Climate Change

[sfenn1117]

Probably. It has been happening slowly for years. Each ski season getting less and less snow.

I just remember getting much more snow in the winter when I was a kid than now.

You need to back this up. Seeing as 4 of the past 5 winters Central Park has seen over 40" of snow (Well above the average of 22.4"), your argument is severely flawed. Also, 2 of NY's biggest snowstorms in history (Feb 2003, #5 and Jan 2006, #1) have occured recently.

Anyone who says the weather is different when they were a kid doesn't have a very good memory, do they? The weather has not changed significantly in the past 50 years.

In Vermont this past winter, December was warm, but things changed mid January and it stayed cold all the way through mid-April. Burlington had its biggest snowstorm in history on Valentines Day, and we had snowstorms through mid-April, indicative of a normal winter.

BTW, unlike Al Gore's manic claim that sea levels will rise 20 feet, most scientists agree it will be between 1-2 feet, which will have a next to nothing impact anywhere on the globe. Think about it, 20 feet is 2 feet per decade. Has the water level in NY risen 2 feet in 10 years? NO, it has not, nor will it in the coming decade.

[Ninjahedge]

You need to back this up. Seeing as 4 of the past 5 winters Central Park has seen over 40" of snow (Well above the average of 22.4"), your argument is severely flawed. Also, 2 of NY's biggest snowstorms in history (Feb 2003, #5 and Jan 2006, #1) have occured recently.

How long did the snow last.

Last time I was in a blizzard, the snow lasted teh rest of the winter.

Also, how did the resorts do? Listening from skiing, the past few seasons have started quite late.


Anyone who says the weather is different when they were a kid doesn't have a very good memory, do they? The weather has not changed significantly in the past 50 years.

Insults. Thanks.


In Vermont this past winter, December was warm, but things changed mid January and it stayed cold all the way through mid-April. Burlington had its biggest snowstorm in history on Valentines Day, and we had snowstorms through mid-April, indicative of a normal winter.

I am talking about the season in general. The snow has been weird, dumping at mid season rather than anything in December. Also, if I rememer correctly, doesn't warm air carry more moisture? Don't you get heavier snows when the ambient temperatures are closer to freezing than at 10 F?

Generally speaking, the last 5 years or so have been phreaky in the speed of change, severity of storm, and timing. Theyhave also been quite warm, on average.


BTW, unlike Al Gore's manic claim that sea levels will rise 20 feet, most scientists agree it will be between 1-2 feet, which will have a next to nothing impact anywhere on the globe. Think about it, 20 feet is 2 feet per decade. Has the water level in NY risen 2 feet in 10 years? NO, it has not, nor will it in the coming decade.

He said "could" rise 20 feet. He never said would. And do you have any clue what a constant 2 foot increase in sea level would have?

That pushes up all flood levels and makes it very difficult for a lot of coastal areas. You dismissing it out of hand shows your lack of appreciation of the issue. Tell me, how much does water weigh? Do you know anything about "uplift pressure" or hydrostatic pressure on foundation walls?

And somehow that it will not rise 2 feet in 10 years makes it Ok to say "screw it!"? I don't think so. Ice is melting. Levels ARE rising. Ice contibues to melt. If we do not try to reverse it NOW, anything we do will be too late to prevent major damage.

The more we do now, the longer it will take for this to become a major issue, if at all. The longer we wait, the less ANYTHING we will do will have any effect on preventing the initial damage (although possibly slowing the final outcome, or reversing it in time).

So that's about it.

The mere fact that you keep referring to people as "manic" who support this shows your lack of respect.

And although I do not agree with MTG and the way he addressed your classes, I also know that more is learned about almost ANY profession after you get out and start practicing it than when you are in school.

[sfenn1117]

Every winter has its ups and downs. Show me a winter that was consistently warm the entire time, or cold the entire time. Warm-ups are going to happen, and whether they occur in December (like last winter) or February is just a factor of weather patterns which don't follow the calendar. For 3 straight years on December 5th (2002-2004) NYC had a large snowfall, yet last December was 6 degrees above average. It's unpredictable. (February, on the other hand, was 6 degrees below average in the city.)

You say the weather has gotten "phreaky" in the past 5 years. Elaborate with specific 21st century weather events that have never occured before in recorded history.

If you're talking about hurricanes, you can't mention Katrina, Rita, Wilma, etc. without mentioning the Galveston Hurricane of 1900, Carol and Camille in the 60s, or the 1938 Long Island Express. 2005 was an incredible season because everything came together. Things balanced out in 2006 in a big way. The Earth has that keen ability to balance itself out.

There is some glacial melt going on, but there was also expansion of glaciers in the mid-20th century. As I said before, the Earth is full of all these feedback loops that keep it in regular balance, which is why such a dramatic climate change is virtually impossible. If the Earth were to warm as much as the most dyre of predictions, the gulf stream would shut down, and suddenly glaciers would become larger. Then we would repeat the process over and over and over.

[Capn_Birdseye]

Who said it was a battle?
I didn't say it was a battle, but it is Man pitting his weak fragile limited knowledge & resources against the all-powerful forces of Nature. It is an unwinnable contest. In my view Man has become too obsessed with his own vanity, that he believes he can overcome any difficulty he encounters. Science has led us to this (false) belief, it has seduced us into thinking that every problem has an solution if only we apply ourself enough. Wrong. As human beings we are but specks, mere nano seconds in the life of our universe, with our very existence hanging by a thread that can be broken at any moment. Yet we take it upon ourselves to challenge Nature itself. How foolish Man is.

[Edward]

You write poetry, Cap'n?

[MidtownGuy]

Yes, you know more than me but I have 2 years of college classes (including 2 classes specifically devoted to the topic at hand) to back me up. Fair enough.

Topic at hand? Oh I get it, you have 2 years of study in global climate change and the effect of greenhouse gases. Oh! And I thought you just had 2 years of plain old meteorology classes. (Where they obviously don't have time to go into this in any great depth, what with teaching your run-of-the-mill high pressure systems and such). The topic is sufficiently complex to occupy the daily work of countless scientists, and I mistakenly failed to acknowledge the pertinence of your expertise. Yeah right.


If you want to believe that the weather is going to change so radically to a point where ski resorts are pushed out of Vermont, Wall Street will be under water, and snow will become a rare occurence in NYC, all by the end of this century, knock yourself out.

Boo. You can continue to give outrageous (mis)characterizations of what I said, but it doesn't inform the discussion one bit.

[sfenn1117]

Never said I was an expert, but so we're on the same page, what do you believe, based on your knowledge, the implications of global warming will be by the end of the century? Especially regarding NYC.

[MidtownGuy]

If we continue to pollute the way we do now:
generally warmer temperatures, more extreme and destructive weather systems moving through, increased periods of drought, higher sea level.

The indirect effects of the above are too numerous to list.

[sfenn1117]

Drought in NYC? If anything our annual precipitation has increased the past few decades.

We're just going to have to drop our argument, we're not going to get anywhere between us. I will say this though, I admire those who have put forth effort to curb pollution, dependence on oil, and sprawl-reducing legislation. Global warming aside these are good things for the planet as I like cleaner air, less landfills, and protected natural wildernerness.

[MidtownGuy]

Glad we agree on those points.

About the possibility of more droughts in NY's future- there has been a lot of talk about this actually. We've experienced extended periods of low reservoir levels in recent years. Also, annual precipitation is misleading because if you go 2 or 3 months without significant precip and then get one big storm, that isn't a good situation.

[Ninjahedge]

Every winter has its ups and downs. Show me a winter that was consistently warm the entire time, or cold the entire time. Warm-ups are going to happen, and whether they occur in December (like last winter) or February is just a factor of weather patterns which don't follow the calendar. For 3 straight years on December 5th (2002-2004) NYC had a large snowfall, yet last December was 6 degrees above average. It's unpredictable. (February, on the other hand, was 6 degrees below average in the city.)

You say the weather has gotten "phreaky" in the past 5 years. Elaborate with specific 21st century weather events that have never occured before in recorded history.

If you're talking about hurricanes, you can't mention Katrina, Rita, Wilma, etc. without mentioning the Galveston Hurricane of 1900, Carol and Camille in the 60s, or the 1938 Long Island Express. 2005 was an incredible season because everything came together. Things balanced out in 2006 in a big way. The Earth has that keen ability to balance itself out.

There is some glacial melt going on, but there was also expansion of glaciers in the mid-20th century. As I said before, the Earth is full of all these feedback loops that keep it in regular balance, which is why such a dramatic climate change is virtually impossible. If the Earth were to warm as much as the most dyre of predictions, the gulf stream would shut down, and suddenly glaciers would become larger. Then we would repeat the process over and over and over.

I'll do you one better.

You find where the temps have not been rising the past 10 years. Not 5, after the heat wave we had a few years back, 10.

I have looked all over google, and i know the data is there, but finding snow totals for each season for any area dating back more than a few years s very difficult (I tried for about 30 minutes before giving up going through NOAA).

I just remember things like the blizzard of 96, and moving into Bergen County way back in the early 80's, and there being snow every season. Hell, there was even two ski areas (cragmier? and a hill in Wayne) that were in operation in NJ (besides Vernon) that had snow each year. But the past 10 they have been on and off.

I remember shoveling, and the ice storms. But I don't remember so many years in a row where we have had spring like weather, enough so as to make the trees start blooming, so frequently, followed by a snowstorm the next week.

So take it as you will. Your mind is made up and this is no longer a discussion. Go insult some other "greenie radicals"" and try "quoting" some other "terms" to imply invalidity.

[sfenn1117]

I wasn't trying to insult, and I know it's hard to find this data sometimes, but it's hard to prove your point when you only talk about childhood memories.

Here is snowfall data from Central Park:
http://www.erh.noaa.gov/okx/climate/records/monthseasonsnowfall.html

Now, obviously snowstorms are tricky sometimes, one can skirt the coast and blanket NYC and not Jersey, others dump on Jersey and give NYC rain. However, using this data you can see the 80s weren't particularly snowy. Whether or not it was a consistent snowfall or not, I don't know.

I really don't know what else to say but I disagree with you and the weather of today is pretty much the weather of 30, 40, 50 years ago. You'll have your warm winters, snowy winters, scorching summers, wet springs, etc. global warming or not.

This is good evidence I think:
http://www.erh.noaa.gov/okx/climate/records/100degdays.html

100 degree days have been spread out since record keeping began. The highest temperature ever recorded in NYC is 106 in July 1936.

[kliq6]

sfenn wrote

Woo-pee-do.
I wonder how much of those 2 years was devoted to climate change. Probably very little. I bet I know more about it than you do, so I don't need you to explain anything. What you might want to do is update whatever old textbook you were using.

kliq6- I'd like an actual quote as to what Gore said about NY temps in July. Somehow I think it's getting twisted and was not as you paraphrased it.

Okay, ill sed it to you in a PM, my friend was a producer on the event and has copies of the speeches, as they were approved. Ill get it to you ASAP

[BrooklynRider]

Melting ice cap triggering earthquakes

Paul Brown in Ilulissat The Guardian Saturday September 8 2007

The Greenland ice cap is melting so quickly that it is triggering earthquakes as pieces of ice several cubic kilometres in size break off. Scientists monitoring events this summer say the acceleration could be catastrophic in terms of sea-level rise and make predictions this February by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change far too low.

The glacier at Ilulissat, which supposedly spawned the iceberg that sank the Titantic, is now flowing three times faster into the sea than it was 10 years ago.

Robert Corell, chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, said in Ilulissat yesterday: "We have seen a massive acceleration of the speed with which these glaciers are moving into the sea. The ice is moving at 2 metres an hour on a front 5km <3 miles> long and 1,500 metres deep. That means that this one glacier puts enough fresh water into the sea in one year to provide drinking water for a city the size of London for a year."

He is visiting Greenland as part of a symposium of religious, scientific, and political leaders to look at the problems of the island, which has an ice cap 3km thick containing enough water to raise worldwide sea levels by seven metres.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/sep/08/clima...

[BrooklynRider]

Most polar bears could die out by 2050

Source: MSNBC/AP

WASHINGTON - Two-thirds of the world's polar bears will be killed off by 2050 — and the entire population gone from Alaska — because of thinning sea ice from global warming in the Arctic, government scientists forecast Friday.

Only in the northern Canadian Arctic islands and the west coast of Greenland are any of the world's 16,000 polar bears expected to survive through the end of the century, said the U.S. Geological Survey, which is the scientific arm of the Interior Department.


Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20645362 /

[Capn_Birdseye]

Over millions of years the Earth has got hot, the Earth has got cold, the Earth has got warm - always has done, always will, until the final day.
The arrogance of humans who think they can challenge the forces of Nature astounds me!
Don't worry, be happy, as someone once sang ....

[MidtownGuy]

^crazy talk.

[Capn_Birdseye]

^crazy talk.

http://ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/moregw.htm

[ablarc]

Sea level rise could flood many cities

By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer September 22, 2007

Ultimately, rising seas will likely swamp the first American settlement in Jamestown, Va., as well as the Florida launch pad that sent the first American into orbit, many climate scientists are predicting. In about a century, some of the places that make America what it is may be slowly erased.

Global warming — through a combination of melting glaciers, disappearing ice sheets and warmer waters expanding — is expected to cause oceans to rise by one meter, or about 39 inches. It will happen regardless of any future actions to curb greenhouse gases, several leading scientists say. And it will reshape the nation.

Rising waters will lap at the foundations of old money Wall Street and the new money towers of Silicon Valley. They will swamp the locations of big city airports and major interstate highways.

Storm surges worsened by sea level rise will flood the waterfront getaways of rich politicians — the Bushes' Kennebunkport and John Edwards' place on the Outer Banks. And gone will be many of the beaches in Texas and Florida favored by budget-conscious students on Spring Break.

That's the troubling outlook projected by coastal maps reviewed by The Associated Press. The maps, created by scientists at the University of Arizona, are based on data from the U.S. Geological Survey.

Few of the more than two dozen climate experts interviewed disagree with the one-meter projection. Some believe it could happen in 50 years, others say 100, and still others say 150.

Sea level rise is "the thing that I'm most concerned about as a scientist," says Benjamin Santer, a climate physicist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California.
"We're going to get a meter and there's nothing we can do about it," said University of Victoria climatologist Andrew Weaver, a lead author of the February report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in Paris. "It's going to happen no matter what — the question is when."

Sea level rise "has consequences about where people live and what they care about," said Donald Boesch, a University of Maryland scientist who has studied the issue. "We're going to be into this big national debate about what we protect and at what cost."

This week, beginning with a meeting at the United Nations on Monday, world leaders will convene to talk about fighting global warming. At week's end, leaders will gather in Washington with President Bush.

Experts say that protecting America's coastlines would run well into the billions and not all spots could be saved.

And it's not just a rising ocean that is the problem. With it comes an even greater danger of storm surge, from hurricanes, winter storms and regular coastal storms, Boesch said. Sea level rise means higher and more frequent flooding from these extreme events, he said.

All told, one meter of sea level rise in just the lower 48 states would put about 25,000 square miles under water, according to Jonathan Overpeck, director of the Institute for the Study of Planet Earth at the University of Arizona. That's an area the size of West Virginia.

The amount of lost land is even greater when Hawaii and Alaska are included, Overpeck said.

The Environmental Protection Agency's calculation projects a land loss of about 22,000 square miles. The EPA, which studied only the Eastern and Gulf coasts, found that Louisiana, Florida, North Carolina, Texas and South Carolina would lose the most land. But even inland areas like Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia also have slivers of at-risk land, according to the EPA.

This past summer's flooding of subways in New York could become far more regular, even an everyday occurrence, with the projected sea rise, other scientists said. And New Orleans' Katrina experience and the daily loss of Louisiana wetlands — which serve as a barrier that weakens hurricanes — are previews of what's to come there.

Florida faces a serious public health risk from rising salt water tainting drinking water wells, said Joel Scheraga, the EPA's director of global change research. And the farm-rich San Joaquin Delta in California faces serious salt water flooding problems, other experts said.

"Sea level rise is going to have more general impact to the population and the infrastructure than almost anything else that I can think of," said S. Jeffress Williams, a U.S. Geological Survey coastal geologist in Woods Hole, Mass.

Even John Christy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a scientist often quoted by global warming skeptics, said he figures the seas will rise at least 16 inches by the end of the century. But he tells people to prepare for a rise of about three feet just in case.

Williams says it's "not unreasonable at all" to expect that much in 100 years. "We've had a third of a meter in the last century."

The change will be a gradual process, one that is so slow it will be easy to ignore for a while.

"It's like sticking your finger in a pot of water on a burner and you turn the heat on, Williams said. "You kind of get used to it."

[Capn_Birdseye]

Why do I think hysteria has taken over this whole ridiculous scare campaign?:)

Man vs. Nature - No Contest

Don't worry about it, "They" will think of even more scary headlines before they're finished!

Let me compose one:

Giant Underwater Earthquakes Will Wipe Out 90% Of Earth's Land Mass by 2015 & The Oceans Will Become Dead Seas Of Pollution With All Sea Life Extinct - Official

Me, I'm not worried about any of it. In fact the more extreme the scare stories get, the more relaxed I feel, because "They" are obviously struggling to ramp up the culture of fear enough to impose the draconian controls they wish to apply over all of us.

RECENT HEADLINES POSTED:

Sea level rise could flood many cities

Scientists Report Severe Retreat of Arctic Ice
Most polar bears could die out by 2050

Melting ice cap triggering earthquakes

[Gregory Tenenbaum]

Settle the Fvck Down.

Please.

[Capn_Birdseye]

Settle the Fvck Down.

Please.
I've taken a chill pill and I'm sitting in a darkened room ..... ah, thats better ..... I must stop reading those nasty newspaper stories

[lofter1]

And you're conserving energy at the same time :cool:

[MidtownGuy]

Birdie, what are you talking about when you say man vs. nature, no contest?
Are you saying that we can't possibly have an effect on the environment?

[Capn_Birdseye]

Birdie, what are you talking about when you say man vs. nature, no contest?
Can Man stop tsunami's, volcanoes, earthquakes, and hurricanes from occurring?
Man today is looking at a snapshot, (relatively speaking), of changing climatic conditions and extrapolates this into an impending disasterous scenario unless there is "change", forgetting that the Earth has been around for a few million years and has witnessed all sorts of changes in its climate. Mind you, if you have another agenda, then perhaps ramping up the fear could be useful ....

I think I'll step out of this debate because my I'm confronted by blind believers in this new religion, who together with their scientific priests have ditched common sense for pseudo-science.

Once the accepted wisdom was that the earth was flat!

[ablarc]

Once the accepted wisdom was that the earth was flat!
And of course it is! The same lying, agenda-driven tricksters have fooled us here too.

There's a whole building somewhere on the Beltway; it's full of graphic artists fabricating satellite photos to convince us the earth is round.

[Capn_Birdseye]

And of course it is! The same lying, agenda-driven tricksters have fooled us here too.

There's a whole building somewhere on the Beltway; it's full of graphic artists fabricating satellite photos to convince us the earth is round.
Funny you should say that ablarc I thought I smelled a rat .... Mind up I always took the precaution of never travelling to the end of any motorway, you never know do you .....
What about the giant turtle?

[Ninjahedge]

Sure Cap.

The earths regular cycle that has been going on and on and on has been altered because aliens are really aiming a giant magnifying glass at us.

And, regardless of what is causingthe warming, reduction in greenhouse gasses, polutants and other forms of waste and heat generation cannot be good for the worlds economy. We have to think of our plasma screen TV's and SUV's before we think about what a few billion people that are currently living and working in the worlds low-lying major metropolai that were established during the age of seaborn commerce, what they will have to say when they come knocking at the doors of the people that live 3-5 feet higher up the hill than them.


Sure, we can't do a thing about it, so why buy insurance for it?

Let our children handle it. They have more energy than we do anyway.

/me invests in water-wings.

[Capn_Birdseye]

Ninja, if you and others are so worried by all of this scaremongering and hype why don't you protest to the Chinese about the four coal-fired power stations they're building every week?

And whilst you're at it why not also protest to India with its population of over one billion, whose energy generation & consumption has more than doubled since 1994. Its the third largest coal-mining country in the world behind China & the US, with 80% of its energy coming from coal-fired power stations.

So there's a lot of coal being burned, and then of course there is the good old US .......

That should keep you all occupied usefully for many days, weeks & months to come ..... but I wouldn't hold my breath about a positive outcome if I were you!
Meanwhile the Cap'n will sink, relaxed, into his hammock with a nice large rum snifter. Sweet dreams to you all.

[Ninjahedge]

Ninja, if you and others are so worried by all of this scaremongering and hype why don't you protest to the Chinese about the four coal-fired power stations they're building every week?

1. Because China is far away.
2. Because I do not LIKE THAT either.
3. Because if someone is killing babies at home, I will not refrain from protesting it just because someone else is killing MORE babies in another neighborhood and I am not protesting them specifically.


And whilst you're at it why not also protest to India with its population of over one billion, whose energy generation & consumption has more than doubled since 1994. Its the third largest coal-mining country in the world behind China & the US, with 80% of its energy coming from coal-fired power stations.

And how much do they contribute, per capita, to the global pollution problem? You are really stretching this cap.

the bottom line is, you do not preach from the US saying "we should all do this" if your own country is not willing to do so, and help others out in order to get past their own industrial revolutions.


So there's a lot of coal being burned, and then of course there is the good old US .......

That should keep you all occupied usefully for many days, weeks & months to come ..... but I wouldn't hold my breath about a positive outcome if I were you!
Meanwhile the Cap'n will sink, relaxed, into his hammock with a nice large rum snifter. Sweet dreams to you all.

Um, whatever. You are not discussing anymore. You are just trying to justify your unwillingness to do or sacrifice anything to help alleviate, or at least lessen this problem.

And it brings me back to one of my original points. Regardless of whether or not it will ruin any economies, how do you think all the people displaced by the rising waters will go about finding a new place to live?

Look how hard it was with ONE TOWN (New Orleans). Now imagine if 50% of the port cities of the world lost 25%-100% of their land area.

It still is not too late to buy farmland in Greenland you know.

[Meerkat]

Settle the Fvck Down.

Please.


So Greggy is this what you mean by the term 'playing the man and not the ball'?

Such eloquent use of the English language - i'm impressed!!!

[lofter1]

Another made-up doomsday story :rolleyes: :confused: ...

A Planetary SOS

Andrew Sullivan (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/10/a-planetary-sos.html)
02 Oct 2007 11:03 am

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/images/2007/10/01/envisat_asar_gm_sep2007_2_passages_.jpg (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2007/10/01/envisat_asar_gm_sep2007_2_passages_.jpg)


The news about the arctic polar ice is staggering to me. My own view of
climate change has shifted over the years I've been writing this blog from
mild skepticism to something much more like active concern. It's the
feedback loops of global warming that have emerged in these years as
something we didn't fully expect and something that could accelerate the
problem dramatically. Here's an alarming report (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2007/2007092625668.html):
From their camp on Melville Island last July, where they recorded air temperatures over 20ºC (in an area with July temperatures that average 5ºC), the team watched in amazement as water from melting permafrost a meter below ground lubricated the topsoil, causing it to slide down slopes, clearing everything in its path and thrusting up ridges at the valley bottom "that piled up like a rug," says Dr. Lamoureux, an expert in hydro-climatic variability and landscape processes. "The landscape was being torn to pieces, literally before our eyes. A major river was dammed by a slide along a 200-metre length of the channel. River flow will be changed for years, if not decades to come."


Comparing this summer's observations against aerial photos dating back to the 1950s, and the team's monitoring of the area for the past five years, the research leader calls the present conditions "unprecedented" in scope and activity.
Why are we planning on occupying a hostile land for decades in order in part
to secure an energy supply that is threatening to jolt our planet's climate
into new and potentially catastrophic heat? Or is the climate debate not
allowed to impact our Iraq debate? The one silver lining of a major regional
war breaking out in the Middle East is that it might finally force us to get real
about alternative energy sources.

***

[lofter1]

THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE FOR 2007

The Norwegian Nobel Committee (http://nobelpeaceprize.org/eng_lau_announce2007.html)
Oslo, 12 October 2007

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 is to be shared, in two equal parts, between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.

Indications of changes in the earth’s future climate must be treated with the utmost seriousness, and with the precautionary principle uppermost in our minds. Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth’s resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world’s most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states.

Through the scientific reports it has issued over the past two decades, the IPCC has created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming. Thousands of scientists and officials from over one hundred countries have collaborated to achieve greater certainty as to the scale of the warming. Whereas in the 1980s global warming seemed to be merely an interesting hypothesis, the 1990s produced firmer evidence in its support. In the last few years, the connections have become even clearer and the consequences still more apparent.

Al Gore has for a long time been one of the world’s leading environmentalist politicians. He became aware at an early stage of the climatic challenges the world is facing. His strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change. He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted.

By awarding the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC and Al Gore, the Norwegian Nobel Committee is seeking to contribute to a sharper focus on the processes and decisions that appear to be necessary to protect the world’s future climate, and thereby to reduce the threat to the security of mankind. Action is necessary now, before climate change moves beyond man’s control.

Copyright © 2006, The Nobel Foundation

[lofter1]

All morning the TV news channels have been filled with reporters and pundits, most of whom are exhibiting envy, skepticism and bitterness over the Nobel Committee's announcement.

Say what you like about Gore, ther is no getting around the fact that he focused himself and invested the time and energy to get the issue to the public. Not sure what financial benefit Gore would gain from doing so.

[MidtownGuy]

He's a good man. I wish he would have been our President.

[Capn_Birdseye]

I am astounded and utterly shocked that Al Gore was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize - what a mockery!!

He is simply an over-weight failed politician, devoid of original ideas, who flies round the world in luxury jet planes, eating the finest food and staying at the finest hotels and no doubt earning mega bucks, trying to stir up panic as he promotes the Great Lie. I guess the CEO's of many global corporations are rubbing their hands with glee as they see large dollar signs light up before their very eyes following Gore's work!

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/programme.html

[lofter1]

Cap'n: To what end would Gore be doing this for the "reasons" you state? What is the benefit to Gore "to stir up panic as he promotes the Great Lie"?

The 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was given to Gore and The "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://www.ipcc.ch/)" for bringing awareness to the FACT of global warming (not because Gore is a scientist) and:

"for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change".Although this image from your link nearly convinced me to write the Nobel committe and urge them to withdraw the prize ;) :

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/images/arguments/8.jpg

[Ninjahedge]

Captain, please tell us which corporations, by name, are going to be rubbing their hands in glee?

The oil companies? Natural Gas? Exxon? ConEd? Shell?

You are pumping out reactionary explicatives with no real basis in order to counter a position that has gained scientific credibility. "When in doubt, shout it out"?

Come on man! You can be speculative about Al getting, or being named in the NPP personally, but as for throwing in the whole "sky is falling" association with an actual documented trend.....


Didn't you say you lived in a boat? Sell your boat and buy waterfront/lowland and lets see how your opinion changes if your homestead is at risk.

[lofter1]

Gore Derangement Syndrome

NY TIMES (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/opinion/15krugman.html?em&ex=1192593600&en=da7b1a47329aacb0&ei=5087%0A)
By PAUL KRUGMAN
October 15, 2007

Op-Ed Columnist

On the day after Al Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize, The Wall Street Journal’s editors couldn’t even bring themselves to mention Mr. Gore’s name. Instead, they devoted their editorial to a long list of people they thought deserved the prize more.

And at National Review Online, Iain Murray suggested that the prize should have been shared with “that well-known peace campaigner Osama bin Laden, who implicitly endorsed Gore’s stance.” You see, bin Laden once said something about climate change — therefore, anyone who talks about climate change is a friend of the terrorists.

What is it about Mr. Gore that drives right-wingers insane?

