Vegetarian Discussion: Re: Exxon-bot Bill Ward: ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign On Global Warming Science -- Oil Company Spent Nearly $16 Million To Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion
Re: Exxon-bot Bill Ward: ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign On Global Warming Science -- Oil Company Spent Nearly $16 Million To Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion Posts: 21
There is climate change censorship - and it's the deniers who dish it out
Global warming scientists are under intense pressure to water down findings, and are then accused of silencing their critics
George Monbiot Tuesday April 10, 2007 The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2053521,00.html
The drafting of reports by the world's pre-eminent group of climate scientists is an odd process. For months scientists contributing to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tussle over the evidence. Nothing gets published unless it achieves consensus. This means that the panel's reports are conservative - even timid. It also means that they are as trustworthy as a scientific document can be.
Then, when all is settled among the scientists, the politicians sweep in and seek to excise from the summaries anything that threatens their interests.
The scientists fight back, but they always have to make concessions. The report released on Friday, for example, was shorn of the warning that "North America is expected to experience locally severe economic damage, plus substantial ecosystem, social and cultural disruption from climate change related events".
This is the opposite of the story endlessly repeated in the rightwing press: that the IPCC, in collusion with governments, is conspiring to exaggerate the science. No one explains why governments should seek to amplify their own failures. In the wacky world of the climate conspiracists no explanations are required. The world's most conservative scientific body has somehow been transformed into a conspiracy of screaming demagogues.
This is just one aspect of a story that is endlessly told the wrong way round. In the Sunday Telegraph and the Daily Mail, in columns by Dominic Lawson, Tom Utley and Janet Daley, the allegation is repeated that climate scientists and environmentalists are trying to "shut down debate". Those who say that man-made global warming is not taking place, they claim, are being censored.
Something is missing from their accusations: a single valid example. The closest any of them have been able to get is two letters sent - by the Royal Society and by the US senators Jay Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe - to that delicate flower ExxonMobil, asking that it cease funding lobbyists who deliberately distort climate science. These correspondents had no power to enforce their wishes. They were merely urging Exxon to change its practices. If everyone who urges is a censor, then the comment pages of the newspapers must be closed in the name of free speech.
In a recent interview, Martin Durkin, who made Channel 4's film The Great Global Warming Swindle, claimed he was subject to "invisible censorship". He seems to have forgotten that he had 90 minutes of prime-time television to expound his theory that climate change is a green conspiracy. What did this censorship amount to? Complaints about one of his programmes had been upheld by the Independent Television Commission. It found that "the views of the four complainants, as made clear to the interviewer, had been distorted by selective editing" and that they had been "misled as to the content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part". This, apparently, makes him a martyr.
If you want to know what real censorship looks like, let me show you what has been happening on the other side of the fence. Scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have been repeatedly threatened and silenced and their findings edited or suppressed.
The Union of Concerned Scientists found that 58% of the 279 climate scientists working at federal agencies in the US who responded to its survey reported that they had experienced one of the following constraints: 1. Pressure to eliminate the words "climate change", "global warming", or other similar terms from their communications; 2. Editing of scientific reports by their superiors that "changed the meaning of scientific findings"; 3. Statements by officials at their agencies that misrepresented their findings; 4. The disappearance or unusual delay of websites, reports, or other science-based materials relating to climate; 5. New or unusual administrative requirements that impair climate-related work; 6. Situations in which scientists have actively objected to, resigned from, or removed themselves from a project because of pressure to change scientific findings. They reported 435 incidents of political interference over the past five years.
In 2003, the White House gutted the climate-change section of a report by the Environmental Protection Agency. It deleted references to studies showing that global warming is caused by manmade emissions. It added a reference to a study, partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute, that suggested that temperatures are not rising. Eventually the agency decided to drop the section altogether.
After Thomas Knutson at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) published a paper in 2004 linking rising emissions with more intense tropical cyclones, he was blocked by his superiors from speaking to the media. He agreed to one request to appear on MSNBC, but a public affairs officer at NOAA rang the station and said that Knutson was "too tired" to conduct the interview. The official explained to him that the "White House said no". All media inquiries were to be routed instead to a scientist who believed there was no connection between global warming and hurricanes.
