Page 77 of 111 FirstFirst ... 2767727374757677787980818287 ... LastLast
Results 1,521 to 1,540 of 2209
  1. #1521  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Hey Cell! It's a start. Now, let's see if there's any actual muscle behind the US's intent.
    After consistently advocating the oil industy's views for many years, Ms. Dobriansky and the Bush admin's complete about face on this issue, is quite a pleasant surprise.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...501632,00.html
  2. #1522  
    Neopoint 1000, I300, Treo 300, i330, Toshiba 2032, Treo 600, T608/UX50, I500,Treo 600, G1000, Treo 650, PPC-6600, PPC-6700, Treo 650, Blackberry 7250, Treo 700wx, Motorola Q, PPC-6800, 700wx, Motorola Q9c, Sprint Touch, Sprint ACE, 700wx, 800w, Touch Pro, 800w, Touch Diamond, 800w, Treo Pro, Palm Pre, HTC Hero, Palm Pre, EVO 4G warm2.2
  3. #1523  
    Not to say that we dont need to take better care of the earth, we absolutely do. I just think it is unfair to pretend and know everything about something that is infinitely complex.

    Esepcially when 30 short years ago the scientific community was up in arms about global cooling! Old news but always fun to post...
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Neopoint 1000, I300, Treo 300, i330, Toshiba 2032, Treo 600, T608/UX50, I500,Treo 600, G1000, Treo 650, PPC-6600, PPC-6700, Treo 650, Blackberry 7250, Treo 700wx, Motorola Q, PPC-6800, 700wx, Motorola Q9c, Sprint Touch, Sprint ACE, 700wx, 800w, Touch Pro, 800w, Touch Diamond, 800w, Treo Pro, Palm Pre, HTC Hero, Palm Pre, EVO 4G warm2.2
  4. #1524  
    Nothing pretend about the global warming legislation that President Bush signed onto yesterday. Its a good start.
    Quote Originally Posted by
    IN ABOUT TURN, PRESIDENT BUSH SIGNS MAJOR CLIMATE BILL

    President George Bush, after years of holding out against proposals to combat climate change, yesterday signed into law an energy bill establishing higher fuel-economy standards for new cars and other conservation measures.
    Bush described the bill as "a major step toward energy independence and easing global warming". The White House claimed it went part of the way to fulfilling promises made at the environmental conference in Bali last week.
    The legislation, though limited in scope, represents the biggest fuel efficiency push by the US since the 1970s oil crisis.

    The new law also contains provisions to increase the use of ethanol as an alternative to petrol.
    Other measures in the legislation include a statutory target of a 70% increase in use of energy efficient lightbulbs and improved energy efficiency targets for fridges, freezers and dishwashers. Federal buildings will also have to become more energy efficient.
    The reaction of environmentalists was mixed: grateful that the White House has belatedly adopted some of the policies they have been advocating but warning that the measures were too limited and not due to be implemented for years.
    Throughout most of his presidency, Bush has disputed scientific evidence about global warming, refusing to sign up for the Kyoto treaty setting targets for reducing greenhouse gases. Over the last year, he has publicly softened his stance, acknowledging there is a crisis, though administration officials say that in private he continues to be sceptical.
    The bill was passed by the House of Representatives on Tuesday by 314 to 100, with 95 Republicans supporting the Democrats. The Senate approved it last week by 86-8.
    The bill was sent to the White House in a hybrid car, using a mixture of electricity and petrol.
    As well as the Democratic-led Congress pushing proposals to tackle global warming, individual states, with California in the vanguard, have been putting in place energy-saving measures at variance with the Bush administration's position.
    The new legislation requires cars and light trucks to increase fuel efficiency by 40%, setting a standard of an average of 35 miles a gallon by 2020, as opposed to 25 miles at present. Bush had previously opposed regulations on petrol use.
    The Democrats said the legislation will reduce US demand for oil by 4m barrels a day by 2030, more than twice the present daily imports from the Gulf. They said the fuel economy requirements will save motorists $700 to $1,000 a year in costs.
    In order to get the bill through, Democrats had to drop from it a $21bn (£10.5bn) tax package that would have reduced breaks for the biggest oil and gas companies and extended breaks for wind and solar projects. Bush threatened to veto any bill containing these measures.
    While championing the domestic industry, Bush has acknowledged throughout the year that the US has to reduce its dependence on oil imports. The legislation addresses "our vulnerabilities and dependency on foreign oil by reducing demand for gasoline and diversifying the nation's fuel supply," he said.
    He regards a switch of cars from petrol to ethanol as a way to help achieve this.
    But environmentalists question its value, arguing that the increased growth of corn for ethanol has resulted in higher use of fertilisers, which has contributed to the poisoning of rivers.
    The new legislation envisages a six-fold increase in ethanol production to 36bn gallons a year by 2022. Of that, 21bn gallons has to be from alternatives to corn, such as prairie grasses or wood chips.
    In a separate development, Democrats decided not to carry out their threat to withhold military spending until Bush agreed to a resolution that would see US troops out of Iraq by the end of next year.
    Anxious to complete business before Christmas and to avoid accusations of short-changing troops, the Democrats signalled they are to approve the $70bn for US operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    Financial support for the wars has been bundled into a $555bn "omnibus" appropriations bill that primarily provides for domestic spending.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...ed=environment
  5. #1525  
    No questions about it- these are all positive steps that should have been taken a long time ago.

