, accumulating at the base of a glacier where it can serve as a lubricant allowing the ice to suddenly move downhill, the researchers said. "Our results suggest that these major outlet glaciers can respond to changes in climate conditions much more quickly than we had thought," said team member Meredith Nettles of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.
|
|