Last year Nasa's top climate scientist, James Hansen, reported that his bosses were trying to censor his lectures, papers and web postings. He was told by Nasa's PR officials that there would be "dire consequences" if he continued to call for rapid reductions in greenhouse gases.
Last month, the Alaskan branch of the US fish and wildlife service told its scientists that anyone travelling to the Arctic must understand "the administration's position on climate change, polar bears, and sea ice and will not be speaking on or responding to these issues".
At hearings in the US Congress three weeks ago, Philip Cooney, a former White House aide who had previously worked at the American Petroleum Institute, admitted he had made hundreds of changes to government reports about climate change on behalf of the Bush administration. Though not a scientist, he had struck out evidence that glaciers were retreating and inserted phrases suggesting that there was serious scientific doubt about global warming.
The guardians of free speech in Britain aren't above attempting a little suppression, either. The Guardian and I have now received several letters from the climate sceptic Viscount Monckton threatening us with libel proceedings after I challenged his claims about climate science. On two of these occasions he has demanded that articles are removed from the internet. Monckton is the man who wrote to Senators Rockefeller and Snowe, claiming that their letter to ExxonMobil offends the corporation's "right of free speech".
After Martin Durkin's film was broadcast, one of the scientists it featured, Professor Carl Wunsch, complained that his views on climate change had been misrepresented. He says he has received a legal letter from Durkin's production company, Wag TV, threatening to sue him for defamation unless he agrees to make a public statement that he was neither misrepresented nor misled.
Would it be terribly impolite to suggest that when such people complain of censorship, a certain amount of projection is taking place?
2007-04-10 19:31:48 EST
> There is climate change censorship - and it's the deniers who dish it out
There are far more accounts of people seeing leprechauns... -- Lesley, aka "pearl," 10 April 2007
Adulterer McCain Shitbag
2007-04-10 22:46:35 EST
On Apr 10, 4:31 pm, chico <n...@friggin.way> wrote: > pearl wrote: > > There is climate change censorship - and it's the deniers who dish it out
This website is posted by federal court order and contains nothing that was not evidence used in trials. At the trials lawyers had opportunity of due process of law to object and exclude evidence -- these are the ones that were not excluded.
It confirms the activist website which merely quotes public knowledge.
#596 - A New Disinformation Campaign, April 30, 1998
A new study concludes that this has been the warmest century in 600 years, and that the hottest years during this century have been 1990, 1995, and 1997.[1,2] This is further evidence that global warming is upon us, and that humans are contributing to it by burning coal and oil. (See REHW #430, #466.) "Our conclusion was that the warming of the past few decades appears to be closely tied to emission of greenhouse gases by humans and not [by] any of the natural factors," say Michael E. Mann, principal author of the new study.
The global temperature varies as time passes because of natural changes in sunlight reaching the Earth, dust from volcanoes (which reflects sunlight back into space), and changing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
So-called greenhouse gases (mainly carbon dioxide [CO2], but also methane and a few others that are less important) allow sunlight to strike the Earth but don't allow heat to escape back into space as readily, thus trapping heat near the surface, just as the glass roof on a greenhouse does. Scientists have recognized the existence of this "greenhouse effect" for about 100 years and they know that, sooner or later, increasing the amount of "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere must warm the planet. Thus scientists don't debate whether greenhouse gases will cause global warming. They debate when it will be noticeable, how big the warming will be, and what its consequences might be.
During the past 100 years, humans burning coal and oil have increased the atmosphere's concentration of carbon dioxide [CO2] --the main greenhouse gas --by 25%, and the concentration is still rising.
Actual temperature measurements only go back about 150 years, so temperatures earlier than that must be inferred from tree rings, corals and fossils in the oceans, deposits left by glaciers, the chemical composition of ancient ice at the poles, and fossilized pollen found in lake sediments. The new study, published in the British journal NATURE, uses many of these techniques to reconstruct the Earth's temperature back to the year 1400 A.D.