    It is time to start ensuring our planet is alive and well for future generations. Lets just avoid the scare tactics and take action.
    Neopoint 1000, I300, Treo 300, i330, Toshiba 2032, Treo 600, T608/UX50, I500,Treo 600, G1000, Treo 650, PPC-6600, PPC-6700, Treo 650, Blackberry 7250, Treo 700wx, Motorola Q, PPC-6800, 700wx, Motorola Q9c, Sprint Touch, Sprint ACE, 700wx, 800w, Touch Pro, 800w, Touch Diamond, 800w, Treo Pro, Palm Pre, HTC Hero, Palm Pre, EVO 4G warm2.2
  6. #1526  
    Quote Originally Posted by robber View Post
    No questions about it- these are all positive steps that should have been taken a long time ago.

    It is time to start ensuring our planet is alive and well for future generations. Lets just avoid the scare tactics and take action.
    I agree with you that there is too much political spinning on this issue - as the Editors of the Journal Nature also remind us:

    Quote Originally Posted by

    Nature 446, 470 (29 March 2007)

    Cut the climate antics
    A long run of congressional theatre should close


    Last week, Al Gore made a triumphant return to Washington, testifying in the US Congress for the first time since his film, An Inconvenient Truth, turned the man who was almost president into an Oscar-winning environmental saint. He is now reckoned by almost everybody to have been right all along, and his star turn could mark the moment when Congress gives up arguing about whether climate change is real, and starts arguing about how to handle it.

    The affair was suitably raucous, with a burst of camera shutters punctuating the former vice-president's every gesture and scribbling journalists packed in so tight they had to keep their elbows in front of them. Looking solid but progressive in a blue-checked shirt and blue tie, Gore called on Congress to be bold on climate change. "There is a sense of hope in this country that this Congress will rise to the occasion," he said. "We do not have time to play around with this."

    Gore also made specific recommendations for action, suggesting changes that are probably too bold for any sitting politician but that may expand the outer bounds of what is considered feasible. They included freezing emissions levels immediately, then reducing them by 90% by 2050; a carbon tax and a cap-and-trade scheme; bans on incandescent light bulbs and new coal plants that cannot be made to capture and store carbon; corporate disclosure of carbon emissions; and tougher mileage standards for cars.

    The leading Republicans in the committees where he spoke kept up their increasingly surreal insistence that climate change isn't happening. Joe Barton of Texas in the House of Representatives and James Inhofe of Oklahoma in the Senate not only presented increasingly threadbare arguments against climate change, but seemed to be trying to take the lustre off the occasion by extensively negotiating how much time they would get to speak.

    Inhofe was so determined to get his share of the time that he wanted Gore to respond to all his questions in writing only. He was overruled by Barbara Boxer, the Democrat senator from California who now runs what used to be Inhofe's committee in the Senate and clearly relishes it — at one point she brandished her gavel at him triumphantly. Gore responded to their questions with scientific lectures, deep sighs and offers of one-to-one tutoring in climate science.

    More productively, most Republicans asked Gore substantive questions about policy approaches, notably on the challenge of convincing China and India to act, and on the possibility of a renaissance for nuclear power (Gore is wary of it, being an ardent fan of distributed micro-generation). Some Republicans seemed willing to make it their issue too. Republican stalwart Senator John Warner of Virginia said: "I am prepared to fight with you on this." In the House, Bob Inglis of South Carolina framed it as a Christian issue and said that efforts should be made to cut down emissions even without China and India because "you teach your children to do the right thing, even if no one is looking".

