|
Post by blondie on Apr 16, 2007 14:02:50 GMT -5
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6557803.stmUS generals urge climate action The US has refused to join an international treaty to cut emissions Former US military leaders have called on the Bush administration to make major cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. In a report, they say global warming poses a serious threat to national security, as the US could be drawn into wars over water and other conflicts. They appear to criticise President George W Bush's refusal to join an international treaty to cut emissions. Among the 11 authors are ex-Army chief of staff Gordon Sullivan and Mr Bush's ex-Mid-East peace envoy Anthony Zinni. The report says the US "must become a more constructive partner" with other nations to fight global warming and deal with its consequences. It warns that over the next 30 to 40 years, there will be conflicts over water resources, as well as increased instability resulting from rising sea levels and global warming-related refugees. "The chaos that results can be an incubator of civil strife, genocide and the growth of terrorism," the 35-page report predicts. 'Pay now - or later' Writing in the report, Gen Zinni, a former commander of US Central Command, says: "It's not hard to make the connection between climate change and instability, or climate change and terrorism." He adds: "We will pay for this one way or another. 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. And that will involve human lives. There will be a human toll." The report was issued by a Virginia-based national security think-tank, The CNA Corporation, and was written by six retired admirals and five retired generals. Climate scientists broadly endorsed the report. But Stanford scientist Terry Root, a joint author of this month's international scientific report on the effects of global warming on life on Earth, said its timescale might be too alarmist, as some of the predicted events - while likely to occur - could take longer than 30 years to happen.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 16, 2007 17:48:26 GMT -5
From the "Policy By Crystal Ball" Department:
1968- "The Population Bomb" by Paul Ehrlich declares that "In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines- hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death."
1972- "The Limits Of Growth" by the Club of Rome asserts that the world will run out of gold by 1981, of mercury by 1985, of tin by 1987, zinc by 1990, petroleum by 1992 and copper, lead and gas by 1993.
1976- "The Cooling: Has The New Ice Age Already Begun? Can We Survive?" is a runaway bestseller written by Lowell Ponte
1977- Jimmy Carter, then (unfortunately) President of the United States, makes the claim that "we could use up all of the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade."
Gee....zero for four. That makes these predictions only slightly less accurate than those of Karnac, The Magnificent.
The only difference is that Johnny Carson knew his predictions were a joke.
|
|
|
Post by family1st on Apr 16, 2007 17:57:11 GMT -5
Blondie- Since when do former generals qualify as educated, objective scientists? Who cares what an old War dog thinks about GW.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 16, 2007 18:06:42 GMT -5
Oooh-Oooh! I know!
When they say something that agrees with blondie's position!
|
|
|
Post by billt on Apr 16, 2007 18:10:22 GMT -5
as stated from the beginning the REAL stats prove human caused global warming to be SILLY
since 1998 there has been a leveling off of global temp(a term that really is meaningless in the first place), that ALONE is proof that the increased co2 is NOT causing runaway warming.
the LIE being told that co2 is "pollution", please understand co2 is a NUTRIENT required for life as we know it to exist.
the historical record consistently shows warming comes first then increases in co2, we are coming out of an ice age, we are supposed to get warmer and co2 is supposed to increase.
common sense applied...warmer air holds MORE greenhouse gases than cooler air, the record indicates after warming co2 increases.
common sense again, mother nature controls our climate NOT humans.....and that is the human caused argument in a nutshell that human released co2 has overruled mother nature and taken control over our climate.....UTTER NONSENSE on its face to those without an agenda and with an 8th grade science education.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 17, 2007 7:45:44 GMT -5
Ladies and gentlemen.
May I present the last neocon global warming deniers on the planet.
They are a dying breed.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Apr 17, 2007 11:09:05 GMT -5
thank you again blondie, NOTHING of substance ever from you and FALSELY calling me a neocon actually shows how far out of touch with reality you are.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 17, 2007 11:21:47 GMT -5
thank you again blondie, NOTHING of substance ever from you and FALSELY calling me a neocon actually shows how far out of touch with reality you are. Yeah, you're a little hard to pigeon hole. Is this you?