Partly it’s a reaction to what happened in 2000, when the American people chose Mr. Gore but his opponent somehow ended up in the White House. Both the personality cult the right tried to build around President Bush and the often hysterical denigration of Mr. Gore were, I believe, largely motivated by the desire to expunge the stain of illegitimacy from the Bush administration.

And now that Mr. Bush has proved himself utterly the wrong man for the job — to be, in fact, the best president Al Qaeda’s recruiters could have hoped for — the symptoms of Gore derangement syndrome have grown even more extreme.

The worst thing about Mr. Gore, from the conservative point of view, is that he keeps being right. In 1992, George H. W. Bush mocked him as the “ozone man,” but three years later the scientists who discovered the threat to the ozone layer won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. In 2002 he warned that if we invaded Iraq, “the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam.” And so it has proved.

But Gore hatred is more than personal. When National Review decided to name its anti-environmental blog Planet Gore, it was trying to discredit the message as well as the messenger. For the truth Mr. Gore has been telling about how human activities are changing the climate isn’t just inconvenient. For conservatives, it’s deeply threatening.

Consider the policy implications of taking climate change seriously.

“We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals,” said F.D.R. “We know now that it is bad economics.” These words apply perfectly to climate change. It’s in the interest of most people (and especially their descendants) that somebody do something to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, but each individual would like that somebody to be somebody else. Leave it up to the free market, and in a few generations Florida will be underwater.

The solution to such conflicts between self-interest and the common good is to provide individuals with an incentive to do the right thing. In this case, people have to be given a reason to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions, either by requiring that they pay a tax on emissions or by requiring that they buy emission permits, which has pretty much the same effects as an emissions tax. We know that such policies work: the U.S. “cap and trade” system of emission permits on sulfur dioxide has been highly successful at reducing acid rain.

Climate change is, however, harder to deal with than acid rain, because the causes are global. The sulfuric acid in America’s lakes mainly comes from coal burned in U.S. power plants, but the carbon dioxide in America’s air comes from coal and oil burned around the planet — and a ton of coal burned in China has the same effect on the future climate as a ton of coal burned here. So dealing with climate change not only requires new taxes or their equivalent; it also requires international negotiations in which the United States will have to give as well as get.

Everything I’ve just said should be uncontroversial — but imagine the reception a Republican candidate for president would receive if he acknowledged these truths at the next debate. Today, being a good Republican means believing that taxes should always be cut, never raised. It also means believing that we should bomb and bully foreigners, not negotiate with them.

So if science says that we have a big problem that can’t be solved with tax cuts or bombs — well, the science must be rejected, and the scientists must be slimed. For example, Investor’s Business Daily recently declared that the prominence of James Hansen, the NASA researcher who first made climate change a national issue two decades ago, is actually due to the nefarious schemes of — who else? — George Soros.

Which brings us to the biggest reason the right hates Mr. Gore: in his case the smear campaign has failed. He’s taken everything they could throw at him, and emerged more respected, and more credible, than ever. And it drives them crazy.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

[Capn_Birdseye]

Cap'n: To what end would Gore be doing this for the "reasons" you state? What is the benefit to Gore "to stir up panic as he promotes the Great Lie"?
The cynics amongst us would say a lucrative new career, or perhaps a pre-amble to another tilt at the Presidency?

Here's a pull-together of things I've posted in the past on the subject of the true origins of oil:

Interesting article:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business ... 61,00.html (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,1702261,00.html)

For an explanation of the science which really explains the origins of oil see this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_oil

Or this paper by one of the leading pioneers in this field:
http://web.archive.org/web/200210151638 ... /usgs.html

Or this simple biog of the man might be more digestible:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Gold

As one reviewer of his book on Amazon says:


Quote:
It appears as if the Russians are making monkeys out of us westerners. They now have over 300 ultra deep oil wells producing oil from as far down as 40,000 feet. Way beyond any possibility of finding sludge from dead dinosaurs and old rotting cabbage patches.
http://www.amazon.com/Deep-Hot-Biospher ... 0387952535 (http://www.amazon.com/Deep-Hot-Biosphere-Fossil-Fuels/dp/0387952535)

Here's a published scientific paper on the subject which has so far not had any rebuttal by the "fossil fuel" camp:
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Energy.html (http://www.csun.edu/%7Evcgeo005/Energy.html)

While researching this reply, I came across a forum where scientists were debating this whole issue, and several of them admitted that the "fossil fuel" hypothesis had never seemed credible to them.

One said he'd once asked his lecturer how come oil was found where it shouldn't be and his lecturer just explained it away by saying "tectonic movements".... just as scientists throw implausibly big numbers, plucked out of thin air, to explain away impossibilities. "Oh, it takes billions of years". So that's that solved then!

Thomas Gold is one of the world's greatest astrophysicists and he doesn't believe the fossil fuel myth.

One of the primary reasons we now have a "global warming" scare is because all of the other environmental myths are unravelling. It's now crystal clear that oil, gas an coal are in plentiful supply, so they can't cry wolf over that any more.

They've given up talking about the alleged "hole" in the ozone layer and all that acid rain we kept hearing about.

Something new and far-more all-embracing has been developed, called global warming, and the great thing about it is that it won't be proved to be a total sham like all the other ones until long after we're all dead.

[lofter1]

If you don't believe that acid rain has been destructive then we really are at an dead end.

And I still don't get what benefit there is to Gore -- a

And sside from your "perhaps" scenario, which is quite a leap upon which to crucify the man, I see nothing being offered up in the way of facts.

[Ninjahedge]

As one reviewer of his book on Amazon says:

So it is not even the books author you are quoting, but someone who is REVIEWING the book on AMAZON?

Holy credential gap there!


the world's greatest astrophysicists and he doesn't believe the fossil fuel myth

And the worlds greatest dentist could say that the stock market will double in the next 2 years and I will not believe what he is saying either!

Astrophysicist /= Geologist

The way you dismiss tectonic shifts like they were fantasy says you are not a debater, but a slimer.

Yeah, oil will never leak. It will never drip down to a bearing strata that will allow no further passage. I am sure that if you were to put rotting cabbage on top of a sand bed that you would NEVER see any drippage on the floor when you cleaned both up.

Never.

Man you are standing on weak ground with this, all of it. You are two steps away from calling the world flat. Please spare us your leeches for the draining of bad-humours.

I knew there was a reason I put you on Ignore. For your ill-informed argumentative positions on anything you can stick a flame under. Have fun talking to yourself, and, like i said, if you are SO sure that global warming is a myth, come back to us when you buy that lowland. K?

[Capn_Birdseye]

I knew there was a reason I put you on Ignore. For your ill-informed argumentative positions on anything you can stick a flame under. Have fun talking to yourself, and, like i said, if you are SO sure that global warming is a myth, come back to us when you buy that lowland. K?
The great thing about the Great Lie is that none of us will be around to confirm it was just that, i.e., a Great Lie! Good eh?

The intellectual sheep of the world are flocking to support the nonsensical & mythical Global Warming theory - have they never heard the story of the King with no clothes?

Don't worry Ninja the Polar bears won't drown, it's just one of many scare stories along with the fondly remembered "acid rain", hole in the ozone, etc etc. I'm sure there'll be plenty more scares before they're finished!

[Ninjahedge]

I knew there was a reason I put you on Ignore.


October 15th, 2007 05:28 PMCapn_BirdseyeThis user is on your Ignore List.

I will see you again on matters that are not as scientific and involved in politics. You do not seem to like those very much.

[Edward]

I am astounded and utterly shocked that Al Gore was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize - what a mockery!!

Maybe now he can do something about the peace in Darfur.

[Capn_Birdseye]

Maybe now he can do something about the peace in Darfur.
Well said Edward. Less glamorous & "fashionable" but more important. There again, he'll have no fancy jets flying him around the world and no 5-star hotels to stay in, or haute cuisine, so perhaps he wouldn't be interested - after all it would mean a lot of genuine commitment & hard work.

[MidtownGuy]

Gore and his wife, heiress of the Heinz fortune, can afford to fly on jets and eat haute cuisine whenever they'd like so I don't think he's in it for the material perks, Capn.

[lofter1]

You've got your politician's wives mixed up, MG:

The Heinz fortune belongs to Teresa Heinz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teresa_Heinz_Kerry) (whose late husband was the Heinz heir) who married John Kerry.

Her full name is Maria Teresa Thierstein Simões-Ferreira Heinz Kerry.

Al Gore is married to Tipper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipper_Gore) ...



Born Mary Elizabeth Aitcheson in Washington, D.C. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington%2C_D.C.), she is the daughter of John (Jack) Kenneth Aitcheson, a plumbing-supply entrepreneur, and his first wife Margaret Odom (who lost her first husband during World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II)). Gore grew up in Arlington, Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlington%2C_Virginia). Her parents divorced (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce) and she was raised by her mother and grandmother. Her nickname, Tipper, comes from the lullaby "Tippy, Tippy, Tin".[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipper_Gore#_note-bio)

She attended St. Agnes (now St. Stephen's and St. Agnes School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Stephen%27s_and_St._Agnes_School)), a private Episcopalian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episcopal_Church_in_the_United_States_of_America) school in Alexandria, Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria%2C_Virginia), where she excelled at athletics and played the drums (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drum) for an all-girl band (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girl_band), The Wildcats.


The Gore money apparently goes back to Al's Dad, Senator Albert A. Gore, Sr. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_A._Gore%2C_Sr.) and his connection with Armand Hammer (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_43_16/ai_72274771) of Occidental Oil (and an old friend of Communism & Russia (http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/armand_hammer.htm)).

There's some irony in all that.

[infoshare]

...... wouldn't be interested - after all it would mean a lot of genuine commitment & hard work.

Give the man some credit (http://www.sethf.com/gore/): don't you think "inventing the internet" took commitment & hard work. :cool:

[MidtownGuy]

:D woops...sorry for the goofy mixup

[Mohamed]

Some bad guys burn garbage in countryside of Egypt !

http://hammadinet.ifrance.com/End%20Israel/fartaqibe_files/image003.jpg

http://www.elakhbar.org.eg/issues/16323/images/qash.jpg

http://arabi.ahram.org.eg/arabi/ahram/2003/11/8/120.jpg
that's called burn rice garbage season !

It's causing huge black clouds :mad:


http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/4981/blackcloudsoj7.jpg

[Capn_Birdseye]

Get the real story about the Man-Made Global Warming Swindle .... the Great Lie!

http://quicksilverscreen.com/watch?video=16177

[Ninjahedge]

Um, no.

Especially with the way you posted it and pushed it.

[Capn_Birdseye]

Um, no.

Especially with the way you posted it and pushed it.
Please yourself Ninja. I'm not "pushing it", I'm simply saying there is another, more truthful take, on this new religion. That's all. Those who wish to close their mind to it, so be it, ignorance is bliss!

[pianoman11686]

As Earth Warms Up, Tropical Virus Moves to Italy

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/12/23/world/23virus.600.jpg
“I thought, O.K., my time is up,” said Antonio Ciano, a Castiglione resident who became so sick after catching chikungunya he said he could not stand up.

By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
Published: December 23, 2007

CASTIGLIONE DI CERVIA, Italy — Panic was spreading this August through this tidy village of 2,000 as one person after another fell ill with weeks of high fever, exhaustion and excruciating bone pain, just as most of Italy was enjoying Ferragosto, its most important summer holiday.

“At one point, I simply couldn’t stand up to get out of the car,” said Antonio Ciano, 62, an elegant retiree in a pashmina scarf and trendy blue glasses. “I fell. I thought, O.K., my time is up. I’m going to die. It was really that dramatic.”

By midmonth, more than 100 people had come down with the same malady. Although the worst symptoms dissipated after a couple of weeks, no doctor could figure out what was wrong.

People blamed pollution in the river. They denounced the government. But most of all they blamed recent immigrants from tropical Africa for bringing the pestilence to their sleepy settlement of pastel stucco homes.

“Why immigrants?” asked Rina Ventura, who owns a shop selling shoes and purses. “I kept thinking of these terrible diseases that you see on TV, like malaria. We were terrified. There was no name and no treatment.”

Oddly, the villagers were both right and wrong. After a month of investigation, Italian public health officials discovered that the people of Castiglione di Cervia were, in fact, suffering from a tropical disease, chikungunya, a relative of dengue fever normally found in the Indian Ocean region. But the immigrants spreading the disease were not humans but insects: tiger mosquitoes, who can thrive in a warming Europe.

Aided by global warming and globalization, Castiglione di Cervia has the dubious distinction of playing host to the first outbreak in modern Europe of a disease that had previously been seen only in the tropics.

“By the time we got back the name and surname of the virus, our outbreak was over,” said Dr. Rafaella Angelini, director of the regional public health department in Ravenna. “When they told us it was chikungunya, it was not a problem for Ravenna any more. But I thought: this is a big problem for Europe.”

The epidemic proved that tropical viruses are now able to spread in new areas, far north of their previous range. The tiger mosquito, which first arrived in Ravenna three years ago, is thriving across southern Europe and even in France and Switzerland.

And if chikungunya can spread to Castiglione — “a place not special in any way,” Dr. Angelini said — there is no reason why it cannot go to other Italian villages. There is no reason why dengue, an even more debilitating tropical disease, cannot as well.

“This is the first case of an epidemic of a tropical disease in a developed, European country,” said Dr. Roberto Bertollini, director of the World Health Organization’s Health and Environment program. “Climate change creates conditions that make it easier for this mosquito to survive and it opens the door to diseases that didn’t exist here previously. This is a real issue. Now, today. It is not something a crazy environmentalist is warning about.”

Was he shocked to discover chikungunya in Italy, his native land? “We knew this would happen sooner or later,” he said. “We just didn’t know where or when.”

It certainly caught this town off guard on Aug. 9, when public health officials in Ravenna received an angry call from Stefano Merlo, who owns the gas station.

“Within 100 meters of my home, there were more than 30 people with fevers over 40 degrees,” or 104 Fahrenheit, said Mr. Merlo, 47. “I wanted to know what was going on. I knew it couldn’t be normal.”

August is not the season for high fevers, Dr. Angelini agreed, and within days of interviewing patients she was intrigued.

“The stories were so similar and so dramatic,” she said. “But we had no clue it was something tropical.”

Hard-working shopkeepers could not get out of bed because their hips hurt so much. Able-bodied men could not lift spoons to their mouths. (Months later, many still have debilitating joint pain.)

From the start, doctors suspected that the disease was spread by insects, rather than people. While almost all homes had one person who was ill, family members seemed not to catch the disease from one another.

They initially focused on sand flies, since the disease clustered on streets by the river.

Canceling their traditional mid-August vacations (in Italy, a true sign of panic), health officials sent off blood samples, called national infectious-disease experts, searched the Internet and set out traps to see what insects were in the neighborhood. The first surprise was that the insect traps contained not sand flies but tiger mosquitoes, and huge numbers of them.

The scientific survey confirmed what residents of Castiglione had come to accept as a horrible nuisance, though not a deadly threat.

“In the last three or four years, you couldn’t live on these streets because the mosquitoes were so bad,” said Rino Ricchi, a road worker who fell ill, standing at the entrance to his neatly tended garden, where mosquito traps have now replaced decorative fountains. “We used to delight in having a garden or a porch to eat dinner. You couldn’t this year, you’d get eaten alive.”

Said Dr. Angelini: “They were treating the mosquitoes like an annoyance. They knew that mosquitoes could spread tropical diseases but they had peace of mind because they knew this didn’t happen in Italy.”

Ravenna immediately set about killing the bugs in the hopes of containing the epidemic. Workers sprayed insecticides and went into each family’s garden, emptying flower pots, fountains and the rainwater collection barrels to remove the mosquitoes’ breeding ground.

By early September, there were no new cases in Castiglione di Cervia. But there were a number of mini-epidemics in the region — in Ravenna, Cesena and Rimini — set off by tiger mosquitoes there. Each was controlled in the same way.

By that point, the doctors had cataloged the patients’ symptoms and tried to match them to mosquito-borne diseases.

“We realized,” Dr. Angelini said, “we were seeing a photocopy of an outbreak on Réunion,” a French island in the Indian Ocean where more than 10,000 people have contracted chikungunya in the last two years. Blood tests confirmed the diagnosis. By summer’s end, home-grown chikungunya had been diagnosed in nearly 300 Italians.

Chikungunya is spread when tiger mosquitoes drink blood from an infected person and, if conditions are right, pass the virus on when they bite again. Tiger mosquitoes first came to southern Italy with shipments of tires from Albania about a decade ago but their habitat has expanded steadily northward as temperatures have risen.

But the doctors were baffled by how chikungunya made its way into mosquitoes in northern Italy since no one in Castiglione di Cervia had been abroad. In the past two years France, especially Paris, has had a number of imported cases of chikungunya, in travelers returning from Réunion. But the disease has never spread in France, because the mosquito cannot thrive there yet.

Eventually investigators discovered a link: one of the first men to fall ill in Castiglione di Cervia had been visited by a feverish relative in early July. That relative, an Italian, had previously traveled to Kerala, India. Chikungunya traveled to Italy in his blood, but climatic conditions are now such that it can spread and find a home here.

Now it is winter in Castiglione di Cervia, near freezing as the sun went down on a recent evening and Christmas lights glowed across the piazza. There are no mosquitoes now.

But dozens of residents still suffer from arthritis, a known complication of chikungunya.

Mr. Ricchi, the road worker, says he still has trouble clenching his fists, and his left ankle has horrible pains. Three people in the town died after getting the virus, Mr. Merlo said, although all of those victims had other illnesses as well.

From the start, townspeople noticed that the very elderly never got the disease. Now it makes sense: “If all you do is walk the 50 yards from your home to the church, there’s not much chance to get bitten,” said Mr. Ciano, the retiree.

But the biggest mystery is whether chikungunya will emerge here next summer. In the tropics, it is a year-round disease, since the mosquitoes breed continually. But the virus can winter over in mosquito eggs, too, and no one knows if there are reservoirs of sleeping eggs in some pool of water in Italy.

With climate change at hand, Dr. Bertollini said, chikungunya will surely be back somewhere in Europe again.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/world/europe/23virus.html?hp=&pagewanted=all)

[lofter1]

CASTIGLIONE DI CERVIA, Italy — Panic was spreading this August through this tidy village of 2,000 as one person after another fell ill with weeks of high fever, exhaustion and excruciating bone pain, just as most of Italy was enjoying Ferragosto, its most important summer holiday.

... After a month of investigation, Italian public health officials discovered that the people of Castiglione di Cervia were, in fact, suffering from a tropical disease, chikungunya, a relative of dengue fever normally found in the Indian Ocean region. But the immigrants spreading the disease were not humans but insects: tiger mosquitoes, who can thrive in a warming Europe.

A bit frightenting as Castiglione di Cerva (http://www.emiliaromagnaturismo.it/new/localita/ricerca.asp?IDLOC=239) is not in southern Italy as one might expect, but is near Ravenna in the north central province of Emilia Romagna (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cervia), near Ravenna -- which could easily mean that most of Italy as well as Spain, Portugal, Greece & the southern part of France are all susceptible to tiger mosquitos & the chikungunya virus.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/EMR-Mappa.png (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/EMR-Mappa.png)

[lofter1]

chikungunya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chikungunya)

Chikungunya is a relatively rare form of viral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus) fever (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fever) caused by an alphavirus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphavirus) that is spread by mosquito (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito) bites from Aedes aegypti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aedes_aegypti) mosquitoes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquitoes), though recent research by the Pasteur Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasteur_Institute) in Paris claims the virus has suffered a mutation that enables it to be transmitted by Aedes albopictus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_tiger_mosquito) (Tiger mosquito).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chikungunya#_note-0) This was the cause of the plague (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plague) in the Indian Ocean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Ocean) and a threat to the Mediterranean coast at present, requiring urgent meetings of health officials in the region.

Etymology

The name is derived from the Makonde (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makonde) word meaning "that which bends up" in reference to the stooped posture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posture) developed as a result of the arthritic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthritis) symptoms of the disease. The disease was first described by Marion Robinson (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marion_Robinson&action=edit)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chikungunya#_note-Robinson_1955) and W.H.R. Lumsden (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=W.H.R._Lumsden&action=edit)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chikungunya#_note-Lumsden_1955) in 1955 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1955), following an outbreak on the Makonde Plateau (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Makonde_Plateau&action=edit), along the border between Tanganyika (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanganyika) and Mozambique (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozambique), in 1952 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952). Chikungunya is closely related to O'nyong'nyong virus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27nyong%27nyong_virus)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chikungunya#_note-Vanlandingham_2005).

[MidtownGuy]

Very scary.

[MidtownGuy]

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/front/detail/Asian_tiger_mosquito_crosses_Alps.html?siteSect=10 5&sid=8470557&rss=true&ty=st

Apparently they've crossed the Alps into Switzerland but so far no infected ones.

[Landwatch.com]

Hey guys I just landed on a blog which had a picture of the virus. The deadly virus looks beautiful. Check it out:http://ranjitwarrier.blogspot.com/2006/02/chikungunya-picture.html

[ablarc]

Ice pioneer eyes farthest glaciers

By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special Correspondent Sat Jan 5, 11:56 AM ET

PORT MORESBY, Papua New Guinea - For 5,000 years, great tongues of ice have spread over the 3-mile-high slopes of Puncak Jaya, in the remotest reaches of this remote tropical island. Now those glaciers are melting, and Lonnie Thompson must get there before they're gone.

To the American glaciologist, the ancient ice is a vanishing "archive" of the story of El Nino, the equatorial phenomenon driving much of the world's climate.

More than that, the little-explored glaciers are a last unknown for a mountaineering scientist who for three decades has circled the planet pioneering the deep-drilling of ice cores, both to chronicle the history of climate and to bear witness to the death of tropical glaciers from global warming.

"No one knows how thick these remaining glaciers are," Thompson said of Puncak Jaya, or Mount Jaya. "We do know they are disappearing."

The unknowns on this wild, Texas-sized island extend even to the local climate.

"There are indications of warming," explained Kasis Inape, a senior government climatologist here. "But we can't really confidently say the temperature change has been this much or that much, because the actual data are lacking."

As a companion project to Thompson's expedition, an international research team including Inape plans a first-ever assessment of recent climate change on New Guinea, especially along the 1,200-mile mountainous spine of the southwestern Pacific island.

Thompson's quest on Puncak Jaya will be for something deeper in the past.

"We may actually see an El Nino history there," he said by telephone from his office-laboratory at Ohio State University. And that history may foretell the future, he and others believe.

Knowing how past temperature changes affected El Nino, the atmospheric-oceanic disturbance that roils the tropics every few years, may help scientists predict how much worse and more frequent El Nino's droughts, tempests and floods may grow as the world warms in decades to come.

Such discoveries would be the latest in a Thompson career whose achievements were recognized by a National Medal of Science at a White House ceremony last July.

Aided by his wife and collaborator, climatologist Ellen Mosley-Thompson, Thompson's career began in the 1970s with climbs to the glacier-draped peaks of the Peruvian Andes, where his team perfected advanced drilling techniques. By 2001, he was making headlines with his discovery that the storied snows of Kilimanjaro, the east African mountain's glacial cap, might disappear by 2015.

On some 50 expeditions, often with U.S. National Science Foundation support, he and colleagues have braved high winds, frostbite and altitude sickness, survived in ice caves, crossed treacherous crevasses with makeshift bridges, and hauled heavy equipment to unlikely heights.

In 2006, at a 20,000-foot-high site in the Tibetan Himalayas, Thompson had to rely on animal power, dozens of yaks, to carry ice-core segments on their backs to the valley below.

An accumulation of four miles of ice cores, including one Himalayan sample reaching back 750,000 years, now lies in cold storage at the lab in Columbus, Ohio, where the ice is analyzed layer by layer through centuries past.

Flecks of dust, falling seasonally, enable glaciologists to count the years down the ice core's length. Isotopes of oxygen, in minute air bubbles trapped in the ice, vary with temperature and so tell researchers how ancient climate shifted. Other clues — chemicals, surrounding geology, trapped and frozen vegetation or insects — tell high-altitude investigators still more.

The 59-year-old Thompson's assault on Puncak Jaya, planned for May-June 2009, will take his crew into isolated, mist-shrouded highlands seldom visited even by tribes in the area, across Papua New Guinea's border in the Indonesian half of this island. In 2006, a biological expedition to its uncharted tropical forests reported finding new species of birds, frogs, even a tree kangaroo.

The last scientific expedition to the glaciers took place in 1973, when Australian glaciologist Ian Allison and colleagues trekked seven days through the wilderness past gushing rivers and groves of tree ferns, with gear borne by a train of near-naked tribesmen.

"In the fourth or fifth day you see in the distance the sheer limestone cliffs with the ice on top, and it's really quite a sight," Allison recalled by phone from Australia.

Thompson should have an easier time scaling those 10,000-foot cliffs.

The mining company Freeport-McMoRan, operating nearby, has agreed to airlift his dozen-member team to Puncak Jaya's heights by helicopter, along with six tons of equipment — electro-mechanical and thermal drill systems, radar to gauge ice thickness and map the underlying rock, winch and cable, boxes to preserve core segments, high-altitude camping gear and supplies.

They'll find glaciers very different from those Allison saw.

Although ever-present cloud cover complicates satellite surveillance, meticulous research by Texas A&M University geographers has determined that the glaciers are shrinking rapidly.

"We're tracking their demise by satellite images," the university's Andrew Klein said from College Station, Texas. "If current retreat rates continue, they will disappear in a few decades. This is similar to what's happening to tropical glaciers around the world."

Puncak Jaya's Meren Glacier, one of five ice masses surveyed in the 1972-73 Australian expeditions, vanished completely sometime between 1994 and 2000, the Texas researchers report. In two years alone, between 2000 and 2002, the remaining glaciers lost more than 7 percent of their area.

The researchers estimate that since about 1850, as heat-trapping industrial emissions accumulated in the atmosphere, Puncak Jaya's ice has shrunk from covering 7 square miles to less than one square mile.

Michael Prentice, an Indiana University paleoclimatologist, or climate historian, believes temperature increases in the New Guinea uplands have far exceeded — "really out of sight" — the 1-degree Fahrenheit average rise recorded globally in the past century.

With Inape and Australian and Indonesian scientists, Prentice is organizing the project to collect and analyze existing climate data, and to emplace or upgrade automatic weather stations at sites including Puncak Jaya.

New Guinea lies on the fringe of the Western Pacific Warm Pool, a center of warm water that generates El Nino disturbances and influences climate from India's monsoons to the Amazon's droughts. Because of that, Prentice said, what the glacier ice tells Thompson about the region's past will help climatologists understand what lies ahead.

He likens the Puncak Jaya glaciers to a "dipstick" rising high into the atmosphere.
"There is no other such record in the wider region, which really stretches from the eastern Pacific to the Himalayas," he said. "It's the only record of its kind in what is nearly half of the tropical zone."

Puncak Jaya's scientific challenge may be greater than the logistical one. Because of the melting, the veteran Allison observed, "it's not going to be an easy core to interpret."
Thompson recognizes that, but puts first things first.

"It's important to get an archive for the future because 20 years from now our technology will be so much more advanced, and our ability to read these records will be much improved," he said.

He recalled that New Guinea's surprising glaciers first attracted him as a student long ago, when he found them in a Southern Hemisphere ice atlas. Now, "it's clear from Andrew Klein's work that these glaciers are going to disappear."

Getting there soon is key, Thompson said. "Whatever history is still there, we'll try to get it."

[Capn_Birdseye]

From: SUNDAY TELEGRAPH 4.11.07
The deceit behind global warming
By Christopher Booker and Richard North

WHAT EVERY SCARE HAS IN COMMON

Remember two years ago when a senior official of the World Health Association told us that soon "150 million people" might be dead from bird 'flu?

Remember Edwina Currie and the great panic over eggs?