The new study bolsters the consensus reached in 1996 by an overwhelming majority of the world's climatologists, that (a) global warming is probably noticeable now; and (b) human activities are probably contributing to the rise in the planet's average temperature. That consensus conclusion was published in the second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is an office of the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization.
For their part, the coal and oil corporations are not taking this scientific consensus lying down. They are fighting back with a multi- million dollar public relations plan that was recently leaked to the NEW YORK TIMES. These corporations stand to lose by the global climate-change agreement reached last December 11 in Kyoto, Japan. The Kyoto agreement binds the U.S. to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions to 7% below 1990 levels by the period 2008-2012. For a country like the U.S., which has steadily rising emissions, the Kyoto agreement will require cuts as great as 30% to 35% below where emissions would otherwise be by the year 2012. (See REHW #577.)
In an attempt to undermine the Kyoto agreement, the energy corporations plan "to recruit a cadre of scientists who share the industry's views of climate science and to train them in public relations so they can help convince journalists, politicians, and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify controls on greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide that trap the sun's heat near Earth." The plan is being spearheaded by Joe Walker, a public relations representative of the American Petroleum Institute.
The scientific talent for the public relations campaign is being recruited by Frederick Seitz, who is a physicist, not a climatologist, but who has an impressive scientific resume as former president of the American Physical Society, former president of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and president emeritus of Rockefeller University. Dr. Seitz is also distinguished by being one of the last remaining scientists who insist that humans have not altered the stratospheric ozone layer, despite an overwhelming body of evidence to the contrary. He is currently associated with two libertarian think tanks, the George C. Marshall Institute and the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (see www.marshall.org, www.tassc.org, and www.junkscience.com).
Dr. Seitz injected himself into the climate debate forcefully by attacking the IPCC just days after publication of the IPCC's consensus conclusion that humans were probably contributing to global warming. Writing in the WALL STREET JOURNAL June 12, 1996, Dr. Seitz called the IPCC report a "major deception on global warming." He accused IPCC scientists of the most "disturbing corruption of the peer-review process" that he had ever witnessed. And he accused one particular scientist, Benjamin Santer, of having made "unauthorized changes" to the IPCC report for political purposes. It turned out that Seitz had not attended any of the IPCC meetings, and he had not contacted Santer to find out whether the changes to the IPCC document were "authorized" or not. It also turned out that all of Seitz's charges were wrong -- the IPCC report had been peer-reviewed by roughly one thousand qualified scientists and all of the writing in the final report was fully authorized.
Dr. Seitz and his associates at the George C. Marshall Institute are now preparing to release a petition that they reportedly sent to "virtually every scientist in every field" in the U.S. There are 10 million people with undergraduate degrees in science in the U.S., and half a million with science Ph.D.s. Of these, 15,000 science graduates and 6000 with Ph.D. degrees have reportedly signed the petition, which rejects the Kyoto agreement and argues that increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will benefit the planet. The mass mailing to scientists included a copy of an article formatted to look as if it had been published in the prestigious, peer-reviewed journal PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. It was not. The article, which had been neither peer-reviewed nor published, argued that the release of more carbon dioxide "will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people." The Union of Concerned Scientists (www.ucsusa.org) has branded the exercise "a deliberate attempt to deceive the scientific community with misinformation on the subject of climate change."
According to the NEW YORK TIMES, the energy corporations plan to spend $5 million over the next two years to "maximize the impact of scientific views consistent with ours on Congress, the media, and other key audiences." Their plan calls for spending $600,000 (not including costs of advertising) on a media campaign to influence science writers, editors, columnists, and TV network correspondents using as many as 20 "respected climate scientists" recruited specifically "to inject credible science and scientific accountability into the climate science debate, thereby raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom.'" The energy corporations say they intend to provide "a one-stop resource for members of Congress, the media industry, and all others concerned."