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 19, 2007 17:53:48 GMT -5
I'll link to the specific story a bit later, but from the pages of that Bush Administration mouthpiece, USA Today:
Several highly respected scientists are now saying that global warming might actually lesses both the frequency and intensity of hurricanes due to the increased wind-shear effect associated with a warming of the atmosphere. Wind shear either prevents hurricanse from forming at all or caps their intensity by tearing the tops off the formation.
Huh?
Wasn't the infamous 2005 hurricane season trumpted by the eco-chondriacs as a primer on what we could expect- hurricanes of unprecedented ferocity and frequency?
Were they right then, or are they right now?
"Save New Orleans- Buy An SUV!"
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 19, 2007 23:24:28 GMT -5
Were they right then, or are they right now? They're right now.....unless they're wrong....and then they'll be right then.....unless they're wrong......
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Apr 20, 2007 7:04:26 GMT -5
Were they right then, or are they right now? They're right now.....unless they're wrong....and then they'll be right then.....unless they're wrong...... But they'll always be an objective source that is objective...(blondieism re-visited)
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 23, 2007 13:14:40 GMT -5
The Straight Talk Express www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3068187The senator also terms global warming "a serious and urgent economic, environmental and national security challenge" and adds that "the problem isn't a Hollywood invention." McCain favors climate-change legislation that would set caps on carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions and offer incentives for industries to come up with new energy sources. "The world is already feeling the powerful effects of global warming, and far more dire consequences are predicted if we let the growing deluge of greenhouse gas emissions continue, and wreak havoc with Gods creation," he said.
|
|
|
Post by billt on Apr 23, 2007 13:45:36 GMT -5
"McCain favors climate-change legislation that would set caps on carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions "
there it is in plain english...a TAX ON THE AIR you breathe.
all day long each person is putting co2 into the air, just by being alive.
that is the REAL agenda of human caused global warming, complete control over every aspect of life, LIMITING the number of humans allowed to exist to only the FEW needed to serve the needs of the elites.
mccain is an UNintelligent dupe! just like EVERYONE else that thinks humans have taken control of the climate by emitting co2......complete LUNACY!
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 23, 2007 14:11:20 GMT -5
Talk about pulling something out of context and blowing it outside of the proportion of sanity. The rest of the quote showing the context. "..... and offer incentives for industries to come up with new energy sources."The legislation is aimed at industry's Co2 emissions, not human beings. Hey, I think I just coined a new phrase.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 23, 2007 16:01:05 GMT -5
I'd say that McCain's pandering to the Left in believing this anthropogenic global warming nonsense is yet another reason not to vote for the good senator.
While global warming might not be a "Hollywood invention", anthorpogenic global warming IS.
Since it is a Hollywood script, I say we turn Speilberg and Tarantino loose on the 'problem' and let them write us out of the 'mess' we're in.
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Apr 24, 2007 5:18:08 GMT -5
That does it...I repent!!!
If Sheryl Crow and Laurie David say we're doomed, then, by golly...we are DOOMED!!!
Impeach Karl Rove!!!! How dare he just sit there and eat when he could be saving this planet!!!!
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 24, 2007 6:33:40 GMT -5
Well, technically, if Karl Rove was eating a steak, he WAS saving the planet....
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Apr 24, 2007 6:43:36 GMT -5
Well, technically, if Karl Rove was eating a steak, he WAS saving the planet.... True...a bull which has become a filet mignon can no longer flatulate...
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 26, 2007 12:53:31 GMT -5
From the pages of USA Today (Life section page 4D): Fossil Find Suggests Once-Temperate Arctic
Fossils of a hippopotamus-like creature found on a barren Arctic island show that the climate was once like that of Florida.
Fossil footprints of a pantodont, a plant-eating creature weighing approximately 880 pounds, add to evidence of sequoia-like trees and crocodile-like beasts in the Arctic some 55 million years ago.
Slujis (Appy Slujis, expert in ancient ecology at Atrecht University in The Netherlands) says that forest grew in the Artic when carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, was at about 1000 parts per million in the atmosphere due to natural swings in the climate, perhaps due to volcanic activity and a thaw of frozen methane. Damn those 55 million year old SUVs! Sarcasm aside, Slujis makes the point that I often have, though the USA Today story predictably buries said point- that the increase in temperature was due to NATURAL SWINGS IN CLIMATE rather than human activity. Also, if I recall the sobbing hysterics of the enviroMENTALists, they are fretting over an increase in CO2 from around 250ppm in 1850 to 385ppm now- an increase of 135ppm over 150 years. Let's say for the sake of argument that the rate of CO2 emissions increases by 50% over the coming years. At that rate, we will surpass the 1000ppm mark in the year >2300<. Does anyone think we'll still be driving ICE-powered vehicles in 2300?