From "mad cow disease" to the Millennium Bug, from DDT to passive smoking, from leaded petrol to asbestos, one of the most conspicuous and damaging features of our modern world has become the "scare".

This week a new book is to be published, Scared To Death, co-authored by Sunday Telegraph columnist Christopher Booker and Dr Richard North, telling for the first time the inside story of all the major scares of recent decades, showing how they have followed a remarkably consistent pattern.

Even though a scare often begins with some genuine problem, such as BSE, the book analyses the crucial role played in each case by supposed scientific experts who eventually turn out to have misread or manipulated the evidence; then by those sections of the media who eagerly promote the scare without regard to the facts.

The "tipping point" of any scare, the authors show, comes when it is taken up by the politicians who, with their officials, come up with an absurdly disproportionate response. This leaves us all to pay a colossal price, often running into billions or even hundreds of billions of pounds.

The book shows, for instance, how Mrs Currie set the great salmonella scare on its way in 1988 by falling for what turned out to be a wholly mistaken theory that the rise in food poisoning was due to salmonella getting into eggs.

In 1996, panicked by the media, the Government's chief scientific adviser on BSE claimed that by 2005 half a million people might have died of CJD. Only a year later, he had revised his forecast of deaths down to just 200 – leaving Britain with the consequences of a scare that cost £7 billion.

In the late 1990s top industrialists and governments, led by Tony Blair, predicted that to "fix the Millennium Bug" would cost $300 billion. Yet minutes after midnight on January 1, 2000, it became clear that the threat had been grotesquely exaggerated.

By removing our most effective protection against malaria, the ban on DDT, thanks to the scare that it not only harmed wildlife but caused cancer, may have cost up to 50 million lives across the Third World.

Perhaps the most chilling scare of all was the hysteria which swept through many social services departments in the late 80s and 90s based on the belief that huge numbers of children were being subjected to "Satanic" or ritual abuse by groups of adults. The terrifying scar this left on hundreds of families persists to this day.

The book shows how scares wildly exaggerating the dangers of lead, passive smoking and asbestos were promoted through wholesale manipulation of the scientific evidence.

A deliberately fostered confusion between different types of asbestos created in the US one of the greatest swindles in legal history, what was termed "the $200 Billion Miscarriage of Justice", bringing Lloyd's of London to its knees. This was followed by a further multi-billion pound scandal on both sides of the Atlantic when new laws allowed specialist contractors to charge almost any sums they liked to businesses and homeowners panicked by the scare.

But Booker and North's narrative culminates in a long, meticulously sourced account of the story behind what they suggest has become the greatest scare of them all: the belief that the world faces catastrophe through man-made global warming. It is on this that our preview of the book focuses.

CLIMATE OF SCARES
No one can deny that in recent years the need to "save the planet" from global warming has become one of the most pervasive issues of our time. As Tony Blair's chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, claimed in 2004, it poses "a far greater threat to the world than international terrorism", warning that by the end of this century the only habitable continent left will be Antarctic

Inevitably, many people have been bemused by this somewhat one-sided debate, imagining that if so many experts are agreed, then there must be something in it. But if we set the story of how this fear was promoted in the context of other scares before it, the parallels which emerge might leave any honest believer in global warming feeling uncomfortable.

The story of how the panic over climate change was pushed to the top of the international agenda falls into five main stages. Stage one came in the 1970s when many scientists expressed alarm over what they saw as a disastrous change in the earth's climate. Their fear was not of warming but global cooling, of "a new Ice Age".

For three decades, after a sharp rise in the interwar years up to 1940, global temperatures had been falling. The one thing certain about climate is that it is always changing. Since we began to emerge from the last Ice Age 20,000 years ago, temperatures have been through significant swings several times. The hottest period occurred around 8,000 years ago and was followed by a long cooling. Then came what is known as the "Roman Warming", coinciding with the Roman empire.

Three centuries of cooling in the Dark Ages were followed by the "Mediaeval Warming", when the evidence agrees the world was hotter than today.

Around 1300 began "the Little Ice Age", that did not end until 200 years ago, when we entered what is known as the "Modern Warming". But even this has been chequered by colder periods, such as the "Little Cooling" between 1940 and 1975. Then, in the late 1970s, the world began warming again.

A scare is often set off — as we show in our book with other examples — when two things are observed together and scientists suggest one must have been caused by the other. In this case, thanks to readings commissioned by Dr Roger Revelle, a distinguished American oceanographer, it was observed that since the late 1950s levels of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere had been rising. Perhaps it was this increase that was causing the new warming in the 1980s?

Stage two of the story began in 1988 when, with remarkable speed, the global warming story was elevated into a ruling orthodoxy, partly due to hearings in Washington chaired by a youngish senator, Al Gore, who had studied under Dr Revelle in the 1960s.

But more importantly global warming hit centre stage because in 1988 the UN set up its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC). Through a series of reports, the IPCC was to advance its cause in a rather unusual fashion. First it would commission as many as 1,500 experts to produce a huge scientific report, which might include all sorts of doubts and reservations. But this was to be prefaced by a Summary for Policymakers, drafted in con-sult-ation with governments and officials — essentially a political document — in which most of the caveats contained in the experts' report would not appear.

This contradiction was obvious in the first report in 1991, which led to the Rio conference on climate change in 1992. The second report in 1996 gave particular prominence to a study by an obscure US government scientist claiming that the evidence for a connection between global warming and rising CO2 levels was now firmly established. This study came under heavy fire from various leading climate experts for the way it manipulated the evidence. But this was not allowed to stand in the way of the claim that there was now complete scientific consensus behind the CO2 thesis, and the Summary for Policy-makers, heavily influenced from behind the scenes by Al Gore, by this time US Vice-President, paved the way in 1997 for the famous Kyoto Protocol.

Kyoto initiated stage three of the story, by formally committing governments to drastic reductions in their CO2 emissions. But the treaty still had to be ratified and this seemed a good way off, not least thanks to its rejection in 1997 by the US Senate, despite the best attempts of Mr Gore.

Not the least of his efforts was his bid to suppress an article co-authored by Dr Revelle just before his death. Gore didn't want it to be known that his guru had urged that the global warming thesis should be viewed with more caution.

One of the greatest problems Gore and his allies faced at this time was the mass of evidence showing that in the past, global temperatures had been higher than in the late 20th century. In 1998 came the answer they were looking for: a new temperature chart, devised by a young American physicist, Michael Mann. This became known as the "hockey stick" because it showed historic temperatures running in an almost flat line over the past 1,000 years, then suddenly flicking up at the end to record levels.

Mann's hockey stick was just what the IPCC wanted. When its 2001 report came out it was given pride of place at the top of page 1. The Mediaeval Warming, the Little Ice Age, the 20th century Little Cooling, when CO2 had already been rising, all had been wiped away.

But then a growing number of academics began to raise doubts about Mann and his graph. This culminated in 2003 with a devastating study by two Canadians showing how Mann had not only ignored most of the evidence before him but had used an algorithm that would produce a hockey stick graph whatever evidence was fed into the computer. When this was removed, the graph re-emerged just as it had looked before, showing the Middle Ages as hotter than today.

It is hard to recall any scientific thesis ever being so comprehensively discredited as the "hockey stick". Yet the global warming juggernaut rolled on regardless, now led by the European Union. In 2004, thanks to a highly dubious deal between the EU and Putin's Russia, stage four of the story began when the Kyoto treaty was finally ratified.

In the past three years, we have seen the EU announcing every kind of measure geared to fighting climate change, from building ever more highly-subsidised wind turbines, to a commitment that by 2050 it will have reduced carbon emissions by 60 per cent. This is a pledge that could only be met by such a massive reduction in living standards that it is impossible to see the peoples of Europe accepting it.

All this frenzy has rested on the assumption that global temperatures will continue to rise in tandem with CO2 and that, unless mankind takes drastic action, our planet is faced with the apocalypse so vividly described by Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth.

Yet recently, stage five of the story has seen all sorts of question marks being raised over Gore's alleged consensus. For instance, he claimed that by the end of this century world sea levels will have risen by 20 ft when even the IPCC in its latest report, only predicts a rise of between four and 17 inches.There is also of course the harsh reality that, wholly unaffected by Kyoto, the economies of China and India are now expanding at nearly 10 per cent a year, with China likely to be emitting more CO2 than the US within two years.

More serious, however, has been all the evidence accumulating to show that, despite the continuing rise in CO2 levels, global temperatures in the years since 1998 have no longer been rising and may soon even be falling.

It was a telling moment when, in August, Gore's closest scientific ally, James Hansen of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, was forced to revise his influential record of US surface temperatures showing that the past decade has seen the hottest years on record. His graph now concedes that the hottest year of the 20th century was not 1998 but 1934, and that four of the 10 warmest years in the past 100 were in the 1930s.

Furthermore, scientists and academics have recently been queuing up to point out that fluctuations in global temperatures correlate more consistently with patterns of radiation from the sun than with any rise in CO2 levels, and that after a century of high solar activity, the sun's effect is now weakening, presaging a likely drop in temperatures.

If global warming does turn out to have been a scare like all the others, it will certainly represent as great a collective flight from reality as history has ever recorded. The evidence of the next 10 years will be very interesting.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
• Scared to Death: From BSE To Global Warming — How Scares Are Costing Us The Earth by Christopher Booker and Richard North (Continuum, £16.99) is available for £14.99 + £1.25 p&p. To order call Telegraph Books on 0870 4284115 or go to books.telegraph.co.uk.

[investordude]

capn, I think its very hard to argue with the fact that man made global warming is happening.

But I also think politicians (especially Al Gore types with a a history of demagoguery about the alleged evils of income inequality) have reasons for hyping the threat - specifically to impose protectionist tariffs against Chinese goods on the theory they have an unfair advantage as a "polluter." In some European countries like France, there is also some political angling to similarly tax goods manufactured in the US because of our allegedly unfair pollution laws.

Even if you make the phony argument that such a rule isn't protectionist, the carbon system in Europe right now seems primarily designed to exclude new competition against politically connected companies. It gives many of these companies exceptions or beneficial credits in the cap and trade scheme that would make it difficult for new players to enter the market and compete. That sounds a lot more like its about crony capitalism than protecting the environment to me.

[212]

Yes, investordude, let's all agree to accept global warming as a problem, while launching ad hominem attacks against anyone trying to solve it.
;)

[investordude]

I'm just not sure that's valid - politicans lie. Someone before said in the thread, "I can't think of a reason why Al Gore might hype the threat" and I just find that questionable - never trust a politican is all I'm saying.

For what its worth, I think cap and trade is a stupid idea because it doesn't create a subsidy for long term research projects required to solve what at th end of the day is a long term problem. Companies make short term decisions - and what's needed is research on technologies like fusion, space solar power, nanotechnology fabrication for batteries and thin films, etc. All of these technologies are still at the stage where the funds should be put into basic research with a 20 year pay off timeline - (20 years is a perfectly reasonable timeline for solving global warming)

[212]

So let's see ...

You oppose creating a market with cap and trade, and you favor direct subsidies? Losing your faith in the market, are you?

And anyway, why is the solution either cap-trade *or* subsidized research, rather than both and more?

[investordude]

Q1) Why not both and more? - Because cap and trade is expensive in 2 ways. The first is obvious - its a tax on business that probably gets passed on to consumers and contributes to inflation in the process. The second is I am skeptical that its really a market mechanism - the "cost" of an externality and will inherently be dictacted by politics and protecting certain vested interests from competition. In other words, cap and trade acts as a tax on innovation and makes it hard for new investment to enter certain critical markets. You see this in Europe's tax and trade scheme where there are carve outs for dirty polluting industries.

Q2) Do I support government research? Maybe I should be clearer. I think government giving NanoSolar money is wrong - the government shouldn't be picking winners and losers among CIGS startups. The SolarAmerica handouts to various CIGS startups is just a terrible precedent. On the other hand, I think that money could be well spent at universities and weapons laboratories.
I don't think that federally funded university research, assuming its funded by a competitive process with congressional oversight, conflicts with free markets. The way knowledge progresses is that people create bits of knowledge with no practical value and then share them. Only when someone has enough knowledge to build a product does the free market kick in. Basic research is an example of a situation where everyone benefits the most when general research knowledge is in the public domain, sort of the way people benefit from publicly accessible roads that can be used by everyone.
Not even Adam Smith thought roads and defense should be privately funded - I'm libertarian, not anarchist.

[claudian]

I didnt see all the replies, if anybody mentioned the film" an unconvinient truth". actually, it is the first time i recognize globle warming a rather serious problem, i believe i'm not the only one here.
so basically, i think people shouldnot only care about US. those who cares the world has a big heart and could lead US to really do something to the world not only by means of war.

[Capn_Birdseye]

One of the greatest problems Gore and his allies faced in pushing their agenda was the mass of evidence showing that in the past, global temperatures had been higher than in the late 20th century. An inconvenient truth!

In 1998 came the answer they were looking for: a new temperature chart, devised by a young American physicist, Michael Mann. This became known as the "hockey stick" because it showed historic temperatures running in an almost flat line over the past 1,000 years, then suddenly flicking up at the end to record levels.

Mann's hockey stick was just what the IPCC wanted. When its 2001 report came out it was given pride of place at the top of page 1. The Mediaeval Warming, the Little Ice Age, the 20th century Little Cooling, when CO2 had already been rising, all had been wiped away.

But then a growing number of academics began to raise doubts about Mann and his graph. This culminated in 2003 with a devastating study by two Canadians showing how Mann had not only ignored most of the evidence before him but had used an algorithm that would produce a hockey stick graph whatever evidence was fed into the computer! When this was removed, the graph re-emerged just as it had looked before, showing the Middle Ages as hotter than today.

It is hard to recall any scientific thesis ever being so comprehensively discredited as the "hockey stick".

.... and the world's experts also said that the Millennium Bug would cause devastation and the civilised world to collapse .... did it???

Fear is our enemy and it is fear that is being used to control us and the way we live. We have nothing to fear but fear itself, to quote the words of a great man.

[lofter1]

Then, aside from that graph ^, can you please explain for us the rapid melting of the polar ice caps. Hard to blame that on a convenient algorithm.

[Capn_Birdseye]

New Arctic Ice Cap Story Is a Hoax

by Laurence Hecht, Editor-in-chief,
21st Century Science & Technology (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/)

May 2, 2007 (EIRNS)—A non sequitur and a fallacy of composition are the essence of scare stories circulating on major wire services today, which report on a new study of the extent of Arctic sea ice melt.

The study, published in the May 1 issue of Geophysical Research Letters, reports an historical review of satellite and other data which indicates that the extent of Arctic sea ice at the end of the summer melt season in September has been declining since 1953. The news stories twist this statistical fact into scare stories, the one circulated by Agence France Presse claiming that the sea level will rise by seven meters.

In fact, as anyone who observes ice melting in a cold drink can determine, when floating ice melts, the water level remains the same or falls very slightly. The claim of a rise in sea level is thus a non sequitur. It is justified on the basis of a wild fallacy of composition—the claim that the melting of the Arctic sea water will inevitablily lead to the melting of the entire Greenland glacier.

Never reported is the fact that the last major study of the Greenland ice sheet [Zwally, et al. Journal of Glaciology (2005)] showed a slight increase in ice mass from 1992-2002. The one- to two-mile thick Greenland ice sheet was thinning at the margins but growing by a greater extent inland.

Polar specialists know well that the Arctic climate is highly variable and very sensitive to small changes in local temperature. As Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu of the Alaska Arctic Research Center in Alaska noted, the extent of Arctic sea ice melt in the 1920s was greater than today (with far less contribution from human-produced carbon dioxide), and was followed by a period of thickening. Akasofu called Al Gore's movie "science fiction." (See interview (http://www.larouchepub.com/other/interviews/2007/3419dr_akasofu.html).)

The theory that human-produced carbon dioxide produces climate warming has no scientific validity, and has been amply refuted by hundreds of leading scientists in thousands of papers.

The new study (Stroeve, et al. "Arctic sea ice decline: Faster than forecast") is questionable in that it focuses entirely on statistical methods of modeling and extrapolation. In general, extrapolation from short-term statistical trends is meaningless in scientific investigation. Three astronomical phenomena suggest that the Earth is moving towards an Ice Age: northern hemisphere summer is occurring near aphelion; orbital inclination is high at 23.5 degrees; and ellipticity is moderate. The Earth is about 11,000 years into an approximately 20,000-year long interglacial. The climatic optimum was reached nearly 5,000 years ago, and the Earth has been cooling since. New studies indicate the effect of galactic causes, such as cosmic ray influx, on the determination of climate.

But far worse than the methodological problems of the Arctic sea ice study are today's news reports of it. These represent the height of politically motivated irresponsibility. At bottom, greenhouse warming is a hoax. Its purpose is to stop industrial development, reduce population, and condemn two-thirds of the world to continued poverty and misery. As the science isn't there to prove it, the theory can only be justified by fabrications of the sort circulating on wire services today.

[Capn_Birdseye]

ICE HOUSE or HOT HOUSE?




During the last 2 billion years the Earth's climate has alternated between a frigid "Ice House", like today's world, and a steaming "Hot House", like the world of the dinosaurs. This chart shows how global climate has changed through time.

[Capn_Birdseye]

http://arctic-council.org/imagearchive/caseimage_bang200801l9a8219.jpg 19 January, 2008
Coldest winter in many years


By Jesper Hansen (http://arctic-council.org/person/1193123240.19)
50 cm thick ice in the Greenlandic Disko Bay marks a return to the frigid temperatures common a decade ago


While almost 200 municipal officials from most of the cold world are gathered in the Greenlandic capital Nuuk to discuss the climate changes on the Winter Cities organizations biennal conference the worlds largest island faces the coldest winter in a decade.

On Disko Bay in western Greenland, where a number of prominent world leaders have visited in recent years to get a first-hand impression of climate change, temperatures have dropped so drastically that the water has frozen over for the first time in a decade.


Temperatures plunged to -25°C earlier this month, clogging the bay with ice and making shipping impossible for small crafts, tells Anthon Frederiksen, the mayor of the town of Ilulissat, where Disko Bay is located to the Danish newspaper Morgenavisen Jyllandsposten.


Frederiksen is happy about the ice conditions: "it's an advantage for fishermen who rely on dogsleds for transportation."



"We Greenlanders have acclimated to changing conditions over the past 1100 years," said Frederiksen. "Temperatures change at regular intervals."

[lofter1]

Seems that the gang over at 21st Century Science & Technology (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/) are big proponents of Nuclear Power Plants.

I'd rather not wade through all their pdf files over there ---

What do they plan to do with the tons of "nuclear waste" materials generated by such plants?

Seems no one as of yet has come up with a working solution for that on-going problem.

But hey ... What, Me Worry?

Maybe our grandkids will be smarter than us -- and they'll figure out what to do with all those hot piles we leave behind.

[Ninjahedge]

Launch them to the dark side of the sun, of course!!!! ;)

[Edward]

What's exactly a problem with nuclear materials? After 300 years a great deal of activity is gone, unlike PCBs in Hudson River or toxic metals in solar panels. And since nuclear materials could be re-used in the fuel cycle, it's not a "waste".

[Edward]

I recommend reading Radioactive Waste (http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/%7Eblc/book/chapter11.html) chapter of the Nuclear Energy Option (http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/%7Eblc/book/BOOK.html) book by University of Pittsburgh professor Bernard L. Cohen

[investordude]

My problem with that movie is that it didn't have enough talk from real scientists. It was Al Gore's slide show, rather than a discussion by scientists. Scientists would have been in a better position both to lend credibility to this story, and also to show the evidence for why global warming is both real and man made. Also, the effects of global warming were overstated in the movie - no credible scientists expects ocean levels to rise 20 feet this century.

Global warming is a serious issue - but inconvenient truth politicized science and made this a partisan topic by not including scientists, as well as interviewing the skeptics and then providing scientific rebuttals to their bogus arguments

[Ninjahedge]

ID, interviewing skeptics, however few of them there are, would not get the message across.

I understand you saying they should have had more scientists and experts on the film, but that has already proven to be a method that does not work. You want scientists? Watch PBS (NOVA, for one).

But even after years of those kind of shows, people remained blissfully ignorant, and in some cases even combativly reluctant to accept any notion of Global Warming.

The bottom line is this. The world IS gettnig warmer. MOST scientists (and I mean a SIGNIFICANT MAJORITY, not just a Bush Election "majority") believe this and that we are, in the very least, a contributing factor.

Whether we are the main cause or not, if we are not careful, our little artificial bump intemperature could trigget a natural release of CO2 that is currently dissolved and held within the worlds oceans. THAT bump would cause major problems, and I believe that have said it has in the past.

So, regardless of your view on who is to blame, ruling out any effect by our industries on the environment is woefully ignorant.

We need to strongly curb this before our planet loses what little restorative power (free green space) it has to development.



One thing that confuses me though. You would think that some industrialized nations would like to prevent other smaller and less advanced nations from going through these changes. Discouragement of use of polluting coal plants and combustion engines.

You would think that they would like to keep their dominance over these nations by impeding their progress and forcing complete modernization in one shot (which would stem the growth of these industry bases enoug hto keep pace AND prevent ecological reverberations).

Are our companies making enough money out of China (not 3rd world) and other countries to let them poison themselves for our bottom line that we do not even look to our own economic future and possible outcome once these nations pass that stage?

Confusing issue for sure.

[Capn_Birdseye]

The bottom line is this. The world IS gettnig warmer.

Whether we are the main cause or not, if we are not careful, our little artificial bump intemperature could trigget a natural release of CO2 that is currently dissolved and held within the worlds oceans.
Ninja, I hope you'll excuse me saying this, I don't mean to be rude, but you're buying into the current "accepted wisdom", (or perhaps I should call it a new fundamentalist religion, its full of "Green" zealots spouting forth on half-baked & half-understood ideas!), hook line and sinker.

If you take a look at the chart of historic temperature chart that I posted yesterday you'll see that the world has always had fluctuating temperatures - there's nothing new about this, the world goes on!

http://www.nov55.com/gbwm.html

[Ninjahedge]

Ninja, I hope you'll excuse me saying this, I don't mean to be rude, but you're buying into the current "accepted wisdom", (or perhaps I should call it a new fundamentalist religion, its full of "Green" zealots spouting forth on half-baked & half-understood ideas!), hook line and sinker.

Nope. I looked into a bit of it.


If you take a look at the chart of historic temperature chart that I posted yesterday you'll see that the world has always had fluctuating temperatures - there's nothing new about this, the world goes on!

After mass extinctions and otehr bad happenings. You forget that in those times, if the water rose, the critters migrated. Thiose that didn't, died.

So what are we supposed to do with NYC if the water rises 5 feet? Build a dyke?

If you think I am being brainwashed just because I believe that, god forbid, CO2 could have SOME effect on the global climate then you are living in your own little world that refuses to accept ANYTHING that does not agree with what you want to believe.

The Green Zealots, as you put them, are saying that our own production of GHGs are responsible for the temperature swing and that they will, single handedly, ruin the world.

What I am saying, if you re-read it, is that while I do not agree with industry being the only source, that it is a contributing factor and that if we are not careful we run the risk of bumping the natural cycle just enough to knock it out of its own equilibrium.

We are a factor that has not been in the mix through all these cycles, and the disturbing thing is that these cycles seem to follow lock-step with CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

So instead of letting CO2, which I can't breathe anyway, increase and saying later "Whoops, I guess it WAS CO2 that was the cause, not the symptom of Global Temperature Increase", I would rather avoid it and let mother nature get back in its own centerpoint.




Now, to add to it, try this one smart guy.

CO2 traps heat.
The planet is getting hotter.
Ice is melting.
Water level is rising.

How do we counter this? The only way to do so is to cool the planet.

How can we do that? One way is to reduce CO2 emmisions so that less heat is trapped.

Does this point any fingers at anyone being the cause? No. The fact that you ignore this is rather dissapointing. "Gee a meteor is going to strike the Earth. But it is all natural so I guess we should not do anything about it! The Earth has been struck before and look, we are all here! So why spend money to stop this one? It would be so inconvenient."

It would not matter if it was from the Belt or from our own debris launched into space years ago (sci-fi) I would still send Bruce Willis up there to try and do something about it.


Well, maybe Tom Cruise. Even if he could not do anything we would be rid of him for a few months before the end... ;)

[Capn_Birdseye]

Nope. I looked into a bit of it.
Says it all really! Looking into "a bit" isn't enough, the propagandists out there are sophisticated, you need to get beneath their veneer of lies based on scientific misinterpretation and scaremongering using the world's media, and dig out the truth - not easy but its worthwhile.


The Green Zealots, as you put them, are saying .... They'll say anything to promote their lies .... they work on the Bigger Lie theory.


I would rather avoid it and let mother nature get back in its own centerpoint.And what centrepoint would that be? The world is forever changing, adapting, it has to, there is no neat centrepoint to which you refer.


Now, to add to it, try this one smart guy.

CO2 traps heat.
The planet is getting hotter.
Ice is melting.
Water level is rising.

How do we counter this?Only if you believe all that you've stated.



Does this point any fingers at anyone being the cause? No. The fact that you ignore this is rather dissapointing. "Gee a meteor is going to strike the Earth. But it is all natural so I guess we should not do anything about it! The Earth has been struck before and look, we are all here! So why spend money to stop this one? It would be so inconvenient."The fact that you base your beliefs on flawed science disappoints me, the fact that you are willing to be led by the nose by the green zealots disappoints me, the fact that you don't seem to have looked into the issue very deeply disappoints me. The meteor is a red herring and has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

[Ninjahedge]

My science is not flawed, your politics are.

The meteor is not a red herring, it is an analogy. Something is happening that is not producing a desired effect. Regardless of source, a solution must be found.

You chose to ignore it.

Now I know why I ignore you.

Congrats Cap! You are back into anonymity! :)

[Capn_Birdseye]

My science is not flawed, your politics are.
Ninja, you have your views, I have mine, we'll just have to agree to differ otherwise we'll go on forever. :)

[investordude]

capn, I actually don't see why its bad if ninja is basing his views of the "conventional wisdom" of scientists - the point of science is to peer review work. Scientists are inherently skeptical, so for them to accept a premise without hedging means they have analyzed the data and found it conclusive.

That doesn't mean people shouldn't be able to challenge theories, but the challenges to global warming haven't stood up to scrutiny thus far. Unless you and ninja are climate scientists, doesn't it make sense to accept the peer reviewed scientific consesus for the same reason I accept quantum mechanics even though it makes no intuitive sense? Scientists should be allowed to continue to pose challenges to the accepted theory, but the premise global warming is happening and is man made seems increasingly resilient to robust scientific challenges.

[Ninjahedge]

capn, I actually don't see why its bad if ninja is basing his views of the "conventional wisdom" of scientists - the point of science is to peer review work. Scientists are inherently skeptical, so for them to accept a premise without hedging means they have analyzed the data and found it conclusive.

/me shocked.

I agree!! ;)

It is not like the "general opinion" out on the street. You get a bunch of guys together that LIVE to disagree and challange each other and they AGREE on something, then you have to give it some credit.

You can question it, portions of it, or its import/implications on society, but to treat it as a blanket statement and discredit it by a generality like cycles when this is a relatively short term (ecologically) occurance is rather gauche.

The world is getting warmer, yes.

We can either sit around and keep pointing fingers or realize that things like CO2 emmissions are not helping things. If we do our best to eliminate these, we will have cleaner air regardless of whether or not the low-lands are reduced to sub-se level. BUT, it MIGHT forestall or prevent a climate shift that is either caused, or exascerbated by CO2 emmissions, or that is totally unrelated. Point being is that giving excuses to do nothing is lame.


That doesn't mean people shouldn't be able to challenge theories, but the challenges to global warming haven't stood up to scrutiny thus far. Unless you and ninja are climate scientists, doesn't it make sense to accept the peer reviewed scientific consesus for the same reason I accept quantum mechanics even though it makes no intuitive sense? Scientists should be allowed to continue to pose challenges to the accepted theory, but the premise global warming is happening and is man made seems increasingly resilient to robust scientific challenges.