This latest plan to "educate" Americans about global warming will be paid for by Exxon, Chevron, and other supporters of the American Petroleum Institute. Previous similar attempts in recent years have been funded by Exxon, Shell Oil, Unocal, ARCO, the British Coal Corporation, the German Coal Mining Association, and Cyprus Minerals, a western mining company that is the single biggest funder of the so- called Wise Use anti-environmental movement in the U.S.
Who knows? With enough money, it may be possible to convince Congress and the media that global warming is not happening, despite the evidence, which is considerable (see REHW #430, #466):
** Average global air temperatures have risen this century.
** The oceans have warmed this century;
** The level of the oceans has been rising this century because water expands as it warms;
** Many glaciers have shrunk this century in response to warming;
** Plants are moving upward on mountainsides as temperatures rise;
** Rainfall --particularly torrential rainfall --has been increasing this century as global warming has put more water vapor into the air;
** Floods are increasing because of more rainfall;
** In England, where climatic records reach back several hundred years, spring has been arriving earlier in recent decades;
** The IPCC and the World Health Organization say that global warming is expanding the range of mosquitoes that carry malaria, yellow fever, and dengue fever, a trend that will put millions of additional humans at risk from these diseases. (See REHW #466.)
** Computer models predict that global warming will be accompanied by more storms and more intense storms, and, in fact, this has been happening. To protect itself the U.S. insurance industry in 1996 stopped insuring certain storm-prone areas on the eastern seaboard and along the Gulf coast.
Already severe storms are hurting people in California, Alabama, the upper midwest, and New England, to mention only U.S. locations where extreme weather events have struck in recent months. Real people are suffering. Affected individuals, and all taxpayers, are paying large costs. If the world scientific consensus is correct, this will continue until our use of coal and oil is cut by 60% or 70% and the atmosphere can stabilize again. At present there is no possibility -- none--of achieving such drastic cuts because the oil and coal companies are too powerful.
Global warming is the most important problem we face because it has the potential to disrupt every part of the global ecosystem. It is also the most important because it promises to reveal the fundamental flaws in the permissive way we treat corporations: (1) we give them the free- speech protections of the Bill of Rights, allowing them to spend millions on disinformation campaigns aimed at maintaining a harmful status quo. And (2) we allow them to manipulate our most basic democratic institutions by pumping millions of dollars into election campaigns. It seems clear that if we are to solve the global warming problem, these two practices will have to change.
--Peter Montague (National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO)
 William K. Stevens, "New Evidence Finds This is the Warmest Century in 600 years," NEW YORK TIMES April 28, 1998, pg. C3.
 Michael E. Mann and others, "Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries," NATURE Vol. 392 (April 23, 1998), pgs. 779-787. See also, Gabriele Hegerl, "The past as a guide to the future," NATURE Vol. 392 (April 23, 1998), pgs. 758-759.
 J.J. Houghton and others, editors, CLIMATE CHANGE 1995: THE SCIENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996).
 John H. Cushman, Jr., "Industrial Group Plans to Battle Climate Treaty," NEW YORK TIMES April 26, 1998, pgs. A1, A24.
 Paul N. Edwards and Stephen H. Schneider, "The 1995 IPCC Report: Broad Consensus or 'Scientific Cleansing,' ECOFABLES/ECOSCIENCE No. 1 (Fall 1997), pgs. 3-9. ECOFABLES/ECOSCIENCE is published by the Center for Conservation Biology, Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-5020. E-mail: e*.@bing.stanford.edu; telephone (415) 723-5924; fax: (415) 723- 5920.
 Colin Macilwain, "Petition strengthens hand of global warming skeptics," NATURE Vol. 392 (April 16, 1998), pg. 639.
 Ross Gelbspan, "Hot Air on Global Warming; Science and Academia in the Service of the Fossil Fuel Industry," MULTINATIONAL MONITOR Vol. 18, No. 11 (November 1997), pgs. 14-17.
 Joseph B. Treaster, "Insurer Curbing Sales of Policies in Storm Areas," NEW YORK TIMES October 10, 1996, pgs. A1, D6.