    In the metro system beneath the Capitol complex, Boxer said that Gore was pleased with the Republican response. As she chatted with reporters, Gore dashed to an adjoining carriage. As the doors threatened to close on him, a Capitol worker reached out and held the door for him. Boxer watched in astonishment. "I've never seen them do that for anyone before," she said.

    It was all good theatre, but the high jinks of the climate-change sceptics already seem outdated, and many in their own party are starting to ignore them with the serene expression seen on the faces of parents when their children throw a temper tantrum in public. This is the duty of all sensible politicians as they move forward on climate-change policy. The naysayers should be indulged no longer.
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../index.html#ed
  7. #1527  
    Happy New Year to all.

    This very interesting scientific study was listed as one of Nature's most significant papers of the year (http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/4501131b)

    It demonstrates that human influence on climate is not limited just to temperature but also can affect precipitation patterns.

    Nature 448, 461-465 (26 July 2007)

    Detection of human influence on twentieth-century precipitation trends

    Xuebin Zhang1, Francis W. Zwiers1, Gabriele C. Hegerl2, F. Hugo Lambert3, Nathan P. Gillett4, Susan Solomon5, Peter A. Stott6 & Toru Nozawa7

    Climate Research Division, Environment Canada, Toronto, Ontario M3H 5T4, Canada
    Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences, Box 90227, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708, USA
    Department of Geography, 507 McCone Hall, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, USA
    Climatic Research Unit, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
    NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, 325 Broadway, Boulder, Colorado 80305, USA
    Met Office Hadley Centre (Reading Unit), Meteorology Building, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6BB, UK
    National Institute for Environmental Studies, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8506, Japan
    Correspondence to: Francis W. Zwiers1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to F.W.Z. (Email: francis.zwiers@ec.gc.ca).

    Human influence on climate has been detected in surface air temperature, sea level pressure, free atmospheric temperature, tropopause height8 and ocean heat content. Human-induced changes have not, however, previously been detected in precipitation at the global scale, partly because changes in precipitation in different regions cancel each other out and thereby reduce the strength of the global average signal. Models suggest that anthropogenic forcing should have caused a small increase in global mean precipitation and a latitudinal redistribution of precipitation, increasing precipitation at high latitudes, decreasing precipitation at sub-tropical latitudes, and possibly changing the distribution of precipitation within the tropics by shifting the position of the Intertropical Convergence Zone. Here we compare observed changes in land precipitation during the twentieth century averaged over latitudinal bands with changes simulated by fourteen climate models. We show that anthropogenic forcing has had a detectable influence on observed changes in average precipitation within latitudinal bands, and that these changes cannot be explained by internal climate variability or natural forcing. We estimate that anthropogenic forcing contributed significantly to observed increases in precipitation in the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, drying in the Northern Hemisphere subtropics and tropics, and moistening in the Southern Hemisphere subtropics and deep tropics. The observed changes, which are larger than estimated from model simulations, may have already had significant effects on ecosystems, agriculture and human health in regions that are sensitive to changes in precipitation, such as the Sahel.
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture06025.html
  8. #1528  
    And in another new development of relevance to global warming, the Environmental Protection Agency is being sued by the State of California for not allowing adoption of stricter greenhouse emissions laws. Its a highly controversial and, many would say, paradoxical stance from an agency whose mission is to protect the environment. The article from yesterday's Wired magazine and noteworthy quotes are included below:

    "The House Oversight and Government Reform committee is investigating the EPA's decision, which appears to have been influenced by pressure from Vice President **** Cheney and the automobile industry"

    "[EPA head Stephen] Johnson allegedly denied California's petition over the recommendations of his legal and scientific advisors."

    "Fifteen other states have joined California in the lawsuit: Massachusetts, Arizona, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Connecticut and Washington."