My biggest problem is usually people that use spurious logic, untested propositions, or even outright politics (such as the use of the term "Greenie Zealots" or 'Environmental Fascists').

Just starting a conversation by insulting those that are in it, or trying to compare positions to the extreme positions held by those that do not represent the mainstream, is NOT a scientific debate.

It is all politics.

[Capn_Birdseye]

I won't go over old ground but would ask you to look again at the information contained in my recent postings, including a look at the historic temperature chart.

The Michael Mann "hockey stick" chart has been totally discredited.

The new study (Stroeve, et al. "Arctic sea ice decline: Faster than forecast") is questionable in that it focuses entirely on statistical methods of modeling and extrapolation.

In general, extrapolation from short-term statistical trends is meaningless in scientific investigation.

Three astronomical phenomena suggest that the Earth is moving towards an Ice Age: northern hemisphere summer is occurring near aphelion; orbital inclination is high at 23.5 degrees; and ellipticity is moderate.

The Earth is about 11,000 years into an approximately 20,000-year long interglacial. The climatic optimum was reached nearly 5,000 years ago, and the Earth has been cooling since. New studies indicate the effect of galactic causes, such as cosmic ray influx, on the determination of climate.

But far worse than the methodological problems of the Arctic sea ice study are today's news reports of it. These represent the height of politically motivated irresponsibility.

At bottom, greenhouse warming is a hoax. Its purpose is to stop industrial development, reduce population, and condemn two-thirds of the world to continued poverty and misery. As the science isn't there to prove it, the theory can only be justified by fabrications of the sort circulating on wire services today.

.... have we learned nothing from the Millennium Bug debacle when our so-called "experts" were predicting the end of the world as we know it!
Or the 150 million deaths that Avian Flu would bring ....

[lofter1]

Capn: Looks like the gang of idiots over at Mad Magazine also thinks this is just a lot of foolishness ...

Mad Magazine Uses Pulitzer Winners to Tweak Bush

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/02/03/business/0204-MAD.4.jpg
Mike Peters


NY TIMES (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/business/media/04mad.html?ref=arts)
By GEORGE GENE GUSTINES
February 4, 2008


The “usual gang of idiots,” as the editorial staff of Mad magazine lovingly describes itself, produces cultural and political parody every month. For the next issue, however, the gang has recruited some very special help.


“Why George W. Bush Is in Favor of Global Warming,” a two-page spread that the magazine calls an exposé, has been illustrated by 10 Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonists. They try to offer reasons why environmental apocalypse might be a good thing for President Bush, with observations like, “His worries about how future generations will remember his presidency won’t matter if there are no future generations.”


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/02/03/business/0204-MAD.7.jpg
Clay Bennett


Other potential upsides are that Iraq could literally be melted off the earth...


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/02/03/business/0204-MAD.6.jpg
Matt Davies


and rising oceans could submerge lefty strongholds like New York, Boston and San Francisco.


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/02/03/business/0204-MAD.5.jpg
Jack Higgins


The artists include Mike Peters, who won the Pulitzer in 1981 for his work in The Dayton Daily News in Ohio, and Matt Davies, who won in 2004 for The Journal News of White Plains.


John Ficarra, the editor of Mad, and Sam Viviano, the art director, assembled the team. Mr. Ficarra, who had the idea to find 10 Pulitzer winners, described himself as the Captain Kirk of the operation, and Mr. Viviano, who recruited the cartoonists, as Sulu. “You even said, ‘Make it so,’ ” Mr. Viviano said to Mr. Ficarra during a joint telephone interview.


They said that the artists were all happy to participate. “Everybody, for the most part, who works in humor today has some kind of influence from Mad,” Mr. Viviano said.


“And they still managed to be successful,” Mr. Ficarra added.


A writer for the magazine, Jacob Lambert, came up with the reasons why President Bush might like global warming, and the cartoonists took it from there. Some of them followed the editors’ guidance faithfully, others submitted variations.


Mad, of course, has a history of lampooning politicians, particularly embattled Republicans. In recalling favorites, Mr. Ficarra and Mr. Viviano were quick to mention a parody of the movie poster for “The Sting,” which substituted Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew for Paul Newman and Robert Redford; instead of lighting cigars with currency, the politicians lighted subpoenas.


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/02/03/business/0204-MAD.12.jpg



http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/02/03/business/0204-MAD.1.jpg
Mad Magazine #424, December 2002


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/02/03/business/0204-MAD.2.jpg
Mad Magazine Poster


A more recent poster was “Pirates of the Constitution,” which depicted President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice over the tag line, “Now subverting a government near you!”


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/02/03/business/0204-MAD.10.jpg
Ben Sargent


Mad, first published in 1952, says that the average age of its readership is 26, a statistic that Mr. Ficarra explains this way: “Median age is 19. Mental age is 9. Mental age of the editorial staff dips down a little lower, around 3.”


He ended the interview with a confession: “The whole thing is a thinly veiled ploy on our part to win a Pulitzer. Next month, we’re going to get a number of Nobel Prize winners in.”


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/02/03/business/0204-MAD.9.jpg
Michael Ramirez


Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/02/03/business/0204-MAD.8.jpg
Jim Morin
***


Some Golden Oldies:

President Lyndon Johnson was ridiculed after he lifted his shirt to show reporters
the scar from his recent gall bladder surgery. Mad magazine played up the incident
to reveal another gut-wrenching issue of Johnson's presidency, the war in Vietnam.


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/02/03/business/0204-MAD.11.jpg

Mad didn't begin its "Star Wars" movie poster parodies with the Bush administration.
The magazine took a swipe at President Bill Clinton after independent counsel Kenneth Starr
issued his report on the Monica Lewinsky scandal that enveloped the president's second term.


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/02/03/business/0204-MAD.3.jpg
Mark Stutzman

[Capn_Birdseye]

For Millennium Bug read Global Warming:

Worth a read just to see the hysteria and fear that was being generated!

The Millennium Bug Panic
12-Jan-1999 | Dave Amis

Dave Amis looks behind the fear and the hype to examine what the panic over the millennium bug is about.

The millennium bug is provoking strong reactions from people across the Internet. Opinions expressed range from doomsayers predicting the end of modern life as we know it to optimists who think there will be few, if any problems. This diversity of opinion is reflected in the numerous Internet sites that deal with the issue.

As 1999 begins, fears about the millennium bug and its potential impact are intensifying. The view of year 2000 expert of Peter de Jager is that: "The UK government has allocated £750 million to the millennium party, and only £300 million to the bug. BT, one single company, thinks the bug will cost it £350 million. Guess what? The government is wrong. The project will be late, things will go wrong, and the press will be asking why nobody warned them it was going to be this bad".

The UK government's millennium bug task force, Action 2000, has now begun a publicity blitz offering practical advice tailored to whatever fears emerge as the year progresses. Offering advice to ease people's anxieties is seen as an important part of the UK government's strategy in dealing with the millennium bug and the panic associated with it. However, addressing people's fears is not the same as eliminating the millennium bug from computer programmes. One example of such advice came towards the end of last year when the director of Action 2000, Gwynneth Flower, advised households in the UK to ensure they have at least two weeks worth of food stored away in anticipation of millennium bug related shortages.

The millennium bug has arisen because in the past computer programmers often used only two digits to denote year dates. For example, the year 1998 would be entered as 98. This technique was used to save valuable memory space and money at a time when computer chips had low memory capacities. With the approach of the millennium, programmes using two digits to denote dates and appliances utilising older computer chips will not be able to distinguish between 1900 and 2000. If the problem is not corrected, computer-operated systems will shut down or malfunction because of the chips inability to recognise the year 2000.

According to those most convinced that society will not be able to beat the millennium bug, if the problem is unresolved there will be failures of computer systems the effects of which will range from cash machines refusing to pay up, companies losing vital records, hospital equipment malfunctioning and traffic control systems not working. Financial institutions and benefit agencies will be unable to calculate interest payments or age eligibility requirements. The worst case scenario includes prolonged power cuts, food shortages, sewers backing up and taps running dry.

Concern about the impact of the millennium bug extends to the potential for civil unrest as the conveniences of modern life disappear, and the possibility of economic collapse. Many analysts fear the millennium bug will create an opportunity for looters as security systems malfunction or shut down. They see these problems as being compounded by the massive millennium celebrations that will be going on at the time. However, whether any millennium celebrations will be taking place in London at all is a matter of contention. Senior police officers in the Metropolitan police have called for the entire London Underground network to be closed down.

In the UK, the Home Secretary, Jack Straw has been told he must stay in London during the millennium celebrations in case of a serious breakdown in public order or a national emergency if computer systems fail. Officials have warned him that prolonged festivities and possible problems connected with the millennium computer bug could trigger a domestic crisis. It will be Jack Straw's job to guarantee public safety and in case of disruption to vital services, to activate the Cabinet Office's crisis control centre. This is the Civil Contingency Committee which will be mobilised to be on standby on 31st of December to cope with any potential failures and disruption arising from the millennium bug. The committee has the power to assemble the heads of the Army, Navy, Royal Air Force, security services and the SAS for emergency strategy meetings.

On the economic front, Edward Yardini, the chief economist of Dresdner Bank in New York, has estimated that the chances of a world-wide millennium induced recession are now 70 per cent. Gwynneth Flower has warned that in the UK: "Two-thirds of small and medium-sized companies aren't doing enough. If they don't take adequate action, we estimate 25 per cent of them could go to the wall. Up to 200,000 companies could find themselves out of business". Getting away from the growing sense of fear and returning to the core of the problem, eliminating the millennium bug boils down to scanning through many thousands of lines of programming code to locate and rectify those lines of code that are causing the problem. Once the offending code has been found, it is a relatively simple task to amend it. The only difficulty is the sheer scale of the task and the fact that a large amount of effort has to be devoted to resolving the problem.
Essentially, it is a logistical problem of organising human and financial resources to undertake that task.

A good example of such a complex task, albeit on a smaller scale, was the preparation of the world's banking system for the introduction of the new European currency, the euro. This culminated in four days of intensive effort from Thursday December 31st to January 3rd that involved thousands of people working around the clock. On the afternoon of Thursday December 31st, the European Commission fixed the value of the euro against the 11 European Monetary Union currencies. Banks and stock exchanges then fed this data into their computer systems. Between January 1st and 3rd at financial institutions across Europe and in other centres such as Tokyo and New York, teams of data processing experts double checked the software needed to process the euro. In the City of London, 30,000 people worked right through the New Year celebrations to ensure the euro had a smooth a launch as possible.

In terms of the effectiveness of the measures being taken to eliminate the millennium bug, we are starting to get a clearer idea as many computer systems start to deal with dates beyond the year 2000. The evidence available indicates that progress is being made.

Research from Action 2000's indicates that large companies in the UK are making significant progress in resolving the problem. The research shows that 92% of businesses employing more than 500 people have at least established a compliance programme, while many have carried out enough work to function in the year 2000, and some have even got all systems ready. The chairman of Action 2000, Don Cruickshank said about the situation in the UK: "Although we can't be complacent, this research confirms our judgement that big business is well down the track". There is concern that small businesses are not up to scratch in dealing with the millennium bug. Don Cruickshank said: "They think that they've got enough time. There's a sort of denial going on which says this is all desperately over-hyped". However, small businesses are under pressure from bigger companies to ensure that they have eliminated the millennium bug. Failure to comply will result in larger companies sourcing supplies from those businesses that have eliminated the bug. This pressure will spur on small businesses to ensure they resolve the problem in time.

As far as UK government departments are concerned, a senior government aide has said that: "We are doing very well with our preparations to deal with the bug in government departments. Plans are ahead of schedule with hospitals". Don Cruickshank's assessment of the level of preparedness of the companies and bodies that run the UK infrastructure is guardedly optimistic: "My present judgement is that we will see normal operation of the UK national infrastructure...Present judgement is the phrase I use - I'm not predicting anything".

Opinion is still divided as to the potential impact of the millennium bug. On an optimistic note, most economists do not see a catastrophe in the offing, and some say that the huge investment in updating computer systems could actually have a long term benefit on the economy.

However, there are those who take a much more pessimistic view. In the UK, Professor Mike Smith St. Bartholomew's Hospital, and the Royal London School of Medicine and Dentistry in London has said that: "I estimate that between 6,000 and 15,000 people may die as a direct result on the year 2000 problem in the NHS".




.... and what happened??? :)

[Ninjahedge]

Financial versus scientific/environmental.

Bogus comparison with no real merit.

When you can invest in Global Climate Changes like you can invest in stock, maybe this will have more impact.

Societal threat /= physical & environmental threat.

[Capn_Birdseye]

Scare tactics the same Ninja, and probably the result will also be the same - oh dear, we're wrong, its not as bad as we thought!! Oops, what else can we think of to scare them into submission? There'll be something, there always is!

[Ninjahedge]

I know better than read your retorts defending a spurious argument CB....


Remove user from ignore list (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/profile.php?userlist=ignore&do=removelist&u=8796)
Capn_Birdseye (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/member.php?u=8796) This message is hidden because Capn_Birdseye is on your ignore list (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/profile.php?do=editlist).

[Capn_Birdseye]

I know better than read your retorts defending a spurious argument CB....
... in your view Ninja. None so blind as those that will not see, (even though the evidence is there!). Join the flock of sheep that unblinkingly believe all the rubbish that is fed to them. When sheep are scared they find comfort in numbers.

[Ninjahedge]

Lemme guess?

You are either belittling me, or my position in order to lend creedance to your own by sheer defamation.

You have not presented anything that has carried any weight no this subject CB. You refuse to believe it, and chose to use lame arguments such as popularity or chicken little to try and discredit the whole argument.

Nothing anyone will say, aside from places getting warmer despite the predictions of an ice age coming (why you even mentioned that when it weakens your argument is beyond me), will convince you of what is coming.


So instead of preparing for something, where the prepeartions would be little more than an inconvenience to the average person, you would rather ignore it, call the ones that warn its coming crazy, and not change a single thing about your own life to try and help alleviate the situation.

Chicken little may have been paranoid calling for the sky to be falling, but only an idiot did not at least look up.

[Capn_Birdseye]

As I've said before Ninja, there is little point in trying to get you to look at the evidence that refutes your position - you've made your mind up, you've closed your mind to any other school of thought, and as far as you're concerned its "end of story"!

A look at the historic temperature chart - you've not commented on
The Michael Mann hockey stick chart (totally discredited) but used by Global Warmists - you've not commented on

I could go on but there seems little point as you've already admitted previously that you looked at some of the compellling contra arguments, I think the phrase you used was, "a bit", which seems hardly justifiable when we're talking about such an important issue.

Incidentally, why did "the experts" get it so wrong over the Millennium Bug? Weren't we supposed to witness the end of society as we know it? Why did "the experts" get it so wrong, and why are they soooooo right when it comes to Global Warming?
Why did "the experts" get it sooooo wrong over the 150 million deaths predicted from Avian Flu? They were predicting a terrible world-shattering epidemic that mysteriously failed to materialise!

Ninja, you have too much faith in so-called experts, think for yourself after looking at all the avilable evidence.

[Zephyr]

This being a bit of old, admittedly political news, I shall still leave it as a counterpoint to the idea that Mr. Gore is the only politico supposedly misleading the public with some kind of hoax-driven agenda.



United States House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
December 2007

POLITICAL INTERFERENCE WITH
CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE
UNDER THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

For the past 16 months, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has been investigating allegations of political interference with government climate change science under the Bush Administration. During the course of this investigation, the Committee obtained over 27,000 pages of documents from the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Commerce Department, held two investigative hearings, and deposed or interviewed key officials. Much of the information made available to the Committee has never been publicly disclosed.

This report presents the findings of the Committee’s investigation. The evidence before the Committee leads to one inescapable conclusion: the Bush Administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming.

In 1998, the American Petroleum Institute developed an internal “Communications Action Plan” that stated: “Victory will be achieved when … average citizens ‘understand’ uncertainties in climate science … [and] recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom.’” The Bush Administration has acted as if the oil industry’s communications plan were its mission statement. White House officials and political appointees in the agencies censored congressional testimony on the causes and impacts of global warming, controlled media access to government climate scientists, and edited federal scientific reports to inject unwarranted uncertainty into discussions of climate change and to minimize the threat to the environment and the economy.

The White House Censored Climate Change Scientists

The White House exerted unusual control over the public statements of federal scientists on climate change issues. It was standard practice for media requests to speak with federal scientists on climate change matters to be sent to CEQ for White House approval. By controlling which government scientists could respond to media inquiries, the White House suppressed dissemination of scientific views that could conflict with Administration policies. The White House also edited congressional testimony regarding the science of climate change.

Former CEQ Chief of Staff Philip Cooney told the Committee: “Our communications people would render a view as to whether someone should give an interview or not and who it should be.” According to Kent Laborde, a career public affairs officer at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, media requests related to climate change issues were handled differently from other requests because “I would have to route media inquires through CEQ.” This practice was particularly evident after Hurricane Katrina. Mr. Laborde was asked, “Did the White House and the Department of Commerce not want scientists who believed that climate change was increasing hurricane activity talking with the press?” He responded: “There was a consistent approach that might have indicated that.” White House officials and agency political appointees also altered congressional testimony regarding the science of climate change. The changes to the recent climate change testimony of Dr. Julie Gerberding, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, have received considerable attention. A year earlier, when Dr. Thomas Karl, the Director of National Climatic Data Center, appeared before the House Oversight Committee, his testimony was also heavily edited by both White House officials and political appointees at the Commerce Department. He was not allowed to say in his written testimony that “modern climate change is dominated by human influences,” that “we are venturing into the unknown territory with changes in climate,” or that “it is very likely (>95 percent probability) that humans are largely responsible for many of the observed changes in climate.” His assertion that global warming “is playing” a role in increased hurricane intensity became “may play.”

The White House Extensively Edited Climate Change Reports

There was a systematic White House effort to minimize the significance of climate change by editing climate change reports. CEQ Chief of Staff Phil Cooney and other CEQ officials made at least 294 edits to the Administration’s Strategic Plan of the Climate Change Science Program to exaggerate or emphasize scientific uncertainties or to deemphasize or diminish the importance of the human role in global warming.

The White House insisted on edits to EPA’s draft Report on the Environment that were so extreme that the EPA Administrator opted to eliminate the climate change section of the report. One such edit was the inclusion of a reference to a discredited, industry-funded paper. In a memo to the Vice President’s office, Mr. Cooney explained: “We plan to begin to refer to this study in Administration communications on the science of global climate change” because it “contradicts a dogmatic view held by many in the climate science community that the past century was the warmest in the past millennium and signals of human induced ‘global warming.’”

In the case of EPA’s Air Trends Report, CEQ went beyond editing and simply vetoed the entire climate change section of the report.

Other White House Actions

The White House played a major role in crafting the August 2003 EPA legal opinion disavowing authority to regulate greenhouse gases. CEQ Chairman James Connaughton personally edited the draft legal opinion. When an EPA draft quoted the National Academy of Science conclusion that “the changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities,” CEQ objected because “the above quotes are unnecessary and extremely harmful to the legal case being made.” The first line of another internal CEQ document transmitting comments on the draft EPA legal opinion reads: “Vulnerability: science.” The final opinion incorporating the White House edits was rejected by the Supreme Court in April 2007 in Massachusetts v. EPA.

The White House also edited a 2002 op-ed by EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman to ensure that it followed the White House line on climate change. Despite objections from EPA, CEQ insisted on repeating an unsupported assertion that millions of American jobs would be lost if the Kyoto Protocol were ratified.

SOURCE in Adobe PDF format (http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20071210101633.pdf)

[Capn_Birdseye]

From the Sunday Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ook119.xml (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/19/nbook119.xml)

Inconveniently, the 1930s were the hottest decade

Recent days have brought to light four more highly "inconvenient truths" for our global warming alarmists. The first caused acute embarrassment to Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), exposing a serious flaw in its record of US surface temperatures since 1880. The error was so glaring that, on August 7, GISS had to post revised figures which show, instead of temperatures reaching their highest level in the past decade, that the hottest year of the 20th century was not 1998 but 1934. Of the 10 warmest years since 1880, it turns out that four were in the 1930s and only three in the past decade.

The significance of this is that James Hansen, the head of GISS, has been Al Gore's closest scientific ally for nearly 20 years in promoting the global warming scare. The revised figures relate only to temperatures in North America but the fact that the pre-eminent scientific champion of the orthodoxy has been promoting erroneous data has considerable implications.

The expert responsible for spotting GISS's error was Stephen McIntyre, a Canadian computer analyst who four years ago scored the greatest coup in the history of this debate by demolishing the notorious "hockey stick" - the graph which purported to show temperatures flat-lining for centuries until they suddenly began an exponential rise in the late 20th century. The "hockey stick" was adopted as the supreme icon of the global warming lobby, led by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which reproduced it no fewer than five times in its 2001 report. Since McIntyre exposed the mass of basic computer errors on which it was based, the IPCC in its most recent report quietly dropped it.

The new GISS graph, conceding that the last decade may not have seen the hottest years of the past century, follows the latest satellite figures from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) showing that in recent years global temperatures have not continued to rise (as orthodox CO2 warming theory would suggest) but have flattened out at a level significantly lower than in 1998.

The other "inconvenient truths" all relate to the astronomic cost of measures now being proposed to tackle our supposed "warming".

One was a study reported in Science which finds that the increasing production of biofuels to combat climate change will release between two and nine times more CO2 into the atmosphere in the next 30 years than generating the same energy from fossil fuels. To meet the EU's target of substituting 10 per cent of transport fuel with biofuel by 2020 would take up 40 per cent of all the EU's farmland, unless much of it was imported, at devastating cost to the world's rainforests and wildlife.

The second was a leaked memorandum in which officials of the DTI ( now the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform) briefed ministers on how to explain to the EU's energy commissioner, Andris Piebalgs, that the UK will not be able to comply with a European Council decision last March that the EU must derive 20 per cent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020. The officials have calculated that this could cost UK electricity users alone an additional £22 billion a year, nearly £1,000 a year for every household. This is 2 per cent of GDP, and double Sir Nicholas Stern's estimate for the entire cost of halting global warming. The officials predicted that the target is not remotely achievable anyway.

A final awkward finding comes from the world's leading expert on the financial costs of tackling global warming. Prof William Nordhaus, of Yale, has just published calculations showing that cuts in greenhouse gas emissions on the scale proposed by Gore might possibly save $12 trillion (£12,000bn) - but that their cost would be nearly three times as much, $34 trillion, more than half the world's GDP. Even for those who still believe the likes of Gore and Hansen, it hardly sounds like the bargain of the century.

[RandySavage]

Capn', question: Do you believe that when the Bush administration and oil lobby "suppressed dissemination of scientific views [on global warming] that could conflict with Administration policies" they were, in effect, acting on behalf of the citizenry of the world and in opposition to those (such as the IPCC scientists) who would seek, as you put it, to control us through fear (of anthropogenic climate change)?

If possible, please provide a yes or no answer and brief explanation of why.

[Capn_Birdseye]

Randy, I'm sure Bush and the Oil industry are pursuing their own agenda, of that I have no doubt, (and I hold no brief for that gang of shysters!), but that's not the issue. Yes, they may use certain evidence, or even suppress certain things to support their own agenda but, and here is the main point, regardless of that, the evidence to support "Global Warming" doesn't stack up on an objective basis. It may do so on an emotional basis and the story being portrayed is designed to appeal to our emotions but that does not validate it.
The science is compromised in its use of "evidence" because that "evidence" is deeply flawed. Just read some of my recent postings. It won't be the first time "science" has been wrong and it won't be the last!

[RandySavage]

^I've read most of the ongoing evidence/arguments both for and against, and the biggest scientific proponents of Global Warming will readily admit that there are many questions and unknowns still to be tackled, but the best consensus of current knowledge sees the balance of evidence coming down on the side of anthropogenic climate change.

Your tagline seems to be "humans are too small a force to have an affect on something as huge and complex as climate." With that in mind, another question for you: do you believe what science is telling us about collapsing fish stocks, loss of tropical forests to agriculture, species mass extinction, buildup of synthetic toxins in human and animal tissue, etc., or do you think all these are more scare-mongering fables put out by the enviros who seek control and power?

[Capn_Birdseye]

^I've read most of the ongoing evidence/arguments both for and against, and the biggest scientific proponents of Global Warming will readily admit that there are many questions and unknowns still to be tackled, but the best consensus of current knowledge sees the balance of evidence coming down on the side of anthropogenic climate change.
The "evidence" is certainly not "balanced" and much of it is flawed - care to make any comment on the Michael Mann hockey stick graph used extensively by envio's?


Your tagline seems to be "humans are too small a force to have an affect on something as huge and complex as climate."Up to a point - Man vs Nature is in my opinion a non-contest, but the main point is that the powerful lobby advocating Global Warming is simply using flawed/corrupted evidence to back their case, and I'm a person with no axe to grind in this debate, if I thought there was a real case to be had here I'd back it but so far I've seen none that convinces me.


With that in mind, another question for you: do you believe what science is telling us about collapsing fish stocks, loss of tropical forests to agriculture, species mass extinction, buildup of synthetic toxins in human and animal tissue, etc., or do you think all these are more scare-mongering fables put out by the enviros who seek control and power?(1) Over-fishing

(2) Greed & need

(3) Extinction of some species is always with us, but new species are also dsicovered
More Than 100 New Species Discovered In Hawaiian Islands

ScienceDaily (Oct. 31, 2006) — A three-week scientific expedition to French Frigate Shoals in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument returned to Honolulu on Sunday with the discovery of many new species and a better understanding of marine biodiversity in the Hawaiian Archipelago.

(4) Toxins in human/animal tissue

We are living in a world in which toxins have been introduced at an alarming rate since the end of World War II. There is no burden of proof placed on industry to show that these chemicals are safe. It used to be that we considered acute toxicity or poisoning to be our only concern. Heavy metal exposure was measured in blood to diagnose poisoning. Not so anymore. Chronic heavy metal and chemical buildup in bodies gradually creates a greater ‘body burden’ that is increasingly difficult to overcome with innate detoxification mechanisms.

This process of accumulating poisons starts in utero these days. Toxins cross the placental barrier and affect developing fetuses as well as the newborn. Mammalian milk continues to channel these substances into young bodies. Our animals are exposed to many of the same chemicals that we are, and their abilities to manage this toxic load become easily overwhelmed. Look at common sources of exposure for ourselves and our animals

Billions of tons of chemicals are used every year, including mercury, sulfates and nitrates from coal-fired power plants in the U.S. Airborne toxins from Asia and other countries travel the jet stream, eventually settling onto virtually every continent on the planet.

Our indoor air is 10 times more polluted than outdoor air, according to the EPA. Flame retardants, formaldehyde, paints, and nonstick or stain-resistant coatings such as those found in cookware or upholstery and carpets contribute to the mix. Home cleaning products can create an acute problem for birds that live in the house but chronic exposure for dogs, cats and smaller animals can be a problem as well. Think about how our pets are so good at cleaning up after us in the kitchen. Ingesting a little pine scented floor cleaning solution or chemical disinfectant is not a good idea, even in small amounts. Even household building materials can off-gas undesirable substances for years.

Food. We need no reminder of the recent pet food recall catastrophe in order to be diligent about the source of all ingredients in our animals’ food. If we are successful in obtaining domestic products free from foreign contaminants, ensuring that these are as organic as possible with no hormones, pesticides, antibiotics and fertilizer residues can still be a chore. Even organically grown ingredients cannot be protected from pollutants in air and rain and inevitably expose our pets to these toxins when they are ingested.