"chico" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message news:email@example.com... > pearl wrote: > > > There is climate change censorship - and it's the deniers who dish it out > > There are far more accounts of people seeing leprechauns... > -- Lesley, aka "pearl," 10 April 2007
Yep - in Irish mythology.
Typical and predictable ad hominem diversion by the usual suspects.
2007-04-11 12:36:47 EST
pearl wrote: > "chico" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message news:email@example.com... >> pearl wrote: >> >>> There is climate change censorship - and it's the deniers who dish it out >> There are far more accounts of people seeing leprechauns... >> -- Lesley, aka "pearl," 10 April 2007 > > Yep - in Irish mythology.
What part of MYTHology do you not comprehend, foot masseuse? People don't see leprechauns, dope.
> Typical and predictable ad hominem diversion by the usual suspects.
It's not ad hominem, it's the truth: you're so feeble-minded that you believe in and (try to) defend totally irrational BS. Moreover, you think you have some kind of upperhand against your opponents when you do that. You're a ranting nutjob.
2007-04-11 13:56:04 EST
"chico" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message news:email@example.com... > pearl wrote: > > "chico" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message news:email@example.com... > >> pearl wrote: > >> > >>> There is climate change censorship - and it's the deniers who dish it out > >> There are far more accounts of people seeing leprechauns... > >> -- Lesley, aka "pearl," 10 April 2007 > > > > Yep - in Irish mythology. > > What part of MYTHology do you not comprehend, foot masseuse? People > don't see leprechauns, dope.
They do in Irish mythology, liar.
> > Typical and predictable ad hominem diversion by the usual suspects. > > It's not ad hominem, it's the truth: you're so feeble-minded that you > believe in and (try to) defend totally irrational BS. Moreover, you > think you have some kind of upperhand against your opponents when you do > that. You're a ranting nutjob.
'Bullies project their inadequacies, shortcomings, behaviours etc on to other people to avoid facing up to their inadequacy and doing something about it (learning about oneself can be painful), and to distract and divert attention away from themselves and their inadequacies. Projection is achieved through blame, criticism and allegation; once you realise this, every criticism, allegation etc that the bully makes about their target is actually an admission or revelation about themselves.'
The Socialised Psychopath or Sociopath http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm
2007-04-11 17:13:47 EST
pearl wrote: > "chico" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message news:email@example.com... >> pearl wrote: >>> "chico" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message news:email@example.com... >>>> pearl wrote: >>>> >>>>> There is climate change censorship - and it's the deniers who dish it out >>>> There are far more accounts of people seeing leprechauns... >>>> -- Lesley, aka "pearl," 10 April 2007 >>> Yep - in Irish mythology. >> What part of MYTHology do you not comprehend, foot masseuse? People >> don't see leprechauns, dope. > > They do in Irish mythology
No, they don't. Leprechauns are fictional characters.
>>> Typical and predictable ad hominem diversion by the usual suspects. >> It's not ad hominem, it's the truth: you're so feeble-minded that you >> believe in and (try to) defend totally irrational BS. Moreover, you >> think you have some kind of upperhand against your opponents when you do >> that. You're a ranting nutjob.
You *are* feeble-minded, you *are* a ranting nutjob, you *do* believe you have an upperhand against those of us who don't believe in the cure-all powers of foot massage, of inner earth beings, or of leprechauns.
2007-04-12 07:51:06 EST
A Terrifying Truth - growth & global warming
April 11, 2007 by CommonDreams.org
A Terrifying Truth
by Dave Lindorff http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/11/444/
It wasn't too long that the death of socialism, the triumph of capitalism and the end of history were being widely hailed.
What a different a few years and a few fractions of a degree in world temperature change makes!
We may still be contemplating the end of history, but of a different sort. It is suddenly becoming painfully obvious that the pursuit of profit and the philosophy of growth for growth's sake and of dog eat dog is about to kill us all off.
Now that it has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the earth is headed for a global heat wave the likes of which hasn't been seen in hundreds of thousands and perhaps tens of millions of years-the kind of killing heat that in the past has led to mass extinctions-it is ludicrous to talk about things like carbon trading and raising vehicle mileage standards.