    Said Connecticut attorney general Richard Blumenthal in a press release, "This administration is running on empty legally and morally. The EPA’s New Year’s resolution should be Face the Truth. Do your job or get out of the way, is what we say to the EPA. We will not accept no as an answer from do-nothing federal environmental officials when our public health and planet’s future are at stake. Top EPA officials are blocking responsible state steps against intolerable auto pollution, adding insult to injury and defying the law, common sense, science and their own staff."

    http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2...rnia-sues.html
  9. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #1529  
    A hopeful 2008 to all. 2007 was quite the bad year for PlantGore sycophants and doomdayers. Let us run down the top 10 global warming duds of 2007.

    < < Edit by sep: please don't repost entire articles > >

    Expanded explanations for all of these facts can be read by visiting http://www.junkscience.com/ByTheJunkman/20071227.html
    Last edited by Dieter Bohn; 01/04/2008 at 12:49 PM.
  10. #1530  
    Whether it's calling the dangers of second hand smoke junk science to prop up the tobacco industry or calling the scientific data on global warming junk science to prop up the petroleum industry, Milloy and his junkscience website seems to have its own agenda which does not appear to have the public's health in mind. At any rate, here is an article which you might find interesting, or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by

    November 2001, Vol 91, No. 11 | American Journal of Public Health 1742-1744

    Turning Science Into Junk: The Tobacco Industry and Passive Smoking

    Jonathan M. Samet, MD, MS and Thomas A. Burke, PhD, MPH

    Jonathan M. Samet is with the Department of Epidemiology, and Thomas A. Burke is with the Department of Health Policy and Management, Bloomberg School of Public Health, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.

    Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Jonathan M. Samet, MD, MS, Department of Epidemiology, The Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N Wolfe St, Room W6041, Baltimore, MD 21205 (e-mail: jsamet@jhsph.edu).

    ABSTRACT

    In this issue, Glantz and Ong offer a powerful analysis of the tobacco industry's attempt to discredit the scientific evidence on passive smoking, particularly the industry's use of the label "junk science." Environmental epidemiologic studies in other arenas have also been targets for the "junk science" label.
    < < Edit by septimus - please don't quote entire articles > >
    full text pdf available here
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 01/04/2008 at 12:30 PM.
  11. #1531  
    by the way, the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, the top rated school of Public Health in the USA, where the above peer reviewed article was written, maintains an excellent ecohealth website.
  12. #1532  
    A comprehensive summary on global warming for the non-scientist, from Scientific American.

    Special Report: Climate Change
  13. #1533  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    Whether it's calling the dangers of second hand smoke junk science to prop up the tobacco industry or calling the scientific data on global warming junk science to prop up the petroleum industry, Milloy and his junkscience website seems to have its own agenda which does not appear to have the public's health in mind. At any rate, here is an article which you might find interesting, or not.
    You seriously didn't expect for Chuckles to disclose that his clownish source was a FeuxNews-Flunkie, did you? With infotainment sources such as that, he may as well have included Anna Nicole Smith among his references.
  14. #1534  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    The Artic is melting....and Antarctica is getting bigger. What is the point?

    Is this the best you can do?

    LOL conspiratists rejoice!
    Humorous sarcasm aside, yet another article published in the journal Nature demonstrates how Antarctica is shrinking as a result of global warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by 11 January 2008 | Nature

    Antarctic ice loss speeding up

    A comprehensive study of Antarctica’s ice confirms that the polar cap is shrinking. In 2006 alone, Antarctica lost nearly 200 billion tonnes of ice, researchers say — the equivalent of a global sea level rise of more than half a millimetre. That’s 75% more than losses in 1996, they add.
    http://origin.www.nature.com/news/20....2008.438.html
  15. #1535  
    And, on a related note, US officials seem to be dragging their feet in listing polar bears as an endangered species.

    Quote Originally Posted by 8 January 2008 | Nature News

    US decision on polar bear status on hold
    Officials say they need more time to assess climate threat.
    Retreating ice is expected to cause problems for polar bears
    US officials have delayed their decision on whether polar bears should be listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, missing their 9 January deadline. Unlike previous assessments, the status of the bears relies heavily on climate change and the future of the planet’s Arctic ice – factors that officials say make the assessment more complicated.
    http://origin.www.nature.com/news/20....2008.420.html

    Moreover, environmental groups and some members of congress fear that the polar bear decision has been purposefully delayed to allow a first-time oil lease sale to go forward Feb. 6 in Alaska's pristine Chukchi Sea, which provides one-tenth of the habitat for the world's polar bears.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../MN60UAQFJ.DTL
  16. #1536  
    ...that so many have jumped on the bandwagon of "the debate is over" when, if you look at the scientific evidence, the global warming debate is NOT over. There seems to be an army of scientists with evidence supporting their positions on BOTH sides of this issue.