A study done by Gloria Dodd, DVM detected unacceptable levels of aluminum in many pet foods; even high quality canned pet food contained heavy metals. When Dr. Dodd analyzed hair samples from sick animals, she found that many of them contained high levels of heavy metals such as aluminum, lead and arsenic.
(www.planet-pets.com/drgloria (http://www.planet-pets.com/drgloria)).

Water. Studies done by the Environmental Working Group on contaminants in tap water showed that in 42 states, some 260 contaminants were detected in public water supplies, 140 of which were unregulated chemicals! Using bottled water cannot adequately protect our pets, since 25-30% of it comes from municipal tap systems – and the testing requirements for bottled water are lower than those for tap water. Additionally, the plastics from the bottles can leach into the water.

Plastic feed and water dishes can contribute endocrine disruptors such as bisphenol A. Phthalate, another endocrine disruptor, is used to soften plastic and can be found in animal toys and in the linings of canned foods destined for both human and animal consumption.

Grooming products and sprays we put on our pets often have toxins such as sodium laurel sulfate, phthalates, parabens, triclosan and preservatives in them. These go directly on our animals’ skin and penetrate into their systems.

Vaccines are often a source of heavy metals (mercury/thimerisol) which are neurotoxins and the carcinogen formaldehyde.

Heavy metals can reduce the body’s ability to absorb essential nutrients such as calcium, magnesium and zinc, eventually leading to problems with immune function, muscle contraction, energy production, and repair of bone.

We don’t know all of the actions of toxins or the interactions of multiple toxins in low levels in the body. One thing we do know is that assaults on the cells and tissues of the body result in the formation of free radicals. Most of us are familiar with this term; free radicals are molecules that are unstable, they are missing one of a pair of electrons. Molecules like to be stable and will ‘steal’ an electron from a neighboring molecule in order to re-stabilize themselves. The molecule that was robbed now becomes a free radical and a chain reaction of free radical formation can occur; if this chain reaction cannot be stopped by the anti-oxidants in the body, oxidative stress results.

[RandySavage]

The "evidence" is certainly not "balanced" and much of it is flawed - care to make any comment on the Michael Mann hockey stick graph used extensively by envio's?

Sure, I'll make a comment.

Wegman (a statistician) is the key figure in criticizing the hockey stick. From a scientific standpoint, I think it's a good thing that Wegman brought up what he perceived to be statistical shortcomings in Mann's hockey stick because it made the National Research Council reexamine Mann's argument. The NRC then concluded (in agreement with Wegman) that there were some flaws in Mann's methods, BUT the shortcomings were minimal, and what the hockey stick showed remained basically accurate. So yes, on balance the evidence still falls on the side of the CC

I am no climatologist. I can make decisions only on what I read from specialists whom I trust are being honest. However, I have some slight reservations about the people attacking Mann's work. I know that the players involved in the Wegman Report are mostly tied to the fossil fuel industry (two Republican, energy-minded Senators from Texas and Kentucky, a former coal executive and an economist). The guy that requested Wegman find holes in Mann's work is the same guy who fought in Congress to provide safe harbor for the manufacturers of cancer-causing MBTE fuel additive. From a gut feeling standpoint, I trust the Mann side people a little more than the Wegman side. Also, to me, common sense or Joachim's Razor would suggest that if you slightly alter the chemical makeup of the atmosphere, there will be slight consequences. Slight consequences in this case (1-4degree increase) could be catastrophic to biodiversity that can't move as freely as it could during other, natural warming periods in last 50,000 years.


(3) Extinction of some species is always with us, but new species are also dsicovered Yes, extinction is natural, but the current rate of extinction is 100 to 1,000 times the natural rate (prehuman). And I hope you understand that because we're still discovering/naming new species (we've discovered about 1.8 million species out of possibly 10 million (mostly invertebrates)) doesn't mean that some sort rapid speciation is happening in Hawaii to replace what has been killed off due to habitat loss, invasive species, overexploitation, etc.


Man vs Nature is in my opinion a non-contest.
If by this you mean that humans can't have major, global, deleterious effects on nature, you're very wrong. Even in our prehistory we had significant effects on flora and fauna (for example, without Indian fires the eastern prairie would have been invaded by forest). With our numbers and consumption at current levels and continuing to increase, many major changes are taking place. To name a few: the oceans are being emptied of most of their large pelagic fish (half of fish eaten are now farmed), tens of thousands of square miles of Sahelian savanna have become the Sahara desert due to overgrazing of livestock and loss of vegetative transpiration, the rainforests of Southeast Asia are well on their way to being fully consumed to feed the cardboard and palm oil needs of industrializing nations, and scientists are still trying to understand the complex role the Amazon plays in local and global climate, even as an area larger than Alaska (more than 7 times the size of your UK) has been razed since 1970. As the rainforests disappear, so do the 90% of species we have yet to discover/name/study - a burning of the biological library of Alexandria a million times over, and a loss of countless potential medicines, foods, natural pesticides, etc.

Bottom line: The enviros have reason to be concerned with the current and future state of the planet. I'm willing to debate global warming with you based on new evidence as it arises, but those who have the attitude of "don't worry, be happy" when it comes to environmental issues as a whole strike me as either lazy, willfully ignorant, or selfishly apathetic. I hope that's not you.

[Ninjahedge]

Don't be so savage, Randy! ;)

I agree with most of what you say there. So many people take this all-or-nothing attitude, or quite the opposite "I don't really care, whatever." indifference.

Everyone does not need to make their own hydroponic farms, get electric cars run on solar cells and batteries that they charge from their treadmills/rooftop cells/bio-waste methane production (although that would also produce CO2...). But sitting around and saying "You all are greenie Nazi fascist socialist communist pinkos!" and doing nothing, while simply shouting what they have been told to shout gets us nowhere.


The things I am concerned about are tipping points. At what % of glacier melt do we get out of our stable zone and get an uncontrollable increase in solar energy absorption?

When do we get to the point where the tundra starts to melt and release its methane gas? What about the CO2 that is currently dissolved in the ocean, what happens when we get to the point (only a few degrees) where THAT will jump up to where our reduction in gasses will do little to stop it (pushing the rock over the bump that was keeping it from rolling downhill...).

I am not in favor of castration of our own faltering economy in order to make marginal, at best, improvements in our ecological state of being and impact, but doing nothing is simply blind and irresponsible.

[investordude]

I still don't see why doing nothing is irresponsible. Its very expensive (and probably impossible) to actually slow this down right now. If China adds the electrical capacity of the UK every year, and its coal fired, we're not going to make a meaningful change by installing 10% more efficient building insulation in some homes.

That money would be better spent on research, until the point renewable or fusion technology becomes cheaper than fossil fuels. Once that happens, all the coal fired technology will disappear on its own. Procrastination is sometimes the right answer.

[Capn_Birdseye]

Back in the late 1990s, American geo-scientist Michael Mann published a chart that purported to show average surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere over the past 1,000 years. The chart showed relatively minor fluctuations in temperature over the first 900 years, then a sharp and continuous rise over the past century, giving it a hockey-stick shape.

Mr. Mann's chart was both a scientific and political sensation. It contradicted a body of scientific work suggesting a warm period early in the second millennium, followed by a "Little Ice Age" starting in the 14th century. It also provided some visually arresting scientific support for the contention that fossil-fuel emissions were the cause of higher temperatures. Little wonder, then, that Mr. Mann's hockey stick appears five times in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's landmark 2001 report on global warming, which paved the way to this week's global ratification -- sans the U.S., Australia and China -- of the Kyoto Protocol.

Yet there were doubts about Mr. Mann's methods and analysis from the start. In 1998, Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics published a paper in the journal Climate Research, arguing that there really had been a Medieval warm period. The result: Messrs. Soon and Baliunas were treated as heretics and six editors at Climate Research were made to resign.

Still, questions persisted. In 2003, Stephen McIntyre, a Toronto minerals consultant and amateur mathematician, and Ross McKitrick, an economist at Canada's University of Guelph, jointly published a critique of the hockey stick analysis. Their conclusion: Mr. Mann's work was riddled with "collation errors, unjustifiable truncations of extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculations of principal components, and other quality control defects." Once these were corrected, the Medieval warm period showed up again in the data.

This should have produced a healthy scientific debate. Instead, as the Journal's Antonio Regalado reported Monday, Mr. Mann tried to shut down debate by refusing to disclose the mathematical algorithm by which he arrived at his conclusions. All the same, Mr. Mann was forced to publish a retraction of some of his initial data, and doubts about his statistical methods have since grown. Statistician Francis Zwiers of Environment Canada (a government agency) notes that Mr. Mann's method "preferentially produces hockey sticks when there are none in the data." Other reputable scientists such as Berkeley's Richard Muller and Hans von Storch of Germany's GKSS Center essentially agree.

From Wall Street Journal 18 February 2005

[RandySavage]

^ Mann did eventually release his algorithm, healthy debate ensued, and the National Research Council, while pulling back from some of Mann's data, still came down on Mann's side of the hockey stick:

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11676

[Ninjahedge]

I still don't see why doing nothing is irresponsible. Its very expensive (and probably impossible) to actually slow this down right now.

Right there you are sticking impossibilities into the argument.

"Well if it is hard to do, why should we do it?"

Do you lift weights? Do you exercise? You know that it will help you in teh long run, but so little happens to effect aging, so why bother?


If China adds the electrical capacity of the UK every year, and its coal fired, we're not going to make a meaningful change by installing 10% more efficient building insulation in some homes.

We are not talking about China. We have to set an example, not point our fingers and say "well he did it!". We are in no position to ask China to change their ways if we do not do so ourselves.


That money would be better spent on research, until the point renewable or fusion technology becomes cheaper than fossil fuels.

Shouldn't the oil companies be donating large sums for that? What were Exxon's profits last year? And what are the Oil companies latest commercials about? That tehy are looking for more oil/gas, to "serve" us and our needs. Big whoop.

We are not saying that research on these things would be bad, but putting it diametrically opposed, as if reduced MILITARY SPENDING could not be used for the same research, is foolish.


Once that happens, all the coal fired technology will disappear on its own. Procrastination is sometimes the right answer.

What are you smoking? Wait until Amageddon happens because then we will be more motivated and need it more?

Site me ONE PLACE where procrastination has helped any company. And I do not mean by stealing others work either.

Procrastination is NEVER a viable alternative. Its very definition does not denote timing or planning, but simply delaying what needs to be done because someone or something is unwilling to do it.

[Ninjahedge]

^ Mann did eventually release his algorithm, healthy debate ensued, and the National Research Council, while pulling back from some of Mann's data, still came down on Mann's side of the hockey stick:

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11676

THANK YOU for providing links RS!

I hear these things all the time, but I do not know where to get the information.

That and I am too lazy to do it myself sometimes (yes, that was a freebie to you Jasonik).

Maybe I should just wait long enough until someone else does it.... Where have I heard that before.... :D

[Capn_Birdseye]

Hey randy, take a look at this:

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/programme.html

and this ...

Global Warming: A Convenient Lie
By Andrew G. Marshall

Global Research (http://www.globalresearch.ca/), March 15, 2007

Recently, a documentary aired on the UK’s Channel 4, entitled “The Great Global Warming Swindle” (http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html), which challenged the prevailing political understanding that global warming is caused by man-made activity. The movie argues that it is in fact the sun that is responsible for the current changes in the Earth’s temperature and the film is riddled with the testimony of many scientists and climate experts, furthering a growing dissent to the man-made theory. After all, that’s all it is, a theory. As soon as people start to state that “the debate is over”, beware, because the fundamental basis of all sciences is that debate is never over, that questions must be asked and answered and issues raised in order for the science to be accurate. So what exactly are the arguments behind the Sun being the main cause of global warming?

First off, it is very important to address the fact that Earth is not the only planet to be experiencing climate change in our solar system currently. In fact, many astronomers have announced that Pluto has been experiencing global warming (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html), and suggested that it is a seasonal event, just like how Earth’s seasons change as the various hemispheres alter their inclination to the Sun. We must remember that it is the Sun that determines our seasons, and thusly has a greater impact upon the climate than we could ever even try to achieve. In May of 2006, a report came forward (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html) revealing that a massive hurricane-like storm that occurred on Jupiter may be caused by climate change occurring on the planet, which is expected to raise its temperatures by 10 degrees. National Geographic News reported (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html) that a simultaneous rising in temperature on both Mars and Earth suggest that climate change is indeed a natural phenomenon as opposed to being man-made. The report further explains how NASA has reported that Mars’ carbon dioxide ice caps have been melting for a few years now. Sound familiar? An astronomical observatory in Russia declared that, “the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun”. They further point out that both Mars and Earth have, throughout their histories, experienced periodic ice ages as climate changes in a continuous fashion. NASA has also been observing massive storms on Saturn (http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science/20061109-022035-4126r/), which indicate a climate change occurring on that planet as well. NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope has also been recording massive climate changes on Neptune’s largest moon (http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980526052143data_trunc_sys.shtml), Triton. Triton, whose surface was once made up of frozen nitrogen, is now turning into gas. The Associated Press has reported that satellites that measure the temperature of sunlight have been recording an increase in the sun’s temperature (http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/092897/study.htm), meaning that the sun itself is warming up. Even the London Telegraph reported in 2004 that global warming was due to the sun being hotter (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html) than it has ever been in the past 1,000 years. They cited this information from research conducted by German and Swiss scientists who claim that it is increasing radiation from the sun that is resulting in our current climate change.

Claude Allegre, a leading French scientist, who was among the first scientists to try to warn people of the dangers of global warming 20 years ago, now believes that “increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388)”. Allegre said, “There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the "science is settled." He is convinced that global warming is a natural change and sees the threat of the ‘great dangers’ that it supposedly poses as being bloated and highly exaggerated. Also recently, the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus said, when discussing the recent ruling (http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2007-02-01-ipcc-report_x.htm) by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that global warming is man-made, “Global warming is a false myth (http://newsbusters.org/node/10773) and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment.” And if you are about to ask why no politicians here seem to be saying this, Klaus offered up an answer, “Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice”. Nigel Calder, the former editor of New Scientist, wrote an article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece) in the UK Sunday Times, in which he stated, “When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works.” He further stated that, “Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis”. And in reference to how the media is representing those who dissent from the man-made theory he stated, “they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies”, which is exactly what I believed up until I did my research. He also wrote, “Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages”.

For those who saw Al Gore’s “documentary”, it was very convincing of its hypothesis that global warming is a man-made phenomenon that has the potential to kill us all and end humanity. After all, the film was filled with graphs and charts, so it must be true. Let’s just get something straight here, Al Gore is not a climatologist, meteorologist, astronomer, or scientist of any kind; he is a politician. And as we all know, politicians always tell the truth. However, as Al Gore’s popularity grows and with his recent winning of an Academy Award for his movie, the issue has spiraled into massive push for quick action and stifled debate, forcing many scientists to speak out and challenge the political status quo. A group of scientists recently stated that the research behind Al Gore’s film and in fact, the concept of greenhouse gases causing global warming, is “a sham”. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=440049&in_page_id=1965) They claim that in fact, there is very little evidence to prove that theory, and that the evidence actually points to an increase in solar activity being the cause of climate change. In Gore’s movie, he presented evidence that was found in the research done on ice core samples from Antarctica, which he claimed is proof for the theory of CO2 being the cause of rising temperatures. However, this group of scientists state that “warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels”, meaning that a rise in Carbon Dioxide follows a rise in temperature, rather than increasing temperature following rising CO2 emissions. And not only that, but it follows behind the rise in temperature by about 800 years. The group also mentions that, “after the Second World War, there was a huge surge in carbon dioxide emissions, yet global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.” They also claim that the report given by the UN, which said it was backed by over 2,000 of the worlds leading scientists, “was a ‘sham’ given that this list included the names of scientists who disagreed with its findings.”

Timothy Ball, one of the first Canadian doctors in climatology, recently wrote an article addressing the issue of why no one seems to be listening to scientists who claim that global warming is NOT man-made (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm). He starts by writing, “Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science”. He continues, “We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification.” Then he mentions how Environment Canada is spending billions upon billions of dollars on “propaganda” which defends an “indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.” Then Dr. Ball brings up a very interesting point that everyone should take into consideration, citing that 30 years ago, in the 1970s everyone was talking about “global cooling” and how it was the defining issue of our lives, our species, that our very survival depended on what we did it about it. Interesting, sounds like every Canadian politician. Ball continues to explain that climate change is occurring, but that it is because it is always occurring, it is a natural change that is a result of the changes in the Sun’s temperature. He explains that we are currently leaving what was known as a Little Ice Age and that the history of Earth is riddles with changes in the climate. That’s what climate does and is always doing, changing. Dr. Ball claims that “there is nothing unusual going on,” and that he “was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as [he was] to the threats made about Global Warming.”

Dr. Timothy Ball later wrote, in commenting on the problems that arise for scientists who speak out, that, “Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.” He also mentions how he “was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies.” He concludes in referencing others who have and continue to speak out against the prevailing myth of man-made global warming, such as author Michael Crichton, who’s book, ‘State of Fear’, explains the inaccurate science behind the man-made myth. Another prominent name is that of Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, who often speaks out against the man-made theory, yet no one seems to be listening to him.

An article in the February 12th Washington Times discussed how skeptics of global warming are “treated like a pariah” (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070211-112902-4433r.htm). The article begins, “Scientists skeptical of climate-change theories say they are increasingly coming under attack -- treatment that may make other analysts less likely to present contrarian views about global warming.” He cites an example of this by mentioning how a climatologist in Oregon might be stripped of his position by the governor for speaking out against the origins of climate change. Most skeptics don’t claim that climate change is not occurring, they just disagree with what is causing it, and yet they are treated like traitors. A NASA funded study (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html) in 2003 found that, “Changes in the solar cycle -- and solar output -- are known to cause short-term climate change on Earth.”

In a storm of scientists speaking out against Al Gore’s movie, an Australian professor of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory has publicly stated, "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm). It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention." In response to the use of images in Gore’s movie of glaciers breaking off, Dr. Boris Winterhalter, a professor on marine geology and former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland, said that, “The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier.” Makes sense, especially since history tells us that glaciers move, after all, that’s what helped form our valleys and reshaped mountain ranges at the end of the last ice age about 10,000 years ago. Maybe my memory isn’t very good, but I don’t think people were driving SUVs 10,000 years ago. Another clever use of images to manipulate facts that Gore has in his movie is that of a polar bear seemingly stranded on a piece of a broken off ice berg, stating that polar bears are becoming extinct because of global warming. However, there are a few things wrong with this assessment, first of all, that according to a paper published by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm), “the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise.” Secondly, if the polar bear is in such danger according to Al Gore, then why does a recent government survey in Canada show that they are not declining (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=1ea8233f-14da-4a44-b839-b71a9e5df868), but rather rising in numbers? Thirdly, the very idea of a polar bear “stranded” on a small block of ice is in itself misleading for Gore’s argument, as polar bears are excellent swimmers and according to Sea World, “They can swim for several hours at a time over long distances [and] they've been tracked swimming continuously for 100 km (http://www.seaworld.org/infobooks/PolarBears/pbadaptations.html) (62 mi.)” Professor Carter, speaking about Gore and his personal crusade, said, “The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science.” Even if Al Gore was telling the truth about the causes of global warming, or climate change, which most evidence points to the fact that he is not, but even if he was, he would still be a hypocrite. It was recently revealed that Al Gore doesn’t exactly practice what he preaches, such as what he said in his Academy Award acceptance speech (http://www.oscar.com/oscarnight/winners/?pn=detail&nominee=AnInconvenientTruthDocumentaryFeatureNomin ee), “People all over the world, we need to solve the climate crisis. It's not a political issue; it's a moral issue.” Well, in that case, why is it that a recent study by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research found that one of Al Gore’s mansions uses 20 times the amount of electricity that the average American does. It was also reported that Al Gore consumes twice as much the electricity in one month that the average American consumes in one year (http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367).

In examining that there is more evidence to prove the basis for a conclusion that changes in climate are more related to an increase in the temperature of the Sun rather than influence of people, we must examine why efforts to expose this myth are stifled and those who speak out are attacked. In fact, there are reported cases of scientists who speak out against the man-made theory as having received death threats (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml). There has even been talk of relating those who speak out against the currently held theory on global warming as being equal to those who deny the Holocaust. In a recent op-ed piece in the Boston Globe commenting on the report issued by the UN, Ellen Goodman wrote (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/), “Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.” This is a very disturbing comment, not only because there is reason to scientifically doubt the man-made theory, but also because this is a scathing attack on freedom of speech, the most vital and important of all rights and freedoms.

With the UN Panel’s judgment in, western politicians are quick to declare that the debate is over, and action must be taken immediately. What is this action that they are planning on taking? The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the UK, Gordon Brown, soon expected to be the next Prime Minister after Tony Blair steps down, has publicly called for a “new world order” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6473968,00.html) to combat the threat of climate change. So let’s have a look at this New World Order that’s being implemented to combat the threat of global warming. One major thing being pushed through with little, cancel that, no debate, is a UN recommendation that we impose “a global tax on greenhouse gas emissions” (http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-02-28-voa2.cfm). Most people will hear this and think, “Good, polluters need to be taxed”. Well, this means people who drive cars will be taxed, because according to Al Gore, when you drive your car, you’re causing global warming. This is no joke, as an article in the UK’s Guardian Newspaper reported that, “The government is throwing its weight behind a revolutionary plan that would force motorists to pay £1.30 a mile to drive (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1499780,00.html)might end up paying about £1,500 a year (http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/driving/news/article1392644.ece) for driving 19,000 miles.” That’s equal to about $3,000 per year. I don’t know about you, but I don’t know many people who can afford that. In the European Union, plans are being made to impose an increase of taxes on diesel (http://international.ibox.bg/news/id_426235932). The European Commission recently proposed to “raise the minimum tax on commercial diesel fuel by nearly 20% over the next seven years”. This, they claim, is to help protect the environment because it will act as a deterrent for people to drive. This is just excellent news, because as anyone who has driven in the past two years knows, gas prices are just too low. Another concern arising out of the concept of taxing people for how far they drive is how it is done. According to the Transport Secretary in the UK, “Every vehicle would have a black box to allow a satellite system to track their journey (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4610755.stm)”. This has been raising concerns in the UK of an increase in Big Brother technology and government programs. Proposals currently being made in Canada recommend that, “Canadians would pay an extra 10 cents per litre at the gas pumps (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070228.wclimateplan0228/BNStory/ClimateChange/home)”, mirroring plans in the European Union. Another important recent news item is that Toronto “Mayor David Miller said yesterday he would support ‘region-wide’ road tolls” (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/toronto/story.html?id=db051662-1061-42bf-850b-a8338123a0fb), to combat climate change. on Britain's busiest roads”. That is approximately $3.00 per mile. A study conducted by an expert in transportation and infrastructure found that, “a Birmingham commuter

The European Union is also imposing a ban on conventional light bulbs (http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=380442007), replacing them with energy-saving bulbs. That ban would fully be in effect within two years, forcing all 490 million citizens of the EU’s member states to switch from the current conventional lights they now have. However, some problems of this plan have been raised considering that the supposed energy-efficient light bulbs “have to be left on all the time, they're made from banned toxins and they won't work in half your household fittings. Yet Europe (and Gordon Brown) says 'green' lightbulbs must replace all our old ones.” They also are “up to 20 times more expensive” than conventional light bulbs (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=441881&in_page_id=1770). They also give off a much harsher light and do not produce a steady stream of light but rather just flicker 50 times a second. These special “efficient” light bulbs also need more ventilation than conventional bulbs, which means that they cannot be in an enclosed light fitting. I’m sure that this won’t inconvenience any of the 490 million who are being forced to switch. In Canada, talk is taking place of having a ban on conventional light bulbs (http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/news/national/story.html?id=ea7c3af2-393a-4681-ba50-c06f6a87bf79) being included in Stephen Harper’s clean air act. This discussion was recently brought about by the act of Australia taking moves to ban conventional light bulbs (http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/183923) by the year 2010. As well as that, a lawmaker in California has introduced a bill to ban the selling of conventional bulbs by 2012, with a similar bill also being introduced in New Jersey. Royal Phillips Electronics, one of the leading corporations in producing light fixtures announced that they would stop selling conventional bulbs by 2016. This will result in a massive cost to the consumer, who is losing their free will in where they spend their money and how they choose to help the environment. Hoping to get by without buying new bulbs and sneak it by the government? Good luck. As a recent report pointed out in the UK, the government has very intrusive plans to make the UK the world’s first green economy. Part of this plan is that every home in the UK is to be ‘carbon neutral’ within 10 years, making every house updated to “green” standards. The government said they would provide the renovators, which has led many to fear that it is a method of spying on homeowners to make sure they go green (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=442150&in_page_id=1770). Blair Gibbs, a member of the Taxpayer’s Alliance and critic of the plan stated, “It's bad enough that politicians want to take so much of our money away in tax. For them also to intrude into our homes in order to have the ability to penalise us even further is simply unacceptable.”

I am not saying that it isn’t a good idea to take action to help the environment, but I ask you to consider this: if the majority of scientific data points to the fact that global warming is caused by the Sun, then how will a tax on carbon emissions help to stop it? How does us driving cars cause climate change on Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Pluto, Neptune and Triton? Can Al Gore please fill me in on this? If CO2 increases as a RESULT of temperature increases, then how can we hope to accomplish anything by taxing emissions? That’s like saying we will prevent the process of humans ageing by dying their grey hairs. It’s not grey hair that causes people to age; it’s ageing that causes grey hair. And nothing that you do to your hair will have any affect on how long you live. Especially since ageing is a natural process that cannot be stopped and has always occurred and will always occur. Just like climate change.

It seems worrisome that politicians are all too eager to grab onto this man-made myth of global warming in order to make us afraid and guilty. Guilty enough to want to change it, and afraid enough to give up our freedoms and undergo massive financial expenses in order to do so. So this lie, being pushed by big money and big governments, is a convenient lie for those who want to exert control and collect money. However, it’s inconvenient for the mass amount of people who are already experiencing the problems of a widening wage-gap and fading middle class.

If the problems we are being presented are based on lies, then how do we expect to find any true solution to helping the environment? A Global Tax won’t clean up the oil spilled by the Exxon Valdez, which is still polluting waters in Alaska (http://environment.guardian.co.uk/waste/story/0,,2004154,00.html) nearly 18 years after the spill occurred. A Global Tax won’t stop Shell from making the Niger Delta (http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/02/shell_told_to_p.html) the most endangered Delta in the whole world. No, we have to first be realistic, mature, and have debate about the problems we are facing, and then, and only then, can we even hope to achieve any sort of solution.

[RandySavage]

^ To make an unbiased good argument you need to deal directly with the primary scientific sources, not secondary crap ones like this Channel 4 shock doc. For example, the article uses the President of the Czech Republic (an economist and politician) as one of its main sources on the "swindle." He says, “global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so."

The latter part is obviously a false statement. He continues:

"The IPCC is neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment.”

This is impossible to demonstrate and almost certainly false. He calls into question the integrity and character of every member of the IPCC. "These people" are in fact eminent and well-respected scientists and are not all of one mind on the subject.

In short, a primary source in one of your pieces of evidence already, demonstrably, has his head up his ass.

I don't have the patience to keep sifting through any more of this junk. If you're going to keep arguing against anthropogenic climate change that is fine and well, but please only post links to recent primary materials from reputable experts. Then I will give it a read.

[investordude]

Ninjahedge, I'm curious why you say oil companies aren't donating to solve global warming. Exxon and BP have donated about 600 million to Berkeley and Stanford alone this year. They also have significant internal R&D.

Ironically, when oil companies spend money on research, they get attacked even worse and environmentalists claim the research is all just a conspiracy to suppress technology. I don't see any indication that's happening, and I don't think they could suppress the technology if they tried - its hard to suppress technology.

The truth is its currently too expensive to do much. Just chill out and costs will come down. Solar will be economically competitive in about 5 years, and fusion will probably be competitive in 20 years.