We need a revolution in the way we human beings live and the way we treat each other.
There is no way that the world's 6.5 billion people-and especially the 2 billion of them who live in wealthier societies-can continue to consume energy at even close to the level that we have been consuming it. There is no way we in the developed world can continue to live the way we have been living, in oversized houses, heated in winter and cooled in summer. There is no way in the northern hemisphere we can continue to have teakwood or mahogany-floored living rooms and eat strawberries in December.
There is no way that we can continue to squander trillions of dollars on war and military spending every year.
No way, that is, if we plan on leaving a livable world for our children and grandchildren.
The so-called "green" politicians who talk about instituting carbon- trading schemes, about driving hybrid automobiles, about buying fluorescent light bulbs, and about turning down the thermostat and wearing sweaters, are deceiving us or themselves.
None of this is going to save us.
What will save us is recognizing that the age of consumer-driven capitalism is over.
We either come up with a new way to organize society, in which production is based upon real needs, not upon manufactured needs, and in which scarce resources are made available to those who need them, not just to those who can afford them, or we will all be doomed- or at least our progeny.
The peoples of the world-especially of the developed world, but really everywhere-need to recognize that unless our expectations are changed, unless our selfish desire for more is curbed, unless wasteful production is ended, we are all likely to be on that extinction list.
So where are the leaders of boldness and vision in politics, media and academia who are ready to tell the truth? Where are the people who are willing to listen to, and reward that truthtelling?
This is not an "inconvenient" truth we need to confront. It's a terrifying truth.
We need to change everything, and we need to do it quickly, too.
Here in America, that means an end to subsidies for suburban sprawl. There should be no more federal or state funds for road building and road repair. If people want to live miles away from where they work, let them pave their own roads. That's the only way to get people to realize they're going to have to start supporting funding for mass transit, and to start thinking about living near where they work. We need to end subsidies for agribusiness, which has virtually decimated local agriculture to the point that prime farm states like Pennsylvania and New Jersey now import all their food from the West Coast. Ridiculous!
We need to levy a massive tax on gasoline, so that no one will buy cars, and so that those who have them will drive them only rarely. Large, heavy vehicles for personal use should be outright banned. Trucks too should be heavily taxed, so that products will reflect the true cost of the environmental damage that shipping them around causes.
Electricity and home heating fuels should also be heavily taxed, with some kind of a rebate program for low-income families, so that people will stop heating and cooling large homes.
As these things are done, there clearly will be massive dislocation. People who live in hot climes like Florida or Arizona will no doubt decide they can't afford to cool their homes, and will move north. People in cold regions may decide it's too expensive to heat their homes and will move to more temperate zones. Companies like the Detroit automakers will go bust or shrink enormously. Power plants will be shut down. Oil companies will go bankrupt.
That all has to happen, but it doesn't mean people have to starve. We as a society need to demand a government that will help those who are displaced by the crisis to relocate and to find new productive ways to earn a living. A huge government program of investment in alternative energy systems would be able to hire many of those whose jobs are lost by the shutdown of the carbon economy.
A new ethos needs to be developed. Conspicuous consumption, egoism and the so-called "American Dream" of having it all for one's self and one's family need to be replaced with a new-actually a very old-concept: communalism.
Instead of thinking of ourselves as consumers and competitive free agents, we need to start thinking of ourselves as passengers on a boat that is sinking. If we all run for the lifeboats and life preservers and fight to see who can be saved, the life vests will be torn and ruined and the lifeboats will fall into the sea and sink. In the end, we'll all go down. If, on the other hand, we change tack, recognize that we're all in this together, and make orderly plans to save ourselves collectively, we may all be able to get away.
To succeed, we need to acknowledge that everyone is at risk, everyone is contributing to the common goal of survival, and everyone will be taken care of.
The same approach needs to be taken in the larger world. If the poorer nations believe that they are going to be abandoned to catastrophe and famine, they will do two things: continue to try and survive by the old strategies of wasteful energy use and environmental destruction, and of mass migration to safer havens. The first response-for example the continued destruction and burning down of rainforests for wood and cropland and ethanol feedstocks-will threaten us all with ever worsening global warming. The second will lead to overcrowding of more fortunately situated nations, and a drain on their resources.