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 26, 2007 15:57:21 GMT -5
From The Financial Times of London: www.ft.com/cms/s/48e334ce-f355-11db-9845-000b5df10621.htmlIndustry caught in carbon ¡®smokescreen¡¯Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on ¡°carbon credit¡± projects that yield few if any environmental benefits.
A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.
Others are meanwhile making big profits from carbon trading for very small expenditure and in some cases for clean-ups that they would have made anyway. The FT investigation found:
¡ö Widespread instances of people and organisations buying worthless credits that do not yield any reductions in carbon emissions.
¡ö Industrial companies profiting from doing very little ¨C or from gaining carbon credits on the basis of efficiency gains from which they have already benefited substantially.
¡ö Brokers providing services of questionable or no value.
¡ö A shortage of verification, making it difficult for buyers to assess the true value of carbon credits.
¡ö Companies and individuals being charged over the odds for the private purchase of European Union carbon permits that have plummeted in value because they do not result in emissions cuts. Francis Sullivan, environment adviser at HSBC, the UK¡¯s biggest bank that went carbon-neutral in 2005, said he found ¡°serious credibility concerns¡± in the offsetting market after evaluating it for several months.
¡°The police, the fraud squad and trading standards need to be looking into this. Otherwise people will lose faith in it,¡± he said. Today's word, boys and girls, is [glow=red,2,300]FRAUD[/glow]. Let's ask our guest, Mr. Al Gore, to tell us what the word means. He's somewhat of an expert on the word.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 26, 2007 16:45:56 GMT -5
Yet another missive from those damn global warming "deniers". Don't they know that the debate is over? www.standard-freeholder.com/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=502332&catname=Local%20News&classif=Global warming debate 'irrational': scientists (Stephanie Stein / Standard-Freeholder Local News - Thursday, April 26, 2007 @ 10:00 ) The current debate about global warming is "completely irrational," and people need to start taking a different approach, say two Ottawa scientists.
Carleton University science professor Tim Patterson said global warming will not bring about the downfall of life on the planet.
Patterson said much of the up-to-date research indicates that "changes in the brightness of the sun" are almost certainly the primary cause of the warming trend since the end of the "Little Ice Age" in the late 19th century. Human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the gas of concern in most plans to curb climate change, appear to have little effect on global climate, he said.
"I think the proof in the pudding, based on what (media and governments) are saying, (is) we're about three quarters of the way (to disaster) with the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere," said Patterson. "The world should be heating up like crazy by now, and it's not. The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles." All the money wasted on Kyoto in a year could provide clean drinking water for Africa," said Patterson. "We're into a new era of science with the discussion of solar forces. Eventually, Kyoto is going to fall by the wayside. In the meantime, I'm worried we're going to spend millions that could have been spent on something better like air pollution." Tom Harris, executive director of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project - an organization that attempts to debunk some of the popular beliefs about climate change - supported Patterson's findings.
Global warming assertions are based on inconclusive evidence put forth in science reports that had not been published yet, he said.
"The media takes (inconclusive) information that only suggests there could be a climate problem and turns it into an environmental catastrophe," said Harris.
"They continually say we only have 10 years left, and they've been saying it for 20 years, and it's ridiculous," he said. "The only reason I got involved in talking to media is that I think our resources are being mismanaged. David Phillips, a senior government environment expert, believes there is more than one contributing factor to global warming. There's a human element, as well as natural cycles. Difficult to convince
"I'm a man that's difficult to convince," he said. "What convinces me is the large body of evidence, and highly reputable people promoting global warming, who are not lobbyists, but only seeking truth in science. They say the the earth is warming up faster and greater now than in the past." What's this? "Natural cycles?" Don't they know that the 'religion' of global warming views that as 'heresy'?
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Apr 26, 2007 16:51:27 GMT -5
Carleton University science professor Tim Patterson said global warming will not bring about the downfall of life on the planet. Well...just damn...I could have bought green bananas after all?
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 26, 2007 21:44:14 GMT -5
And maybe even ordered a three minute egg....