[Ninjahedge]

Ninjahedge, I'm curious why you say oil companies aren't donating to solve global warming. Exxon and BP have donated about 600 million to Berkeley and Stanford alone this year. They also have significant internal R&D.

How much do they make?

$600M is nothing.


Ironically, when oil companies spend money on research, they get attacked even worse and environmentalists claim the research is all just a conspiracy to suppress technology. I don't see any indication that's happening, and I don't think they could suppress the technology if they tried - its hard to suppress technology.

Please provide proof of this.


The truth is its currently too expensive to do much. Just chill out and costs will come down. Solar will be economically competitive in about 5 years, and fusion will probably be competitive in 20 years.

What? Chill out and costs will come down? What is being encouraged is forcing companies to research into these venues. If they are not forced, it proceeds slowly, if at all. Look at the increase in MPG standards a while ack (Carter?) Did that ruin our auto industry? No. AAMOF, it was the fact that we were still building these lumbering boehemoths that we call "cars" that gave the different cars manufactured by Japan a solid niche and demographic to come in on.

So, by putting pressure on industry to change, and people to do the same, there is money to be made in making your NEEDED product better and more affordable.

Doing nothing will take too much time. The person who is willing to swim dwonstream may be able to get there before it is dark and the bears come out. Float in your tube if you want, but I hope most people will not do the same.

[lofter1]

ID: Such good spin.

I forget: could you tell us again what is your exact postion at the Department of Energy?

[investordude]

lofter: I'd rather go without heating oil than have to pass some DOE background check where they ask me about my sex life and god knows what other irrelevant detail.

ninja: here's the difference between global warming and fuel economy - the technology to improve fuel economy existed in the 70's. You just make the cars smaller. I agree with the idea of improving CAFE standards by the way. Global warming is a different story - coming up with a new source of energy requires new physics. Certainly, we see companies like First Solar beginning to appear in new markets, but its also obvious we're not quite at the breakout point for mass deployment.
The solution to that problem is to wait and watch the technology improve.

Also, as for the long term answer, fusion power, I think there's a legitimate argument for having the government be the primary investor in the technology for the time being. It's too long term at this point for corporations to do the work - at this stage you want breakthroughs to be broadly shared rather than guarded as proprietary secrets.

[Ninjahedge]

lofter: I'd rather go without heating oil than have to pass some DOE background check where they ask me about my sex life and god knows what other irrelevant detail.

Where does your sex life enter into this? You are stretching the issue beyond its limits. What's next, connecting environmental protection with possible pedophilia? Come on!


ninja: here's the difference between global warming and fuel economy - the technology to improve fuel economy existed in the 70's. You just make the cars smaller.

No, that is not all there is. How can a fully loaded full size open bed truck get better gas milage now than a car or station wagon back then? Our cars are MUCH larger now and still more efficient than most were in the 70's.

A reduction in size was one thing, but research into engine design also led to much more powerful, efficient motors.


I agree with the idea of improving CAFE standards by the way. Global warming is a different story - coming up with a new source of energy requires new physics.

Its the same physics that has been around since Einsteln and before. It is a matter of refining the application of sai physics to the real world and product development.

We HAVE several sources for energy that require no real breakthroughs, just proper implimentation. Solar, Wind, Tidal. Fusion is not the only new source.


Certainly, we see companies like First Solar beginning to appear in new markets, but its also obvious we're not quite at the breakout point for mass deployment.

And why is that? Because Oil is still cheaper. Hell, COAL is cheaper, but we stopped using that to a large extent because of the direct, irrefutable and almost immediate result of using it as a large-scale source fuel. Black Rain? China has it now and people are starting to ask questions, even if their cities are silenced because of asking.

If we were to put pressure on companies to make it both harder to use conventional fuels, and cheaper to use others, you will see them start to shift. Make it so they can see a definite long term profit and they will persue it even more.

But let companies do whatever they want, buy out alternate fuel research companies, provide a small percentage of their gross PROFIT towards their research (they spend more on advertising than that!). You let them drill for oil in areas that have very low yeild for the environmental impact they impose (I am just waiting for it to get tight enough for them to start going to the tar deposits) and all you get is what makes THEM money, not what helps us.

Free market is never what is best for the people. It is always what is best for those that want to make money and have the money/power/leverage o do so.


The solution to that problem is to wait and watch the technology improve.

No it isn't. Again you are saying do nopthing and everything will work out. Life never works that way, there always has to be someone, somewhere that does the work.

Is this the latest ramification of the American work ethic? Wait and it will be easier later?


Also, as for the long term answer, fusion power, I think there's a legitimate argument for having the government be the primary investor in the technology for the time being. It's too long term at this point for corporations to do the work - at this stage you want breakthroughs to be broadly shared rather than guarded as proprietary secrets.


Um, again, you are spouting. So the companies that earn more than you could possibly imagine providing what is, essentially, the backbone of our industry are allowed to divest outside our nation, removing themselves from our regulation, and proceed at a pace that gains them the biggest profit?

No doubt they will research fusion when the time comes, but in the meantime WE are the ones that are going to pay the price.

And, while I agree about the necessity of the overnment to research this, exclusion of private industry that is this large and this closely tied to civil need and operation is not a fair assesment.

We can make sure Mom and Pop shops do not have to foot a major part of the bill for development of fusion plants, but including Exxon/BP/Cheveron in the same exemption is not fair.

[Jasonik]

To all who think ecological and sustainable energy and transportation is fundamentally at odds with profit motivated business; I suggest reading articles (http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/ites/0706/ijee/lovins.htm) and interviews (http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2007/07/26/lovins/) with visionary capitalist (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/19/13959/922) Amory Lovins.

[investordude]

If it was true that messing with energy prices was a good idea, I think you'd see most of the venture capital outside the US.

But the truth is most is still done in the US because we have smart intellectual property laws and we have adequate government funding for basic science. In fact, 1 worry I have about the 2008 budget is the mysterious failure to fund basic science at the level promised in the America Competes Act. If anything causes capital flight from the US, it will be the failure to do the basic science - not the failure to impose currently unattainable requirements on utilities.

Nanosolar is admittedly taking advantage of solar subsidies in Germany, but they do their research here for a reason. The right answer is to invest in science, allowing high tech immigration, and improve our intellectual property enforcement. Those ingredients will lead to the breakthroughs that will get us out of this mess.

[Edward]

I posted an article from New York Times titled Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=214213) in Energy thread that is relevant to this thread too

[Capn_Birdseye]

As usual our so-called climate experts don't know what they're talking about, forever contradicting themselves, yet the masses believe their every utterance - unbelieveable!

Following on Edward's posting:

Biofuels make climate change worse, scientific study concludes

http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00015/sugarcane080208_15551t.jpg (http://javascript<b></b>:launchPopup('http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/biofuels-make-climate-change-worse-scientific-study-concludes-779811.html?action=Popup&gallery=no','', 770, 658, true, true, true, false);)
JAY DIRECTO/AFP/Getty Images
Workers load harvested sugarcane onto a truck in the central Philippine island of Negros

http://www.independent.co.uk/independent.co.uk/images/i_photos.gif enlarge (http://javascript<b></b>:launchPopup('http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/biofuels-make-climate-change-worse-scientific-study-concludes-779811.html?action=Popup&gallery=no','', 770, 658, true, true, true, false);)Related Articles

Michael McCarthy: 'Free lunch' that could cost the earth (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/michael-mccarthy-free-lunch-that-could-cost-the-earth-779810.html)By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Friday, 8 February 2008


Growing crops to make biofuels results in vast amounts of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere and does nothing to stop climate change or global warming, according to the first thorough scientific audit of a biofuel's carbon budget.

Scientists have produced damning evidence to suggest that biofuels could be one of the biggest environmental con-tricks because they actually make global warming worse by adding to the man-made emissions of carbon dioxide that they are supposed to curb. Two separate studies published in the journal Science show that a range of biofuel crops now being grown to produce "green" alternatives to oil-based fossil fuels release far more carbon dioxide into the air than can be absorbed by the growing plants.

The scientists found that, in the case of some crops, it would take several centuries of growing them to pay off the "carbon debt" caused by their initial cultivation. Those environmental costs do not take into account any extra destruction to the environment, for instance the loss of biodiversity caused by clearing tracts of pristine rainforest.

"All the biofuels we use now cause habitat destruction, either directly or indirectly. Global agriculture is already producing food for six billion people. Producing food-based biofuel, too, will require that still more land be converted to agriculture," said Joe Fargioine of the US Nature Conservancy who was the lead scientist in one of the studies.

The scientists carried out the sort of analysis that has been missing in the rush to grow biofuels, encouraged by policies in the United States and Europe where proponents have been keen to extol biofuels' virtues as a green alternative to the fossil fuels used for transport.

Both studies looked at how much carbon dioxide is released when a piece of land is converted into a biofuel crop. They found that when peat lands in Indonesia are converted into palm-oil plantations, for instance, it would take 423 years to pay off the carbon debt.

The next worse case was when forested land in the Amazon is cut down to convert into soybean fields. The scientists found that it would take 319 years of making biodiesel from the soybeans to pay of the carbon debt caused by chopping down the trees in the first place.

Such conversions of land to grow corn (maize) and sugarcane for biodiesel, or palm oil and soybean for bioethanol, release between 17 and 420 times more carbon than the annual savings from replacing fossil fuels, the scientists calculated.

"This research examines the conversion of land for biofuels and asks the question 'is it worth it?' Does the carbon you lose by converting forests, grasslands and peat lands outweigh the carbon you 'save' by using biofuels instead of fossil fuels?" Dr Fargione said.

"And surprisingly the answer is 'no'. These natural areas store a lot of carbon, so converting them to croplands results in tons of carbon emitted into the atmosphere," he said.

The demand for biofuels is destroying the environment in other ways. American farmers for instance used to rotate between soybean and corn crops but the demand for biofuel has meant that they are growing corn only. As a result, Brazilian farmers are cutting down forests to grow soybean to meet the shortfall in production.

"In finding solutions to climate change, we must ensure that the cure is not worse than the disease," said Jimmie Powell, a member of the scientific team at the Nature Conservancy.

"We cannot afford to ignore the consequences of converting land for biofuels. Doing so means we might unintentionally promote fuel alternatives that are worse than the fossil fuels they are designed to replace. These findings should be incorporated into carbon emission policy going forward," Dr Powell said yesterday.

The European Union is already having second thoughts about its policy aimed at stimulating the production of biofuel. Stavros Dimas, the EU environment commissioner, admitted last month that the EU did not foresee the scale of the environmental problems raised by Europe's target of deriving 10 per cent of its transport fuel from plant material.

[Jasonik]

David Roberts questioning Amory Lovins
26 Jul 2007 (http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2007/07/26/lovins/)


Q - Reports out recently cast doubt on the environmental advantages of biofuels. Have you ever reconsidered your support for them?


A - You're treating biofuels as generic and I don't think that's appropriate. There are much smarter and much dumber approaches to biofuels, and biofuels do not need to have the problems you refer to.


Q - But even cellulosic ethanol has come under criticism lately.


A - Not from anyone knowledgeable that I'm aware of. Unless of course you need such large quantities of it, because you have such inefficient vehicles, that you start getting in land-use trouble.

We suggest that U.S. mobility fuels could be provided without displacing any food crops. You could do it just with switchgrass and the like on conservation reserve land. Being a perennial, which can even be grown in polyculture, switchgrass and its relatives would hold the soil better because they're much deeper rooted than the shallow-rooted annuals with which that erosion-prone land is often planted. And of course the perennials don't need any cultivation or other inputs.

Just a few weeks ago my colleagues and I led the redesign of a cellulosic ethanol plant -- we were able to cut out very large fractions of its energy and capital need by designing it differently. There are other process innovations we're aware of that would achieve similar results. I would not write off biofuels at all.


I think we can all agree that cutting down mature rain forest to grow sugar cane to produce ethanol or for any reason is a bad idea, just as using petro-fertilizers and petro-pesticides to grow corn to produce ethanol is an equally bad idea.

A telling quote from the above article:

The demand for biofuels is destroying the environment in other ways. American farmers for instance used to rotate between soybean and corn crops but the demand for biofuel has meant that they are growing corn only. As a result, Brazilian farmers are cutting down forests to grow soybean to meet the shortfall in production.
The so-called "demand" for biofuel is a government subsidy (http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2007/02/ethanol_subsidi.html).

[investordude]

This issue with corn ethanol just proves the point that right now, we don't have the technology to solve global warming. We should do research on things like cellolosic ethanol and fusion, and when we have a solution, we can figure out the right way to deploy to the market place.

By the way, I think fusion is a better solution than biofuels. Battery technology will improve to the point you don't need liquid fuels for cars, and fusion consumes a lot fewer resources in terms of land than agriculture or even artificial solar powerw. Even today, I think conventional fission is much less environmentally detrimental than most renewable forms of energy (assuming the plant is appropriately designed to resist a Chernobyl style accident).

[Zephyr]

... Lockwood and Froehlich’s study … [found] that the correlation between solar activity and temperature trends post-1985 is actually negative. This means that changes to the sun (including cosmic ray intensity, for that matter) have contributed Less than Zero to the recent sharp rise in average global temperatures.

… The inaptly so-named ‘climate sceptics’ who are keen to let mankind off the global warming hook, will not easily abandon this battle-tried warhorse. A natural sun-climate link, albeit invisible and unverifiable, is just the most persuasive among the set of quasi-plausible arguments with which upright eco-optimists attempt to dismiss as a (left-wing? anti-liberal?) conspiracy theory mankind’s responsibility for global warming. …

To further confuse things and the public, solar changes do seem to have had an impact on past climates. Moreover, it is at least not impossible that cosmic ray intensity does influences clouds and climate. There’s nothing wrong with investigating these things –

... But blaming the sun for recent global warming is no science-backed position anymore – it is deliberate disinformation.

Quirin Schiermeier (http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/recent_contributors/quirin_schiermeier/)
German Correspondent
Nature





Nature 448, 8-9 (5 July 2007) | doi:10.1038/448008a; Published online 4 July 2007

No solar hiding place for greenhouse sceptics

Quirin Schiermeier

A study has confirmed that there are no grounds to blame the Sun for recent global warming. The analysis shows that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays (M. Lockwood and C. Fröhlich Proc. R. Soc. A doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880; 2007*). [COLOR="Red"][I]Some researchers had suggested that the latter might influence global warming through an involvement in cloud formation.

“This paper is the final nail in the coffin for people who would like to make the Sun responsible for present global warming,” says Stefan Rahmstorf, a climate scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.

Claims that the Sun, rather than raised levels of greenhouse gases, has been responsible for recent warming have persisted in a small number of scientists and in parts of the media. Mike Lockwood, a physicist at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Chilton, UK, says he was “galvanized” to carry out the comprehensive study by misleading media reports. He cites ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’, a television programme shown in March by Britain’s Channel 4, as a prime example.

Together with Claus Fröhlich of the World Radiation Center in Davos, Switzerland, Lockwood brought together solar data for the past 100 years. The two researchers averaged out the 11-year solar cycles and looked for correlation between solar variation and global mean temperatures. Solar activity peaked between 1985 and 1987. Since then, trends in solar irradiance, sunspot number and cosmic-ray intensity have all been in the opposite direction to that required to explain global warming.

In 1997, Henrik Svensmark, a physicist at the Danish NationalSpace Center in Copenhagen, suggested that cosmic rays facilitate cloud formation by seeding the atmosphere with trails of ions that can help water droplets form (H. Svensmark and E. J. Friis-Christensen J. Atmos. Solar-Terrest. Phys. 59, 1225–1232; 1997). He proposed that, as a result of this, changes in the Sun’s magnetic field that influence the flux of cosmic rays could affect Earth’s climate.This led to claims that cosmic rays are the main influence on modern climate change.

Even in the face of the new analysis, Svensmark insists that solar theories should not be dismissed. “If you look at temperatures in the troposphere, there is a remarkable correlation with solar activity,” he says. Lockwood insists that none of the tropospheric data show the trend that the solar theory would need.

Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem who has championed a Sun–climate link, argues that there may be a lag in Earth’s reaction tothe Sun because of the thermal inertia of the oceans.

But other climate researchers find the idea of a ‘hidden’ time lag unconvincing. “With each year, and with each new set of data that comes in, a time lag becomes ever more unlikely,”says Urs Neu,deputy head of ProClim-, the climate and global change forum of the Swiss Academy of Sciences in Bern.

On other timescales, however, Sun–climate links may remain worthy of study. “Climate change is a cocktail of many effects,” says Jasper Kirkby, a physicist at CERN, the European particle-physics laboratory near Geneva in Switzerland, who is leading an experiment aimed at simulating the effect of cosmic rays on clouds. “past climate changes have clearly been associated with solar activity. Even if this is not the case now, it is still important to understand how solar variability affects climate.”

Ken Carslaw, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Leeds, UK points out that solar effects might still be possible. They might have acted to cool the climate in recent decades, but been overwhelmed. If so, the climate could be more sensitive to greenhouse gases than is generally thought, and future temperature increases might be greater than expected if a countervailing solar-effect comes to an end.

© 2007 Nature Publishing Group

Subscription Version Above – Click here to buy copy or obtain information to request use. (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7149/full/448008a.html)



* - USE THIS LINK to Download and View Adobe PDF version of M. Lockwood and C. Fröhlich Proc. R. Soc. A doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880; 2007 (http://publishing.royalsociety.org/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf)


.

[Jasonik]

The Sun Also Sets

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted Thursday, February 07, 2008 4:20 PM PT (http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175)

Climate Change: Not every scientist is part of Al Gore's mythical "consensus." Scientists worried about a new ice age seek funding to better observe something bigger than your SUV — the sun.

Back in 1991, before Al Gore first shouted that the Earth was in the balance, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study using data that went back centuries that showed that global temperatures closely tracked solar cycles.

To many, those data were convincing. Now, Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better "eyes" with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth's climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined.

And they're worried about global cooling, not warming.

Kenneth Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council, is among those looking at the sun for evidence of an increase in sunspot activity.

Solar activity fluctuates in an 11-year cycle. But so far in this cycle, the sun has been disturbingly quiet. The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century.

Such an event occurred in the 17th century. The observation of sunspots showed extraordinarily low levels of magnetism on the sun, with little or no 11-year cycle.

This solar hibernation corresponded with a period of bitter cold that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes of warming, until 1715. Frigid winters and cold summers during that period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in Northern Europe.

Tapping reports no change in the sun's magnetic field so far this cycle and warns that if the sun remains quiet for another year or two, it may indicate a repeat of that period of drastic cooling of the Earth, bringing massive snowfall and severe weather to the Northern Hemisphere.

Tapping oversees the operation of a 60-year-old radio telescope that he calls a "stethoscope for the sun." But he and his colleagues need better equipment.

In Canada, where radio-telescopic monitoring of the sun has been conducted since the end of World War II, a new instrument, the next-generation solar flux monitor, could measure the sun's emissions more rapidly and accurately.

As we have noted many times, perhaps the biggest impact on the Earth's climate over time has been the sun.

For instance, researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years, accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth's temperature over the last 100 years.

R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center of Canada's Carleton University, says that "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales."

Rather, he says, "I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of energy on this planet."

Patterson, sharing Tapping's concern, says: "Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth."

"Solar activity has overpowered any effect that CO2 has had before, and it most likely will again," Patterson says. "If we were to have even a medium-sized solar minimum, we could be looking at a lot more bad effects than 'global warming' would have had."

In 2005, Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov made some waves — and not a few enemies in the global warming "community" — by predicting that the sun would reach a peak of activity about three years from now, to be accompanied by "dramatic changes" in temperatures.

A Hoover Institution Study a few years back examined historical data and came to a similar conclusion.

"The effects of solar activity and volcanoes are impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were one in 100," according to Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz.

The study says that "try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures."

The study concludes that if you shut down all the world's power plants and factories, "there would not be much effect on temperatures."

But if the sun shuts down, we've got a problem. It is the sun, not the Earth, that's hanging in the balance.

[investordude]

There were unusually few sunspots during the Little Ice Age but many people believe volcanic activity played a part as well. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/206/4425/1402

[Zephyr]

As far back as the mid-1990s, there were those who noted that climate sceptics/skeptics - while accusing any and all that supported the Global Warming thesis in the scientific community were really soliciting the funding for pet projects - were themselves actively funded, from government and business interests in USA and UK. The latter funding was not hard to find, but often disguised in the manner in which it was doled out.

Professor Richard Lindzen, for instance, populariser of the 'alarmist' label applied to all proponents of Global Warming, was prominent in the formation of Bush/Cheney Environmental policy. "The Heat is On," which began as an essay in Harper's that developed into a book, cite a few of many examples that provide an early glimpse of this lucrative period for climate sceptics/skeptics:




The Heat is On:
The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial

By Ross Gelbspan.
Harper's Magazine

December, 1995

...
But while the skeptics portray themselves as besieged truth-seekers fending off irresponsible environmental doomsayers, their testimony in St. Paul and elsewhere revealed the source and scope of their funding for the first time.

[Pat] Michaels has received more than $115,000 over the last four years from coal and energy interests. World Climate Review, a quarterly he founded that routinely debunks climate concerns, was funded by Western Fuels.

Over the last six years, either alone or with colleagues, [Dr. Robert] Balling has received more than $200,000 from coal and oil interests in Great Britain, Germany, and elsewhere.

[Dr. Robert] Balling (along with [Dr.] Sherwood Idso) has also taken money from Cyprus Minerals, a mining company that has been a major funder of People for the West—a militantly anti-environmental "Wise Use" group.

[Dr. Richard] Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC.

[Dr. S. Fred] Singer, who last winter proposed a $95,000 publicity project to "stem the tide towards ever more onerous controls on energy use," has received consulting fees from Exxon, Shell, Unocal, ARCO, and Sun Oil, and has warned them that they face the same threat as the chemical firms that produced chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), a class of chemicals found to be depleting atmospheric ozone. "It took only five years to go from... a simple freeze of production [of CFCs]," Singer has written" ... to the 1992 decision of a complete production phase-out—all on the basis of quite insubstantial science." ...

(Originally © by The Harper's Magazine Foundation)

NOTE - Above text has been reformatted for readability. CLICK HERE for Source. (http://dieoff.org/page82.htm#2)

[Zephyr]

We're going to continue to support groups that we think have good scientists involved. The fact that they take a contrary view I don't view to be bad.

Rex Tillerson
CEO EXXON MOBIL


[Exxon Mobil is] the only principled oil and gas company I know in the US. They have a CEO who is not going to be bamboozled by nonsense.

Richard Lindzen
PROFESSOR MIT and Skeptic of Global Warming


Science climate conflict warms up

By Lesley Curwen
One Planet, BBC World Service

Last Updated: 26 April 2007

But other scientific opinion backs the argument that much of the warming happens because of natural cycles, not greenhouse gases.

...

And Exxon Mobil has been accused of backing groups that support the minority opinion, against what is seen as the main consensus. It confirms it backs the Heartland Institute, for example, which describes global warming science as a "fraud."

In 2005 Exxon Mobil's chairman and chief executive, Rex Tillerson defended funding such groups.

"We're going to continue to support groups that we think have good scientists involved," he said.

"The fact that they take a contrary view I don't view to be bad."

This attitude has strong backing from Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who describes Exxon Mobil as "the only principled oil and gas company I know in the US."

"They have a CEO who is not going to be bamboozled by nonsense," he adds.

Professor Lindzen wants the debate on global warming kept alive. He also describes the Royal Society letter as a "disgrace," adding "they don't know what they're talking about."
...

© BBC World Service

SOURCE (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6595369.stm)

[Zephyr]

http://online.wsj.com/img/compressed_head.gif

Digging In
Exxon Chief Makes A Cold Calculation On Global Warming
BP and Shell Concede Ground As Raymond Funds Skeptics And Fights Emission Caps ...

By JEFFREY BALL
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
June 14, 2005

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.

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."


Copyright © 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

SOURCE (http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB111870440192558569-IhjgINllah4n5yraXuHcaqBm4.html)

[Zephyr]

Exxon cuts ties to global warming skeptics
Oil giant also in talks to look at curbing greenhouse gases

MSNBC staff and news service reports
updated 12:42 p.m. MT, Fri., Jan. 12, 2007

NEW YORK - Oil major Exxon Mobil Corp. is engaging in industry talks on possible U.S. greenhouse gas emissions regulations and has stopped funding groups skeptical of global warming claims — moves that some say could indicate a change in stance from the long-time foe of limits on heat-trapping gases.

Exxon, along with representatives from about 20 other companies, is participating in talks sponsored by Resources for the Future, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit. The think tank said it expected the talks would generate a report in the fall with recommendations to legislators on how to regulate greenhouse emissions.

Mark Boudreaux, a spokesman for Exxon, the world’s biggest publicly traded company, said its position on climate change has been “widely misunderstood and as a result of that, we have been clarifying and talking more about what our position is.”

Boudreux said Exxon in 2006 stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a nonprofit advocating limited government regulation, and other groups that have downplayed the risks of greenhouse emissions.

CEI acknowledged the change. “I would make an argument that we’re a useful ally, but it’s up to them whether that’s in the priority system that they have, right or wrong,” director Fred Smith said on CNBC’s “On the Money.”

Last year, CEI ran advertisements, featuring a little girl playing with a dandelion, that downplayed the risks of carbon dioxide emissions.

Since Democrats won control of Congress in November, heavy industries have been nervously watching which route the United States may take on future regulations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases scientists link to global warming. …

President Bush has opposed mandatory emissions cuts such as those required by the international Kyoto Protocol. He withdrew the United States, the world’s top carbon emitter, from the Kyoto pact early in his first term.

Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the new Senate majority leader, has said he wants new legislation this spring to regulate heat-trapping emissions. Other legislators also are planning hearings on emissions.

Scenarios studied
The industry talks center on the range of greenhouse gas policy options such as cap-and-trade systems and carbon taxes, said Roy Kopp, head of the climate program at RFF. There also will be debates on whether rules should focus on companies producing oil, gas and coal, which release CO2 when burned, or consumers who use the fuels.

To spur open industry discussion, RFF said the talks, which began in December, exclude nongovernmental organizations.

Some see Exxon’s participation in the talks, coupled with its pledge to stop funding CEI, as early signs of a possible policy change.

“The fact that Exxon is trying to debate solutions, instead of whether climate change even exists, represents an important shift,” said Andrew Logan, a climate expert at Ceres, a coalition of investors and environmentalists that works with companies to cut climate change risks.

Exxon’s funding action was confirmed this week by its vice president for public affairs. Kenneth Cohen told the Wall Street Journal that Exxon decided in late 2005 that its 2006 nonprofit funding would not include CEI and "five or six" similar groups.

Cohen declined to identify the other groups, but their names could become public this spring when Exxon releases its annual list of donations to nonprofit groups.

Scoring oil
In a report last year on how oil majors are addressing global warming emissions, Ceres gave Exxon a 35 — the worst of any company. Oil majors BP and Royal Dutch Shell got 90 and 79, respectively.

“Given how large and influential Exxon is and that they are basically the last big industry climate skeptic standing, even small moves can have a very big impact,” said Logan.

But he said it was too early to tell the substance of the change. “The devil is in the details,” he said.

Cohen told the Wall Street Journal that while questions remain about the degree to which fossil fuels are contributing to warming, the computer modelling on what the future may hold “has gotten better.”

And, he said, “we know enough now — or, society knows enough now — that the risk is serious and action should be taken.”

Peter Fusaro, a carbon markets expert, noted that Exxon already must comply with Kyoto regulations in other countries, and said the company may want to simplify compliance standards throughout its international operations.

“Multinational companies are under the gun to comply with Kyoto,” he said. “It’s starting to crystallize that companies can’t have dual environmental standards.”