    Rather than pour billions (if not trillions) of dollars into man-made efforts to cool the earth (or prevent a bit of warming), I think the money is far better spent on things we have more control over --- like third world development, poverty, education, cancer/medical research, etc. All of this would be better than succumbing to the hysterics of this new-found global warming religion.
    Palm since Palm Professional --- Treo 650 (2 yrs), iPhone since 6/29/07
  17. #1537  
    Excellent point, bri guy.
  18. #1538  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bri Guy View Post
    ...that so many have jumped on the bandwagon of "the debate is over" when, if you look at the scientific evidence, the global warming debate is NOT over. There seems to be an army of scientists with evidence supporting their positions on BOTH sides of this issue.

    Rather than pour billions (if not trillions) of dollars into man-made efforts to cool the earth (or prevent a bit of warming), I think the money is far better spent on things we have more control over --- like third world development, poverty, education, cancer/medical research, etc. All of this would be better than succumbing to the hysterics of this new-found global warming religion.
    Your logic, which appears to reduce the editors of our top scientific journals and our leading scientific organizations including the journals Nature, Science, Scientific American, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, The Joint Science Academies which includes our own United States National Academy of Sciences to "hysterics" who are simply preaching a "religion", tells me much of what I need to know about your attitude towards science.

    Certainly science is never finished, or "over" and we need more research on the area, but right now it would take a great deal of evidence to overturn the widespread scientific view that global warming is an increasing problem, which humans appear to be contributing to. In fact, no national or international scientific body rejects the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.

    I think everyone will benefit by learning more about this subject, not from politically biased sources but to learn the science themselves from our leading scientific journals and leading scientific organizations.
  19. #1539  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    Your logic, which appears to reduce the editors of our top scientific journals and our leading scientific organizations including the journals Nature, Science, Scientific American, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, The Joint Science Academies which includes our own United States National Academy of Sciences to "hysterics" who are simply preaching a "religion", tells me much of what I need to know about your attitude towards science.

    Certainly science is never finished, or "over" and we need more research on the area, but right now it would take a great deal of evidence to overturn the widespread scientific view that global warming is an increasing problem, which humans appear to be contributing to. In fact, no national or international scientific body rejects the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.

    I think everyone will benefit by learning more about this subject, not from politically biased sources but to learn the science themselves from our leading scientific journals and leading scientific organizations.
    Oh, there are certainly hysterics going on, including right here on this forum. I've also read, seen, heard, re-read, re-seen, and re-heard an enormous amount about climate change and mankind's contribution to said change. Like religion (see "Bible"), opinions about what is truth and what isn't are as varied as my daughter's "Pets" collection. We can all post exhaustive lists of sources that will support one side or the other, but at the end of the day, we don't have all the information and aren't even CLOSE to having enough before we commit to spending billions/trillions of dollars chasing windmills (a la Don Quixote).

    Speaking of logic, what is really more logical? Spending the billions/trillions on combating global warming or spending these monies on more CERTAIN problems (hunger, poverty, disease, education, etc.)?? There are far more pressing issues to spend our money on than global warming, and until we've solved the problems that we CAN control, global warming will take a back seat for me and many others.
    Palm since Palm Professional --- Treo 650 (2 yrs), iPhone since 6/29/07
  20. #1540  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bri Guy View Post
    Oh, there are certainly hysterics going on, including right here on this forum. I've also read, seen, heard, re-read, re-seen, and re-heard an enormous amount about climate change and mankind's contribution to said change. Like religion (see "Bible"), opinions about what is truth and what isn't are as varied as my daughter's "Pets" collection. We can all post exhaustive lists of sources that will support one side or the other, but at the end of the day, we don't have all the information and aren't even CLOSE to having enough before we commit to spending billions/trillions of dollars chasing windmills (a la Don Quixote).

    Speaking of logic, what is really more logical? Spending the billions/trillions on combating global warming or spending these monies on more CERTAIN problems (hunger, poverty, disease, education, etc.)?? There are far more pressing issues to spend our money on than global warming, and until we've solved the problems that we CAN control, global warming will take a back seat for me and many others.
    Will you at least read Scientific American's report on global warming?

Posting Permissions