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 26, 2007 22:33:16 GMT -5
www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OMPHM80&show_article=1Report: China Will Pass U.S. As Polluter SHANGHAI, China (AP) - China will pass the United States as the world's biggest source of greenhouse gasses this year, an official with the International Energy Agency was quoted as saying.
China had been forecast to surpass the U.S. in 2010, but its sizzling economic growth has pushed the date forward, the IEA's chief economist, Fatih Birol, was quoted as saying in an interview appearing in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal newspaper.
"In the past couple of months, economic growth and related coal consumption has grown at such an unexpected rate," Birol was quoted as saying. China's rising emissions will effectively cancel out attempts by other countries to reduce their own, he said.
Those comments follow the weekend release of a Chinese government report detailing the costs of climate change but asserting that the country should focus on development before cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
Higher than average temperatures meant spreading deserts, worsening droughts, shrinking glaciers and increased spread of diseases, said the report, compiled by more than a dozen government bodies. It said emission limits were unfair and would constrain China's current energy and manufacturing industries.
China is a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol on reducing greenhouse gasses, but is exempt from its restrictions because it is a developing country.
The Paris-based IEA advises developed country on energy policy. So China is set to pass the US as the biggest polluter in terms of the so-called "greenhouse gases" but is conveniently exempted from Kyoto because it is designated as a "developing country". Yet we in the US are the ones who must cripple our economy and destroy our standard of living in order to "save the planet". Am I the only one who sees something wrong in this equation?
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 27, 2007 12:44:27 GMT -5
From the "Physician, Heal Thyself!" files: newsbusters.org/node/12346Pro-environment Candidates Fly to Presidential Debate on Separate PlanesPosted by Noel Sheppard on April 26, 2007 - 22:15. Assume for a second that you were a pro-environment presidential candidate that believed in anthropogenic global warming. Would you be trying to demonstrate that energy conservation and reducing carbon emissions were not just so many words in a stump speech, but something you truly believed in? Would you also expect that an impartial press might be analyzing your activities to make sure they accurately reflected the green position you were preaching? Apparently, if you were Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Chris Dodd, or Joe Biden, this would not be much of a concern. As reported by the Associated Press (emphasis added): A flock of small jets took flight from Washington Thursday, each carrying a Democratic presidential candidate to South Carolina for the first debate of the political season.
For Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden, it was wheels up shortly after they voted in favor of legislation requiring that U.S. troops begin returning home from Iraq in the fall.
No one jet pooled, no one took commercial flights to save money, fuel or emissions. Now, consider for a moment the hypocrisy here: we Americans are being told by the left and the media that support them that we all need to make sacrifices to prevent an imminent cataclysm caused by a planet that is warming due to our own misdeeds. Yet, these four "green" Senators couldn’t fly from the same place to the same place on the same plane to conserve energy and cut planet-threatening emissions? Furthermore, as this is a huge issue that the media have been championing for many months, shouldn’t this hypocrisy have been exposed, or is that asking too much of today’s journalists? I know; it’s a rhetorical question. ____________________________________________________ To the Democrat Party elitists, conservation is something the rest of us do.
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on Apr 28, 2007 14:03:29 GMT -5
Blondie-
The more the neo-cons cling to this side of the issue.....the more sure is a Democratic victory in 2008.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 28, 2007 14:27:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Apr 28, 2007 17:58:39 GMT -5
Obviously the Democrats don't believe it's a big deal, else they would've "planepooled" to the debate.
Or maybe insisted that China- who will be the world's biggest polluter sometime within the next eighteen months- be forced to cripple their economy to the same degree that Kyoto would cripple ours.
But no...as I said, to a Democrat, conservation is something someone else has to do.
It's going to kill blondie when Gore admits that he's only doing this because he hates the US....
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on Apr 29, 2007 8:10:39 GMT -5
Actually, Bush had agreed to cap carbon emissions but then switched the deal, thats why his EPA head, Christine Todd Whitman, resigned. It was something she firmly believed in but as we know from the handling of the war, You must love the EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES or you are gone.
|
|
|
Post by deovindice on Apr 29, 2007 9:31:54 GMT -5
I just want to see how John Edwards reacts to having to use one $400 sheet of toilet paper!
Global warming theory emanated from the Ouija Board School of Ecology.
|
|