Philip Sharp, president of Resources for the Future, told the Wall Street Journal that he was impressed by Exxon. “They are taking this debate very seriously,” said Sharp, a former Democratic congressman. “My personal opinion of them has changed by watching them operate.”

Reuters contributed to this report.


© 2008 Microsoft / National Broadcasting Corporation

SOURCE (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16593606/)

[Capn_Birdseye]

I see the Global Warming zealots have decided to take the law into their own hands in their obsessional desire to drive us back to basic living - reminds me of Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge in Cambodia with their Year Zero!

Love the quote: "climate change can be beaten" - oh yea, and I've just seen a giant pig fly by my window!
These law-breakers should be hauled before the courts and given a good long stiff sentence for endangering public safety at Heathrow.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44449000/jpg/_44449035_heathrow_gp_203body.jpg Four protesters climbed on top of the plane

Greenpeace activists have breached security at Heathrow Airport and climbed on top of a Boeing aeroplane.

Protesters unfurled banners from the top of the Boeing 777 after it landed at the airport on a morning flight from Manchester to London.
BAA said operations at the airport were not affected and described the protest as "unlawful and irresponsible".

The move came as protesters were gathering in Westminster on Monday to oppose plans to expand the airport.

A government consultation on the plan closes on Wednesday.
"We are here to draw a line in the sand and tell Gordon Brown his new runway must not and will not be built"
Anna Jones, Greenpeace activist (ever heard of democracy Anna?)
Greenpeace said protesters put a banner reading "Climate Emergency - No Third Runway" over the plane's tailfin at about 0945 GMT.

It said two women and two men crossed the tarmac at the airport after the passengers had disembarked.

One protester, Anna Jones, said: "Our planet and the people who live on it are in danger.

"Climate change can be beaten but not by almost doubling the size of the world's biggest airport.

"We are here to draw a line in the sand and tell Gordon Brown his new runway must not and will not be built."

BAA said police were attending the incident but it had not disrupted airport operations.

It said: "The government is currently consulting on the future of Heathrow airport and all parties have the opportunity, through the proper democratic process, to make their views known."

But it criticised the Greenpeace protest as "unlawful and irresponsible" and said there would be a full investigation.
_____________________________________

Heathrow expansion plans unveiled

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gif http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42745000/jpg/_42745101_planesafp203jpg.jpg
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/inline_dashed_line.gif

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/icons/video_text.gifHeathrow congestion (http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_7100000/newsid_7106700?redirect=7106784.stm&news=1&bbwm=1&nbram=1&nbwm=1&bbram=1&asb=1)

Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly has set out proposals for a third runway and a sixth terminal at Heathrow. Announcing options for consultation, she said without growth the airport's status would suffer, but any expansion must meet noise and pollution tests.
Among options are a 2,200m third runway built north of Heathrow by 2020, and a sixth terminal, which will require the destruction of an entire village.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7106524.stm

[brianac]

These law-breakers should be hauled before the courts and given a good long stiff sentence for endangering public safety at Heathrow.

They should be given a bill for, a)the time spent in getting them out of there, and b) the time spent on having to check the aircraft for damage.

Makes you wonder how they got there though.

[Capn_Birdseye]

Makes you wonder how they got there though.
That's the worrying part ....

[Alonzo-ny]

Key ocean mission goes into orbit
By Jonathan Amos
Science reporter, BBC News

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/08/sci_nat_enl_1213791793/img/laun.jpg

A space mission that will be critical to our understanding of climate change has launched from California.

The Jason-2 satellite will become the primary means of measuring the shape of the world's oceans, taking readings with an accuracy of better than 4cm.

Its data will track not only sea level rise but reveal how the great mass of waters are moving around the globe.

This information will be fundamental in helping weather and climate agencies make better forecasts.

The satellite left Earth at 0746 GMT atop a Delta-2 rocket from the Vandenberg Air Force Base.

The spacecraft, built by Thales Alenia Space, represents the joint efforts of the US and French space agencies (Nasa and CNES), and the US and European organisations dedicated to studying weather and climate from orbit (Noaa and Eumetsat).

Down below

Jason-2 will provide a topographic map of 95% of the Earth's ice-free oceans every 10 days. Although we think of our seas as being flat, they are actually marked by "hills" and "valleys", where the highs and lows may be as much as two metres apart.
Advertisement

How Jason-2 will probe the oceans

Elevation is a key parameter for oceanographers. Just as surface air pressure reveals what the atmosphere is doing above, so ocean height will betray details about the behaviour of water down below.

The data gives clues to temperature and salinity. When combined with gravity information, it will also indicate current direction and speed.

The oceans store vast amounts of heat from the Sun; and how they move that energy around the globe and interact with the atmosphere are what drive our climate system.

"The ocean constitutes the long-term memory of the climate system; the time-scales over which the ocean is changing are the climatic timescales," explained Mikael Rattenborg, the director of operations at Eumetsat.

"In order to understand climate, in order to be able to predict the evolution of the atmosphere over months, years, and decades even, you need to understand the ocean."

Number one

Jason-2 is a continuation of a programme that started in 1992 with the Topex/Poseidon mission and is currently maintained by the Jason-1 satellite launched in 2001.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44757000/gif/_44757867_jason_2_satellite_226in.gif

JASON-2 SPACECRAFT
Jason-2 graphic (BBC)
1. Advance Microwave Radiometer - measures signal delay caused by water vapour
2. GPS antennas - ensures knowledge of precise orbit path
3. Poseidon-3 altimeter- measures sea level
4. Doris antenna - tracking and positioning control
5. Laser Retroreflector Array (LRA) - tracks and calibrates measurements
Satellite mass: 525kg (1,155lb) Power generation: 511 watts
Satellite height: 3m (9ft 8in) Orbit: 1,338km (831 miles)
(Source: Eumetsat, Cnes, Nasa)

The project provides the global reference data for satellite-measured ocean height.

Although other spacecraft in service today can acquire similar data sets, none can match the precision achieved by Jason-1; and Jason-2, when in service, will be the benchmark against which all other spacecraft will be judged and calibrated.

At the heart of the latest mission is the Poseidon 3 solid-state altimeter. The instrument constantly bounces microwave pulses off the sea surface. By timing how long the signal takes to make the return trip, it can determine sea surface height.

Additionally, the signal can indicate the height of waves and wind speed.

"It is not a revolution between Jason-1 and Jason-2; it is an evolution, because the main objective is to ensure continuity," explains Francois Parisot, the Jason-2 project chief at Eumetsat.

"Nevertheless, there are some improvements in the instruments. We hope to make better measurements closer to the coast [and over inland waters and rivers]; and also, we will deliver near-realtime products - products that will be available within three hours of the measurements."

Whale watching

The latter will be particularly useful in storm prediction. Jason will see the surface waters rise as warm eddies fuel hurricanes. The data will tell meteorologists how a storm is likely to intensify and allow them to issue better, more timely warnings.

Jason-2 data will have many other uses that may not be immediately obvious. Industry will take the information to make decisions about when conditions are most suitable for undersea drilling or cable laying.

Jason can help identify where wreckage or pollution will drift; and the satellite will assist marine biologists as they track whales by pinpointing waters with the potential to be prime feeding and breeding grounds.

One very important use will be in maritime navigation.

"Now that the fuel price is going up, saving fuel for the companies that run ships has become very sensitive; and knowing the currents, you can select your route so that you go faster and save fuel," said Philippe Escudier, a space oceanography at CLS (Collecte Localisation Satellites), Toulouse, France.

"You can save up to 5% on fuel consumption by making best use of the currents."

Formation flying

Jason-2 will spend its first few months flying a "tandem mission" with Jason-1.

The two spacecraft will be positioned so that they sweep around the Earth, one following the other, with a separation of just 60 seconds.

This will enable, essentially, the two satellites to measure the same patch of ocean surface at very nearly the same time.

Changes in ocean height can be a key indicator of climate cycles


Scientists will use this opportunity to cross-calibrate the instruments so that when Jason-1 is retired (or fails), the future data collected by its successor will be directly comparable with past records.

This continuity of information will be critical in recognising long-term trends in ocean behaviour. It is the data which underpins the observation that global sea level is rising by about three millimetres per year.

Once the tandem phase is completed, Jason-1 will be moved to the side, doubling the return of data. The importance of the Jason programme means both spacecraft will almost certainly be run for as long as they are serviceable.

Discussions are already in progress on a Jason-3 satellite. Given Europe's role in the project, there is a compelling case for the next mission to be included in the GMES (Global Monitoring for Environment and Security) programme. This would attract significant EU money.

[Alonzo-ny]

Green energy push planned for UK


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44767000/jpg/_44767810_solar.jpg

Solar panels for domestic use are already becoming popular

As many as a quarter of British homes could be fitted with solar heating panels under new government plans for a "green revolution".

Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that the new proposals are "the most ambitious" such strategy that Britain has seen.

The goal is to meet the EU target of 15% of energy from renewables by 2020.

But at a time of consumer anger over fuel prices, the plan concedes that green power will cost more.

The plan will also call for 3,500 new wind turbines to be erected across the UK, the Guardian newspaper reported.

The total price tag for the proposals is pegged at £100 billion.

Mr Wicks said the plans, which may include measures to force homeowners to improve the energy efficiency of their homes, were aimed at dramatically increasing Britain's energy supplies from renewables by 2020.

'Huge momentum'


Even if climate change didn't exist these proposals would be sensible
John Sauven, Greenpeace

"You will see this week a real determination by the government to move towards 15% of all of our energy from renewables by 2020," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "That is a green revolution."

Mr Wicks insisted there was now a "huge momentum" in renewable energy provision and said the government would ensure that carbon emission reduction was the "core concept behind our energy strategy".

He described the proposals as "the most ambitious renewable energy strategy for Britain that we have ever seen".

Britain currently gets less than 5% of its electricity from renewables, mainly wind.

According to the Guardian, which has seen a copy of the government plan, the proposals seek a 30-fold increase in off-shore wind power generation, new loans and grants for businesses to increase green energy supply and a compulsory measure on households to boost efficiency.

The plans recognise that the new energy policy could transform large areas of Britain's landscape and have a "significant impacts on all our lives...not all of these positive", the Guardian reported.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44767000/jpg/_44767811_windfarm.jpg

A wind farm plan off the East Yorkshire coast could power 150,000 homes

The plans, due to be unveiled next week, come after a parliamentary report warned Britain would not meet its own targets, and would fail to meet EU requirements, unless it stepped up action substantially.

Robin Webster, energy campaigner for Friends of the Earth, said the plan was a positive step.

"Harnessing the UK's natural abundance of wind and wave power, and developing a comprehensive energy efficiency programme will create thriving new industries and generate thousands of jobs."

Greenpeace executive director John Sauven said the plans for solar panels on seven million roofs and other steps to reduce the use of fossil fuels make sense regardless of the price of oil or the state of the climate.

"We'll create jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and use less gas, and in the long run our power bills will come down. Even if climate change didn't exist these proposals would be sensible."

[ZippyTheChimp]

Email Spells Out EPA-White House Discord

Cheney Is Accused Of Trying to Muzzle Climate Discussion

By STEPHEN POWER
July 9, 2008

WASHINGTON -- An increasingly open conflict between the Environmental Protection Agency and the White House over how to respond to climate change intensified Tuesday with the disclosure that Vice President Dick Cheney's office sought to prevent a federal official from publicly discussing the health consequences of global warming.

The latest in a series of disclosures about internal disputes within the Bush administration came as President George W. Bush was in Japan with other leaders of the Group of Eight Nations to forge an agreement on combating climate change. (Please see article.1) But back home, Mr. Bush's critics contend that his aides are working to ensure that any actions his administration takes in response to climate change will have a limited impact.

The disclosure about Vice President Cheney's role came from Jason Burnett, who until last month was the EPA's associate deputy administrator. Mr. Burnett, whose duties included advising EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson on a range of issues involving climate change, is a supporter of the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama (D., Ill.) and has contributed extensively to the campaigns of other Democrats -- giving more than $100,000 since 2000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based government watchdog.

Congressional Democrats have been prodding the Bush administration to take action on limiting emissions of the greenhouse gases believed to contribute to global warming, even as Congress itself has failed to pass proposals to cap such emissions. In the meantime, some Democrats in Congress have been extracting emails and other internal documents to build a case that the White House has squelched efforts by EPA officials to put forward meaningful proposals for greenhouse-gas controls.

In a letter dated July 6 in response to questions from the chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.), Mr. Burnett said Mr. Cheney's office and the White House Council on Environmental Quality "were seeking deletions" last fall to congressional testimony about climate change prepared by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Mr. Burnett said the latter office asked him "to work with CDC" to remove from the testimony "any discussion of the human health consequences of climate change."

The issue of whether greenhouse gases endanger public health or welfare is significant because a finding by the EPA that they do would require the agency to regulate them under the terms of the federal Clean Air Act, spurring new rules across a range of industries.

Environmentalists, congressional Democrats and officials in more than a dozen states have sought to prod the EPA to reach a decision on the matter, following a Supreme Court ruling last year that greenhouse gases are pollutants and can be regulated under the EPA's existing authority. But the Bush administration has resisted, arguing that economy-wide regulations of such emissions could cripple the U.S. economy.

Mr. Burnett said he declined to go along with the request, because the CDC's draft testimony -- which included examples of how climate change is likely to have "a significant impact" on public health -- was "fundamentally accurate."

The line -- and many others -- were eventually eliminated from the testimony prepared last October for CDC Director Julie Gerberding, based on draft copies of the testimony that were leaked last fall and posted online by groups that favor regulation of greenhouse gases. Dr. Gerberding did testify, however, that climate change "is anticipated to have a broad range of impacts on the health of Americans."

Representatives for Mr. Cheney and the White House declined to comment Tuesday on Mr. Burnett's assertions. A spokesman for Dr. Gerberding said "any edits that were made to the written testimony were made during the routine editing process," and that Dr. Gerberding "spoke openly and freely without constraint" in her Senate testimony last fall.

In his letter, Mr. Burnett notes that at the time of Dr. Gerberding's testimony "there was extensive debate" over how the EPA should respond to the Supreme Court's ruling. Mr. Burnett says the White House Council on Environmental Quality suggested to him that he could best serve the EPA "if I would convince CDC to delete particular sections of their testimony."

In an interview, he declined to elaborate on the assertions in his letter, but said he left the EPA because "I thought I'd done as much constructive work as could be done under this administration" in response to the Supreme Court ruling.

Administration officials said in March that before declaring greenhouse gases endanger health or welfare, the government should first seek public comment. The EPA has yet to do so, however, largely because of a dispute between EPA officials and a White House office that reviews proposed regulations over how to frame the issue, people familiar with the matter said.

Write to Stephen Power at stephen.power@wsj.com2
URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121554228130836473.html

Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved


http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/HC-GD544_Cheney_20051028170021.gif
Satan

[lofter1]

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/HC-GD544_Cheney_20051028170021.gif


Satan


I understand that because of THIS (http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa063001a.htm) if someone with a really powerful magnet were to get in proximity to a patient who has such a device implanted that it may not continue to work properly.

Also: A recent REPORT (http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2008/03/hacking-icd.html) notes that certain folks have figured out a way to hack into the system which monitors the devices.

Think about it.

There's the premise for one really scary movie.

Dr. Strangelove II :confused:

Or Iron Man Goes Bad :eek:

[scumonkey]

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb276/scumonkey/satan.gif

[NYC4Life]

The first named storm of the hurricane season "Bertha" is already churning in the Atlantic as a category 2 hurricane. This might be the first sign of an active season to come. Blame it all on global warming.

[Jasonik]

Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979

Michael Asher (Blog) - January 1, 2009 11:31 AM (http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834)

Rapid growth spurt leaves amount of ice at levels seen 29 years ago.

Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.

Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards.

The data is being reported by the University of Illinois's Arctic Climate Research Center, and is derived from satellite observations of the Northern and Southern hemisphere polar regions.

Each year, millions of square kilometers of sea ice melt and refreeze. However, the mean ice anomaly -- defined as the seasonally-adjusted difference between the current value and the average from 1979-2000, varies much more slowly. That anomaly now stands at just under zero, a value identical to one recorded at the end of 1979, the year satellite record-keeping began.

Sea ice is floating and, unlike the massive ice sheets anchored to bedrock in Greenland and Antarctica, doesn't affect ocean levels. However, due to its transient nature, sea ice responds much faster to changes in temperature or precipitation and is therefore a useful barometer of changing conditions.

Earlier this year, predictions were rife that the North Pole could melt entirely in 2008. Instead, the Arctic ice saw a substantial recovery. Bill Chapman, a researcher with the UIUC's Arctic Center, tells DailyTech this was due in part to colder temperatures in the region. Chapman says wind patterns have also been weaker this year. Strong winds can slow ice formation as well as forcing ice into warmer waters where it will melt.

Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

In May, concerns over disappearing sea ice led the U.S. to officially list (http://www.latimes.com/news/science/environment/la-me-polar15-2008may15,0,1220040.story) the polar bear a threatened species, over objections from experts who claimed the animal's numbers were increasing.



Thirty years of sea ice data. [image (http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/9972_daily.gsia.jpg)]
The record begins at 1979, the year satellite observations began
(Source: Arctic Research Center, University of Illinois)

[Ninjahedge]

I think this is indicative of a less stable environmental pattern. If the ice stays, we may be in good shape, but if it goes, it might just tell us that more area is now in a transient zone rather than permafrost/tundra/glacier.

We all have to remember that no matter how much the ice may melt in the summer, it is still cold in the winter and we will not know the full extent until the cycle has passed.

[lofter1]

The added twist of Global Dimming -- as seen on this evening's PBS broadcast, NOVA (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/) ...

Dimming the Sun

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/images/sun-home.jpg

[Ninjahedge]

The added twist of Global Dimming -- as seen on this evening's PBS broadcast, NOVA (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/) ...

Dimming the Sun



Well, you know what that means!


We need more smog! C'mon people! The world is depending no us! Reduce global warming by increasing solar energy barriers like Smog!!!

"Clean Coal" hurts the environment!
More planes in the sky!
Lesser EPA Standards for Emmissions!!!!

>wark<

[Jasonik]

^
This clearly is the dialectic that will serve as the justification for a global 'cap and trade' carbon/pollution taxing scheme, thus allowing climatological planning bureaucracies to centrally manage the correct level of pollution.

I can't wait.

[Ninjahedge]

Yep!

Instead of just trying to FIX the problem (get rid of the Heroin addiction) just give 'em Methadone!

The right way out of this is difficult, so why not just play an ecological high-wire act instead of lowering the wire to the ground.

[ZippyTheChimp]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/nytlogo153x23.gif (http://www.nytimes.com/)


February 18, 2009


New York Must Prepare for Global Warming, Mayor’s Panel Says

By MIREYA NAVARRO

New York City must prepare for higher temperatures, more rain and an increased risk of coastal flooding in the coming decades as a result of global climate change, an advisory panel said on Tuesday.

The panel, formed by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to study the potential effects of global warming on the city, said that mean annual temperatures in New York could increase by up to 3 degrees and the average sea levels rise by 2 to 5 inches by the 2020s. By the 2080s, temperatures could increase by up to 7 ½ degrees, and sea levels could rise 12 to 23 inches by the end of the century, the panel said.

Cynthia Rosenzweig, a senior research scientist at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at Columbia University, who is the chairwoman of the panel, acknowledged that it was difficult to make predictions about the effects of climate change on specific regions and that climate models that attempt to do so carried uncertainties.

But Dr. Rosenzweig said that the main value of the panel’s research, which used climate models and local climate data, was to identify risks in order to make the city less vulnerable to them. “We’re providing the science by which the City of New York can get ready and prepare,” she said.

City officials said that to prepare for the expected effects of climate change, the city should plan to keep cooling centers for people without air-conditioning open longer during heat waves, move critical equipment in city buildings above sea level and incorporate climate changes into the design of buildings, among other measures.

Higher temperatures could mean more brownouts and blackouts in the summer because of heavier electricity use on hot days, panel members said, and more flooding of streets and basements from intense rainstorms.

The panel, made up of scientists and representatives of private companies, presented its findings at a news conference on Tuesday at the Rockaway Wastewater Treatment Plant in Queens, where the Department of Environmental Protection is moving electrical equipment like pump motors and circuit breakers to 14 feet above sea level from 25 feet below sea level.

The issue of how to prepare for uncertain climate changes now goes to a second task force, made up of representatives of public agencies and private companies. That task force is expected to issue its report later this year as part of the timetable set by Mr. Bloomberg in his environmental agenda for New York City.

“Planning for climate change today is less expensive than rebuilding an entire network after the catastrophe,” the mayor said in response to the report. “We cannot wait until after our infrastructure has been compromised to begin to plan for the effects of climate change now.”

Rohit T. Aggarwala, the director of long-term planning and sustainability in the Mayor’s Office of Operations, said that the city’s economic crisis should not interfere with preparations for climate change. Much of the financial burden will be shouldered by private companies as they take steps to prepare, and other expenses can be built into the city’s budget for capital projects, he said. “You just build it into the way you do business.”

Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company


New York City Panel on Climate Change (http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2009/NPCC_CRI.pdf)

[Jasonik]

Those predictions in sea level rise are in line with this summary [pdf] (http://www.climatechoices.org/assets/documents/climatechoices/new-york_necia.pdf) "prepared by the Union of Concerned Scientists based on Confronting Climate Change in the U.S. Northeast: Science, Impacts, and Solutions, a report of the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment (NECIA, 2007).

The real danger outlined by this report is the threat that "today’s 100-year flood is projected to occur once every 22 years on average by late-century."

[nick-taylor]

Has there ever been any consideration towards barriers similar to the one in London and found across the Netherlands at 'chokepoints' like at the Varranzano Narrows Bridgeand Throgs Neck Bridge?

[lofter1]

Not that I've read of. I'm not sure if the topography / geography in NYC is at all similar to the places you mention, given the existence of the rather deep Hudson Canyon which extends out into the Atlantic from New York Harbor and which helps to create quite strong tidal movements through the Verrazano Narrows.

*

[ZippyTheChimp]

On March 30-31 2009, NYU-Poly will conduct a conference to discuss possible measures to protect Metro New York from coastal flooding.

One of the studies: 4 storm surge barriers - at the Narrows, Perth Amboy (Arthur Kill), Jamaica Bay, and East River (tidal strait from Governors Island to Throgs Neck).

http://www.nyas.org/pdfs/StormSurgeBarriers.pdf

[Jasonik]

http://www.nysun.com/pics/4374.jpg

37.5 cm = 14.5 in
47.5 cm = 18.5 in

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/161139main_hurricanes_nyc_lg.jpg

http://www.erratica.us/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/nyc-hurricane-flood-zone.jpg

I don't see how you can effectively protect the Jamaica Bay vicinity when the Rockaway Peninsula will be overtopped by surge.

[ZippyTheChimp]

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/global/images/logo_ng_176x34.gif


New York Seas to Rise
Twice as Much as Rest of U.S.

Richard A. Lovett
for National Geographic News
March 15, 2009

Sea levels around New York City and much of the U.S. Northeast will rise twice as much as in other parts of the United States this century, according to new climate models.

Driven by changes in ocean circulation, the rapid sea level rise will bring increased risk of damage from hurricanes and winter storm surges, researchers say.

"Some parts of lower Manhattan are only 1.5 meters [5 feet] above sea level," said lead study author Jianjun Yin, a climate modeler at Florida State University.

"Twenty centimeters [8 inches] of extra rise would pose a threat to this region."

Yet New York, Boston, and Washington, D.C., area seas will rise 14 to 20 inches (36 to 51 centimeters) by 2100, according to the study, published online today in the journal Nature Geoscience.

Other U.S. cities, such as Miami and San Francisco, are expected to see only half as big an increase in sea levels.

Gulf Stream Forces to Weaken?

The reason U.S. Northeast seas are expected to rise disproportionately is because the forces that generate the North Atlantic's Gulf Stream ocean current are projected to weaken in the coming decades.

New climate models predict that global warming will reduce the sinking of cold water that drives the Gulf Stream. As a result, the deep ocean will begin to warm in the North Atlantic, Yin said.

As water around the current warms, it will expand, adding to the sea level rise caused by global factors such as melting ice caps and icebergs, the study says. (Related: "Small Melting Glaciers Will Speed Sea Level Rise, Study Says.")

Ice Free Arctic by 2100?

Adding to those global factors is an Arctic Ocean that appears to be melting rapidly, according to Julien Boé, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles, in another climate study in today's Nature Geoscience.

After comparing a range of models with actual observations, his team predicts that the Arctic Ocean will be ice free during September as early as the end of this century.

Such studies are vital, experts say, because they offer scientists a more precise idea of how different regions might prepare for potential damage due to global warming.

"In both papers," Boé said in an email, "the objective is to improve the projections of important aspects of regional climate change."

[Alonzo-ny]

Netherlands style barriers all over the world soon enough I think.

[Ninjahedge]

Who doesn't like dykes?

/innocent....

[Kris]

May 1, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
An Affordable Salvation
By PAUL KRUGMAN

The 2008 election ended the reign of junk science in our nation’s capital, and the chances of meaningful action on climate change, probably through a cap-and-trade system on emissions, have risen sharply.

But the opponents of action claim that limiting emissions would have devastating effects on the U.S. economy. So it’s important to understand that just as denials that climate change is happening are junk science, predictions of economic disaster if we try to do anything about climate change are junk economics.

Yes, limiting emissions would have its costs. As a card-carrying economist, I cringe when “green economy” enthusiasts insist that protecting the environment would be all gain, no pain.

But the best available estimates suggest that the costs of an emissions-limitation program would be modest, as long as it’s implemented gradually. And committing ourselves now might actually help the economy recover from its current slump.

Let’s talk first about those costs.

A cap-and-trade system would raise the price of anything that, directly or indirectly, leads to the burning of fossil fuels. Electricity, in particular, would become more expensive, since so much generation takes place in coal-fired plants.

Electric utilities could reduce their need to purchase permits by limiting their emissions of carbon dioxide — and the whole point of cap-and-trade is, of course, to give them an incentive to do just that. But the steps they would take to limit emissions, such as shifting to other energy sources or capturing and sequestering much of the carbon dioxide they emit, would without question raise their costs.

If emission permits were auctioned off — as they should be — the revenue thus raised could be used to give consumers rebates or reduce other taxes, partially offsetting the higher prices. But the offset wouldn’t be complete. Consumers would end up poorer than they would have been without a climate-change policy.

But how much poorer? Not much, say careful researchers, like those at the Environmental Protection Agency or the Emissions Prediction and Policy Analysis Group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Even with stringent limits, says the M.I.T. group, Americans would consume only 2 percent less in 2050 than they would have in the absence of emission limits. That would still leave room for a large rise in the standard of living, shaving only one-twentieth of a percentage point off the average annual growth rate.

To be sure, there are many who insist that the costs would be much higher. Strange to say, however, such assertions nearly always come from people who claim to believe that free-market economies are wonderfully flexible and innovative, that they can easily transcend any constraints imposed by the world’s limited resources of crude oil, arable land or fresh water.

So why don’t they think the economy can cope with limits on greenhouse gas emissions? Under cap-and-trade, emission rights would just be another scarce resource, no different in economic terms from the supply of arable land.

Needless to say, people like Newt Gingrich, who says that cap-and-trade would “punish the American people,” aren’t thinking that way. They’re just thinking “capitalism good, government bad.” But if you really believe in the magic of the marketplace, you should also believe that the economy can handle emission limits just fine.

So we can afford a strong climate change policy. And committing ourselves to such a policy might actually help us in our current economic predicament.

Right now, the biggest problem facing our economy is plunging business investment. Businesses see no reason to invest, since they’re awash in excess capacity, thanks to the housing bust and weak consumer demand.

But suppose that Congress were to mandate gradually tightening emission limits, starting two or three years from now. This would have no immediate effect on prices. It would, however, create major incentives for new investment — investment in low-emission power plants, in energy-efficient factories and more.

To put it another way, a commitment to greenhouse gas reduction would, in the short-to-medium run, have the same economic effects as a major technological innovation: It would give businesses a reason to invest in new equipment and facilities even in the face of excess capacity. And given the current state of the economy, that’s just what the doctor ordered.

This short-run economic boost isn’t the main reason to move on climate-change policy. The important thing is that the planet is in danger, and the longer we wait the worse it gets. But it is an extra reason to move quickly.

So can we afford to save the planet? Yes, we can. And now would be a very good time to get started.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/01/opinion/01krugman.html

[Kris]

May 15, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
Empire of Carbon
By PAUL KRUGMAN

TAIPEI, Taiwan

I have seen the future, and it won’t work.

These should be hopeful times for environmentalists. Junk science no longer rules in Washington. President Obama has spoken forcefully about the need to take action on climate change; the people I talk to are increasingly optimistic that Congress will soon establish a cap-and-trade system that limits emissions of greenhouse gases, with the limits growing steadily tighter over time. And once America acts, we can expect much of the world to follow our lead.

But that still leaves the problem of China, where I have been for most of the last week.

Like every visitor to China, I was awed by the scale of the country’s development. Even the annoying aspects — much of my time was spent viewing the Great Wall of Traffic — are byproducts of the nation’s economic success.

But China cannot continue along its current path because the planet can’t handle the strain.

The scientific consensus on prospects for global warming has become much more pessimistic over the last few years. Indeed, the latest projections from reputable climate scientists border on the apocalyptic. Why? Because the rate at which greenhouse gas emissions are rising is matching or exceeding the worst-case scenarios.

And the growth of emissions from China — already the world’s largest producer of carbon dioxide — is one main reason for this new pessimism.

China’s emissions, which come largely from its coal-burning electricity plants, doubled between 1996 and 2006. That was a much faster pace of growth than in the previous decade. And the trend seems set to continue: In January, China announced that it plans to continue its reliance on coal as its main energy source and that to feed its economic growth it will increase coal production 30 percent by 2015. That’s a decision that, all by itself, will swamp any emission reductions elsewhere.

So what is to be done about the China problem?

Nothing, say the Chinese. Each time I raised the issue during my visit, I was met with outraged declarations that it was unfair to expect China to limit its use of fossil fuels. After all, they declared, the West faced no similar constraints during its development; while China may be the world’s largest source of carbon-dioxide emissions, its per-capita emissions are still far below American levels; and anyway, the great bulk of the global warming that has already happened is due not to China but to the past carbon emissions of today’s wealthy nations.

And they’re right. It is unfair to expect China to live within constraints that we didn’t have to face when our own economy was on its way up. But that unfairness doesn’t change the fact that letting China match the West’s past profligacy would doom the Earth as we know it.

Historical injustice aside, the Chinese also insisted that they should not be held responsible for the greenhouse gases they emit when producing goods for foreign consumers. But they refused to accept the logical implication of this view — that the burden should fall on those foreign consumers instead, that shoppers who buy Chinese products should pay a “carbon tariff” that reflects the emissions associated with those goods’ production. That, said the Chinese, would violate the principles of free trade.

Sorry, but the climate-change consequences of Chinese production have to be taken into account somewhere. And anyway, the problem with China is not so much what it produces as how it produces it. Remember, China now emits more carbon dioxide than the United States, even though its G.D.P. is only about half as large (and the United States, in turn, is an emissions hog compared with Europe or Japan).

The good news is that the very inefficiency of China’s energy use offers huge scope for improvement. Given the right policies, China could continue to grow rapidly without increasing its carbon emissions. But first it has to realize that policy changes are necessary.

There are hints, in statements emanating from China, that the country’s policy makers are starting to realize that their current position is unsustainable. But I suspect that they don’t realize how quickly the whole game is about to change.

As the United States and other advanced countries finally move to confront climate change, they will also be morally empowered to confront those nations that refuse to act. Sooner than most people think, countries that refuse to limit their greenhouse gas emissions will face sanctions, probably in the form of taxes on their exports. They will complain bitterly that this is protectionism, but so what? Globalization doesn’t do much good if the globe itself becomes unlivable.

It’s time to save the planet. And like it or not, China will have to do its part.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/opinion/15krugman.html

[Alonzo-ny]

Migration and climate change
A new (under) class of travellers

Jun 25th 2009 | ADDIS ABABA AND LOKICHOGGIO
From The Economist print edition

http://media.economist.com/images/20090627/2609IR1.jpg

Victims of a warming world may be caught in a bureaucratic limbo unless things are done to ease—and better still, pre-empt—their travails

Panos

THE airstrip at Lokichoggio, in the scorched wastes of north Kenya, was once ground zero for food aid. During Sudan’s civil war, flights from here kept millions of people alive. The warehouses are quieter now, but NGOs keep a toehold, in case war restarts—and to deal with what pundits call the “permanent emergency” of “environmentally induced” migration.

Take the local Turkana people. Their numbers have surged in recent decades, and will double again before 2040. But as the area gets hotter and drier, it has less water, grazing and firewood. The drought cycle in northern Kenya has gone from once every eight years to every three years and may contract further. That means no recovery time for the Turkana and their livestock; the result is an increasingly frantic drift from one dry place to another.


A local crisis with local causes? Only partly. Scientists think it is part of a global phenomenon: people across the world on the move as a result of environmental degradation. Just how many are moving, or about to move, is maddeningly unclear.

The International Organisation for Migration thinks there will be 200m climate-change migrants by 2050, when the world’s population is set to peak at 9 billion. Others put the total at 700m.

These startling numbers may conjure up a picture of huge, desperate masses, trekking long distances and if necessary overrunning border defences because their homelands have dried up or been submerged. But at least initially, the situation in Kenya and other parts of east Africa is likely to be more typical: an already poor population whose perpetual search for adequate pasture and shelter grows harder and harder. In such conditions, local disputes—even relatively petty ones between clans and extended families—can easily worsen, and become embroiled in broader religious or political fights. And that in turn makes it harder for everybody in the area to survive, and more desperate to find new places to live, even if they are not far away.

A new report—“In Search of Shelter”—by the United Nations University, the charity CARE and Columbia University in New York lists the eco-migration “hot spots”: dry bits of Africa; river systems in Asia; the interior and coast of Mexico and the Caribbean; and low islands in the Indian and Pacific Oceans.

A one-metre rise in sea levels could displace 24m people along the Ganges, Brahmaputra, Irrawaddy, Salween, Mekong, Yangtze and Yellow rivers—which together support a quarter of humanity. A two-metre rise could uproot 14m people on the Mekong alone and swamp much of its farmland. Meanwhile, the melting of the Himalayan glacier will cause floods and erosion upstream, boosting the price of rice and other staples. And many regional conflicts could be exacerbated.

The scale of the likely population shift raises big questions. Will climate-change migrants be recognised? The classic definition of refugees—tossed between states by war or tyranny—is outdated. Eco-migrants will be paperless paupers, whose multiple woes are hard to disentangle.

Poverty campaigners want a revised legal regime to protect the new migrants. However, this looks tricky. America resists calling them “environmental refugees”: the word “refugee” implies guarantees that cannot realistically be given to the coming torrent of migrants. As American diplomats quietly admit, their rich country is still reeling from Hurricane Katrina in 2005, which killed 1,800 people and displaced hundreds of thousands.

Can the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) expand to cope with eco-migrants? It has already struggled to widen its remit to include the internally displaced (26m at the end of 2008) as well as strictly-defined refugees (10m, excluding the Palestinians who come under another agency). A tenfold surge in the numbers within its orbit would push the agency out of control, says James Milner, a professor at Ottawa’s Carleton University. Meanwhile some aid workers see signs of a competition between institutions to take ownership of the eco-migration issue, perhaps by oversimplifying it.

Charles Ehrhart of CARE thinks UNHCR will remain central, but wonders how it or anybody can now distinguish between “forced” and “voluntary” migration. He says climate change may cut agricultural output by half in lowland Africa by 2020. “In such a context, does migration constitute a choice or a necessity?”

Migrants’ rights may be easy to assert for islanders whose homes are drowned—but hard in the case of big, messy movements across Africa and Asia. Most of the displaced will drift to the next-most-liveable place, as the poor do anyway.

“Many states are already overwhelmed by internally displaced populations,” says Mr Ehrhart. “Will they be able to support even more people on the move? If not, whose duty is it to make up the difference?”. At the least, the gap between carbon usage and climate change’s effects portends angry North-South rows.

Meles Zenawi, who as Ethiopia’s prime minister will speak for Africa at several global gatherings this year, predicts that some parts of the continent will become uninhabitable and “those who did the damage will have to pay.” At the December summit on climate change in Copenhagen, he hopes that Africa will “aggressively” demand compensation for environmental damage as well as help with migrants and the mitigation of climate change: in his view a demand of $40 billion would be reasonable.

Many agree that more research is needed to pinpoint the reasons why migrants pick up sticks. People concur that climate change fuels conflict in Darfur, but nobody knows how big a factor it is. Drought helped jihadist fighters seize bits of south Somalia, but was it the main reason?

Gloom abounds. James Lovelock, an environmental guru, posits a collapse in human population, in part related to migration, with a few “lifeboat” regions surviving. Then there is the pace of social change. The number of “megacities”—with populations in the tens of millions—may grow to several hundred by the middle of the 21st century. Most are poorly planned.

Would a migrant from a collapsed city receive aid? “We’ve not experienced anything of this kind, where whole regions, whole countries, may well become unviable,” says Jeffrey Sachs, head of Columbia University’s Earth Institute.

No wonder strategists see vast new security risks, and a big expansion in the world’s “ungoverned spaces”. But much can be done before the exodus turns biblical. In West Africa subsistence farming is badly irrigated. Improve that, throw in some seeds and fertiliser, scrap tariffs, build warehouses and roads, and the region may beat the worst of climate change.

Geographers at UN Habitat, a city-planning agency, say conurbations must adapt to the needs of climate-change migrants. “You can’t just stockpile people,” says Alex de Sherbinin of Columbia University. The pressure is tangible in Addis Ababa, which already has teeming slums. The price of teff, a staple, has surged after a famine that is still pushing people to the city. Mr Meles is not alone in his wrath.

[Alonzo-ny]

Meles Zenawi, who as Ethiopia’s prime minister will speak for Africa at several global gatherings this year, predicts that some parts of the continent will become uninhabitable and “those who did the damage will have to pay.” At the December summit on climate change in Copenhagen, he hopes that Africa will “aggressively” demand compensation for environmental damage as well as help with migrants and the mitigation of climate change: in his view a demand of $40 billion would be reasonable.



This is an important point for me. Now I am a bit sceptical about global warming. I'm more inclined to believe that it may be down to changes in the sun's activity and that as humans we are a tad arrogant to think that everything is down to us. So I wouldnt be supportive of an acceptance of blame and payment to another country.

[NYatKNIGHT]

June 28, 2009

Op-Ed Columnist

Betraying the Planet

By PAUL KRUGMAN (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/paulkrugman/index.html?inline=nyt-per)


So the House passed the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill. In political terms, it was a remarkable achievement.

But 212 representatives voted no. A handful of these no votes came from representatives who considered the bill too weak, but most rejected the bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do something about greenhouse gases.

And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet.

To fully appreciate the irresponsibility and immorality of climate-change denial, you need to know about the grim turn taken by the latest climate research.

The fact is that the planet is changing faster than even pessimists expected: ice caps are shrinking, arid zones spreading, at a terrifying rate. And according to a number of recent studies, catastrophe — a rise in temperature so large as to be almost unthinkable — can no longer be considered a mere possibility. It is, instead, the most likely outcome if we continue along our present course.

Thus researchers at M.I.T., who were previously predicting a temperature rise of a little more than 4 degrees by the end of this century, are now predicting a rise of more than 9 degrees. Why? Global greenhouse gas emissions are rising faster than expected; some mitigating factors, like absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans, are turning out to be weaker than hoped; and there’s growing evidence that climate change is self-reinforcing — that, for example, rising temperatures will cause some arctic tundra to defrost, releasing even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Temperature increases on the scale predicted by the M.I.T. researchers and others would create huge disruptions in our lives and our economy. As a recent authoritative U.S. government report points out, by the end of this century New Hampshire may well have the climate of North Carolina today, Illinois may have the climate of East Texas, and across the country extreme, deadly heat waves — the kind that traditionally occur only once in a generation — may become annual or biannual events.

In other words, we’re facing a clear and present danger to our way of life, perhaps even to civilization itself. How can anyone justify failing to act?

Well, sometimes even the most authoritative analyses get things wrong. And if dissenting opinion-makers and politicians based their dissent on hard work and hard thinking — if they had carefully studied the issue, consulted with experts and concluded that the overwhelming scientific consensus was misguided — they could at least claim to be acting responsibly.

But if you watched the debate on Friday, you didn’t see people who’ve thought hard about a crucial issue, and are trying to do the right thing. What you saw, instead, were people who show no sign of being interested in the truth. They don’t like the political and policy implications of climate change, so they’ve decided not to believe in it — and they’ll grab any argument, no matter how disreputable, that feeds their denial.

Indeed, if there was a defining moment in Friday’s debate, it was the declaration by Representative Paul Broun of Georgia that climate change is nothing but a “hoax” that has been “perpetrated out of the scientific community.” I’d call this a crazy conspiracy theory, but doing so would actually be unfair to crazy conspiracy theorists. After all, to believe that global warming is a hoax you have to believe in a vast cabal consisting of thousands of scientists — a cabal so powerful that it has managed to create false records on everything from global temperatures to Arctic sea ice.

Yet Mr. Broun’s declaration was met with applause.

Given this contempt for hard science, I’m almost reluctant to mention the deniers’ dishonesty on matters economic. But in addition to rejecting climate science, the opponents of the climate bill made a point of misrepresenting the results of studies of the bill’s economic impact, which all suggest that the cost will be relatively low.

Still, is it fair to call climate denial a form of treason? Isn’t it politics as usual?

Yes, it is — and that’s why it’s unforgivable.

Do you remember the days when Bush administration officials claimed that terrorism posed an “existential threat” to America, a threat in whose face normal rules no longer applied? That was hyperbole — but the existential threat from climate change is all too real.

Yet the deniers are choosing, willfully, to ignore that threat, placing future generations of Americans in grave danger, simply because it’s in their political interest to pretend that there’s nothing to worry about. If that’s not betrayal, I don’t know what is.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinion/29krugman.html?scp=1&sq=treason&st=cse

Copyright 2009 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html) The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

[Kris]

August 9, 2009
Climate Change Seen as Threat to U.S. Security
By JOHN M. BRODER

WASHINGTON — The changing global climate will pose profound strategic challenges to the United States in coming decades, raising the prospect of military intervention to deal with the effects of violent storms, drought, mass migration and pandemics, military and intelligence analysts say.

Such climate-induced crises could topple governments, feed terrorist movements or destabilize entire regions, say the analysts, experts at the Pentagon and intelligence agencies who for the first time are taking a serious look at the national security implications of climate change.

Recent war games and intelligence studies conclude that over the next 20 to 30 years, vulnerable regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South and Southeast Asia, will face the prospect of food shortages, water crises and catastrophic flooding driven by climate change that could demand an American humanitarian relief or military response.

An exercise last December at the National Defense University, an educational institute that is overseen by the military, explored the potential impact of a destructive flood in Bangladesh that sent hundreds of thousands of refugees streaming into neighboring India, touching off religious conflict, the spread of contagious diseases and vast damage to infrastructure. “It gets real complicated real quickly,” said Amanda J. Dory, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy, who is working with a Pentagon group assigned to incorporate climate change into national security strategy planning.

Much of the public and political debate on global warming has focused on finding substitutes for fossil fuels, reducing emissions that contribute to greenhouse gases and furthering negotiations toward an international climate treaty — not potential security challenges.

But a growing number of policy makers say that the world’s rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest.

If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address.

This argument could prove a fulcrum for debate in the Senate next month when it takes up climate and energy legislation passed in June by the House.

Lawmakers leading the debate before Congress are only now beginning to make the national security argument for approving the legislation.

Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat who is the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and a leading advocate for the climate legislation, said he hoped to sway Senate skeptics by pressing that issue to pass a meaningful bill.

Mr. Kerry said he did not know whether he would succeed but had spoken with 30 undecided senators on the matter.

He did not identify those senators, but the list of undecided includes many from coal and manufacturing states and from the South and Southeast, which will face the sharpest energy price increases from any carbon emissions control program.

“I’ve been making this argument for a number of years,” Mr. Kerry said, “but it has not been a focus because a lot of people had not connected the dots.” He said he had urged President Obama to make the case, too.

Mr. Kerry said the continuing conflict in southern Sudan, which has killed and displaced tens of thousands of people, is a result of drought and expansion of deserts in the north. “That is going to be repeated many times over and on a much larger scale,” he said.

The Department of Defense’s assessment of the security issue came about after prodding by Congress to include climate issues in its strategic plans — specifically, in 2008 budget authorizations by Hillary Rodham Clinton and John W. Warner, then senators. The department’s climate modeling is based on sophisticated Navy and Air Force weather programs and other government climate research programs at NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The Pentagon and the State Department have studied issues arising from dependence on foreign sources of energy for years but are only now considering the effects of global warming in their long-term planning documents. The Pentagon will include a climate section in the Quadrennial Defense Review, due in February; the State Department will address the issue in its new Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review.

“The sense that climate change poses security and geopolitical challenges is central to the thinking of the State Department and the climate office,” said Peter Ogden, chief of staff to Todd Stern, the State Department’s top climate negotiator.

Although military and intelligence planners have been aware of the challenge posed by climate changes for some years, the Obama administration has made it a central policy focus.

A changing climate presents a range of challenges for the military. Many of its critical installations are vulnerable to rising seas and storm surges. In Florida, Homestead Air Force Base was essentially destroyed by Hurricane Andrew in 1992, and Hurricane Ivan badly damaged Naval Air Station Pensacola in 2004. Military planners are studying ways to protect the major naval stations in Norfolk, Va., and San Diego from climate-induced rising seas and severe storms.

Another vulnerable installation is Diego Garcia, an atoll in the Indian Ocean that serves as a logistics hub for American and British forces in the Middle East and sits a few feet above sea level.

Arctic melting also presents new problems for the military. The shrinking of the ice cap, which is proceeding faster than anticipated only a few years ago, opens a shipping channel that must be defended and undersea resources that are already the focus of international competition.

Ms. Dory, who has held senior Pentagon posts since the Clinton administration, said she had seen a “sea change” in the military’s thinking about climate change in the past year. “These issues now have to be included and wrestled with” in drafting national security strategy, she said.

The National Intelligence Council, which produces government-wide intelligence analyses, finished the first assessment of the national security implications of climate change just last year.

It concluded that climate change by itself would have significant geopolitical impacts around the world and would contribute to a host of problems, including poverty, environmental degradation and the weakening of national governments.

The assessment warned that the storms, droughts and food shortages that might result from a warming planet in coming decades would create numerous relief emergencies.

“The demands of these potential humanitarian responses may significantly tax U.S. military transportation and support force structures, resulting in a strained readiness posture and decreased strategic depth for combat operations,” the report said.

The intelligence community is preparing a series of reports on the impacts of climate change on individual countries like China and India, a study of alternative fuels and a look at how major power relations could be strained by a changing climate.

“We will pay for this one way or another,” Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, a retired Marine and the former head of the Central Command, wrote recently in a report he prepared as a member of a military advisory board on energy and climate at CNA, a private group that does research for the Navy. “We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we’ll have to take an economic hit of some kind.

“Or we will pay the price later in military terms,” he warned. “And that will involve human lives.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/science/earth/09climate.html

[Merry]

^ OMG is there no limit to US paranoia and self-interest?

[Ninjahedge]

I don't think it is paranoia as much as legitimate concern. The problem that the US has is usually trying to get our hands INTO these things too much.

While it may be a concern for our own interests if India were to go unstable, I fail to see why we have to spend so much time, manpower and resources to get our hands INT it befor eit even happens.

If they concentrated on something as small as redesigning our own military infrastructure and component equipment to be more fuel efficient, we may have more of an impact on the possibility of global warming political instability than trying to figure out just how India will implode.....



You think they can get $4500 for a used A10?

[ZippyTheChimp]

10.07.2009


Next Waves


Dutch and New York water experts
debate how to meet the rising tide



http://www.archpaper.com/uploads/image/Maeslantkering.jpg
Holland's Maeslantkering storm-surge barrier, one of the largest moving structures on earth.
Courtesy Dutch Association of Regional Water Authorities




Recent surveys reveal that fifty percent of Americans do not believe in climate change or that it can have devastating effects on their lives. Indeed, of the many catastrophes that could come to pass in Manhattan, one of the most frightening visuals— rising water levels—has long since been co-opted by Hollywood disaster movies such as When Worlds Collide (1951) and its more recent remake Deep Impact (1998). Until Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005, the probability of severe floods seemed more alien than extraterrestrials taking over the island.

Last month, at the H2O9 Forum at Liberty Science Center in Jersey City, that shortsightedness was a constant refrain, as was the North Sea Flood of 1953. The latter is surely the most apt historical example to illustrate how regions should not wait for actual disasters to happen before taking action. A tidal surge hit the southwest of the Netherlands—where thirty to forty percent of the ground surface is located at least twenty feet under sea level—and killed 1,835 people.

Today, the Dutch believe floods are more likely than getting killed in car accidents, though that is actually not the case. The 1953 disaster resulted in the Delta Plan, an elaborate series of dams, sluices, locks, dikes, and storm-surge barriers that protect the region against one-in-ten-thousand-year floods. At the H2O9 forum, the Delta Plan and its revisions were compared with the systems approaches to flood protection in the Hudson Estuary Basin.

Malcolm Bowman, of the State University of New York, chaired a panel with Piet Dircke of Arcadis, an international design consultancy with a focus on environmental infrastructure. Bowman explained that all five New York City boroughs “as well as the New Jersey coast are subject to mediocre flood threats.” But the region is barely equipped for calamities that can happen once in a hundred years—let alone the ten-thousand-year storms of Holland. (Katrina was a one-in-four-hundred- year storm.) “It’s time New York gets started on its own plan,” Bowman later told AN.

Although the systems put in place in Holland over the past 50 years protect the lowlands, they have also drastically changed some of its ecosystems. Dircke described how the Dutch are now preparing Delta Plan II, a new systems approach incorporating the water system of the whole region while taking the environmental impact of barrier systems into better consideration. The assumption is that the first wall of defenses will be breached by the end of the century, and a second wall with a moat between them might provide a better solution than an attempt at rebuilding the original walls.

The lessons the Dutch have learned over four centuries of experience with their own unique landscape have positioned them well in warning other places—namely New York—about the importance of planning ahead. Although climate change is often incremental or too small for us to experience on a day-to-day basis, scientists monitoring water systems in the area do see changes that beg for immediate action.

According to Bowman, considering a more regional approach is a promising start: “Rather than put levees along the Hudson River for 300 miles, why not put a barrier at the Verrazzano Narrows,” he asked. “And it doesn’t have to be all dams and concrete. Building barrier beaches has worked well in the Netherlands, too.” Bowman concluded that the challenges faced by the Dutch now will be New York’s problems in less than 100 years. “And if we aren’t more prepared then, even a little 10-year storm will do devastating damage.”

David van der Leer

Copyright © 2003-2008 | The Architect's Newspaper, LLC.

[eddhead]

In case your not paying attention, the heat index reached 116 today in NYC. Currently, the temp. is 103 and the heat index is 113

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/23/nyregion/heat-wave-envelops-the-northeast.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

By ELIZABETH A. HARRIS
By the time the clock struck 10 a.m. Friday morning, the temperature in Central Park had already hit 93 degrees.


At 12:45, the temperature was 102 degrees, breaking the record of 101 degrees for July 22 in New York, set in 1957. And in Newark, the noon temperature reached 104, soaring past the previous record of 101, which was also set in 1957.


According to the National Weather Service, it felt like 116 degrees in New York.


To those out in the streets, it felt more like being licked by a big, swampy monster.


“It’s a steam bath,” said Joseph Goldstein, 67, as he sat on a Manhattan street in the morning across from his broken-down cab. “In all my years in New York, I’ve never seen it get this hot this early.”


Making matters worse, a fire had shut down one of the city’s largest sewage treatment plants, rendering some waters around New York unfit for recreational use, including swimming.


The record-breaking heat wave that began in the central United States earlier in the week had pushed east by Thursday, sending the temperature to 97 in New York City.


“One could say, ‘Oh, it’s summer, its late July, it’s hot,’ ” said Christopher Vaccaro, a spokesman for the National Weather Service. “But this is different.”


According to Mr. Vaccaro, this heat wave is exceptional not only for its strength, but also for its breadth and duration. More than 1,400 record-high temperatures have been broken or tied around the country in July alone, Mr. Vaccaro said, and that number was expected to rise on Friday as 132 million people across the country were living under an excessive heat warning or heat advisory.


In New York City, as the mercury crept higher, Consolidated Edison’s consumers were on pace to set an all-time mark for power consumption. That record, 13,141 megawatts, was set in the late afternoon of Aug. 2, 2006, and was never broken throughout the sweltering summer of 2010. But on Friday morning, the load was running about 200 megawatts above the hourly totals from that 2006 date.


At 10 a.m. on Friday, for example, Con Ed’s customers were using 12,336 megawatts, compared with 12,003 at 10 a.m. on Aug. 2, 2006. John Miksad, Con Ed’s senior vice president for electric operations, said he expected a new record for demand would be set by the end of the week and that the company should have the capacity to handle that without any significant failures in its distribution system.


At 11 a.m., the biggest problem Con Ed faced was in one neighborhood in Brooklyn, Brooklyn Heights, where about 500 customers had lost power, said Bob McGee, a spokesman for the utility.


Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, on his weekly radio appearance, said New Yorkers should turn up their thermostats to 79 degrees to conserve power and while that might be too warm for some, “not having electricity would be a lot more uncomfortable.”


City officials announced that cooling centers would be open daily through the heat wave. The Department of Environmental Protection also turned fire hydrants around the city into drinking-water fountains. And Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo ordered the Parks Department to offer extended hours at swimming facilities at state parks.


Meanwhile, hundreds of city employees and contractors, some from out of state, were working Friday to repair the badly damaged sewage treatment plant in Harlem that has discharged millions of gallons of untreated sewage into the Hudson and Harlem Rivers. The broiling heat had set across most of the Eastern Seaboard, from Georgia all the way up to Maine. The temperature in Washington, D.C. — which was 91 degrees at 10 p.m. Thursday night, with a heat index of 111— was forecast to hit 103. Even Portland, Me., which usually enjoys a pleasant 79 degrees in July was expected to hit 100 on Friday.


“It’s just going to be miserable,” said Mr. Vaccaro of the National Weather Service. “And, frankly, really unhealthy.”


Sam Dolnick, Matt Flegenheimer, Javier C. Hernandez, Patrick McGeehan and Adriane Quinlan contributed reporting.

[mariab]

The Department of Environmental Protection also turned fire hydrants around the city into drinking-water fountains. Good idea, although I hope they used some kind of a filter for the water coming through those pipes. Then again, when you're dying of thirst, you just don't give a damn.

[Ninjahedge]

Weather Underground has some places registering higher than what was reported here (some are more verifiable than others).

I saw a few 106's showing up around NJ.

Yippee.

[ZippyTheChimp]

It's the same water in the same pipes that's delivered to buildings.

[Ninjahedge]

We don't separate the two. It is something that has been discussed for a while, that we pretty much water our plants and crap in the same water filtered and purified to drink.

BTW, if you go to Weather Underground, you start looking at the coast (NJ) you see that any temp reading that shows a sea breeze is SIGNIFICANTLY lower (80 degrees) than what is only a short trip inland....

I should be down the shore.... :P