The only answer is again for all the wealthy nations, and those that are better situated by geography to survive climate change, to commit themselves to helping the more threatened nations and societies. This is not a matter of altruism; it is the simple logic of survival.
But before we can start making the huge changes that are called for-really the dismantling of the whole capitalist system and the freemarket ethos- we need to start hearing, and demanding to hear, the truth-from scientists, from politicians, from business leaders, from the media, and ultimately from ourselves.
For starters, let's stop kidding ourselves that the latest UN report on climate change is the real story. That report, ominous as it sounds, doesn't tell the half of it. The report was first watered down by the scientists who reviewed it, and then it was censored by the governments that feared its findings. For one thing, it didn't even mention that all the projections for warming during this century don't even take into consideration the role that hundreds of billions of tons of methane gas underlying the Arctic and Antarctic permafrost and trillions of tons of methane lying in the form of frozen hydrates deep under the ocean could play if that super global warming gas should start pouring out into the atmosphere.
We are in a situation where it is wholly inappropriate to act on optimistic assumptions. Rather, we need to consider worst-case scenarios, and start planning and acting with those in mind. That means, for example, that to keep that methane fiasco from occurring, we don't want the permafrost to go away in the polar regions, we don't want the oceans to warm precipitously and we don't want the ice caps to melt away. That means we have to act much more dramatically than just worrying about coastal erosion and lowered crop yields might lead us to do.
This is a crisis that isn't going away. It is a crisis that isn't going to be solved with band-aids. It is a crisis that isn't going to be solved by smooth talk. And it is a crisis that will get worse the longer we take to recognize its true gravity, and the longer we take to face up to the revolution that needs to take place if we are to prevent it.
And that is the truth.
Dave Lindorff is a Philadelphia-based investigative journalist and columnist whose work is available at http://www.thiscantbehappening.net and www.counterpunch.org.
His latest book, co-authored by Barbara Olshansky, is "The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office (St. Martin's Press, 2006). http://www.amazon.com/dp/0312360169?tag=commondreams-20/ref=nosim
His home will be submerged when the Greenland icecap melts.
2007-04-12 07:51:57 EST
Eat Veggies, Help World April 3, 2007 MICHAEL F. JACOBSON
So you're using the air conditioner a bit less and you replaced your old light bulbs with high-efficiency ones. Perhaps you've traded in the Hummer for a Prius or, better yet, are giving public transportation a spin. Those steps, big and small, will all help slow down global warming and otherwise be helpful to the environment.
Stick with `em.
But if you want to help even more, consider that you have three more opportunities every single day to do something for your planet: breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
Americans eat more than a billion pounds of food each day. To churn out the grains, meat and poultry, and fruits and vegetables that feed the country, our agricultural system consumes enormous quantities of fuel, fertilizers, water and pesticides and enormous tracts of erodible land.
But much of those resources aren't feeding us directly - they're producing the feed for the animals we eat, a terribly inefficient process that wastes nonrenewable resources. Many of the 100 million acres of land and 17 trillion gallons of irrigation water used to grow animal feed could be put to more productive uses - or not used.
The energy used just to produce fertilizer for feed crops could instead be used to fuel 1 million homes. Reducing the use of fertilizer to grow corn in the Midwest would bring aquatic life back to the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, where there is now a New Jersey-size dead zone.
Besides squandering resources going into animals, consider what we get out of them. For starters, there's methane, a greenhouse gas 23 times more conducive to global warming than carbon dioxide. The methane produced by belching cattle and giant lagoons of hog manure has the same impact on global warming as the carbon dioxide produced by 33 million automobiles.
The standard American diet, relatively high in meat and dairy, might as well be called the Global Warming Diet. Making even small changes can add up, as you can see on calculators available at www.EatingGreen.org. Replacing one hamburger, one egg and a 1-ounce serving of cheese each day for a year with a mix of vegetables, fruit, beans and whole grains would spare the need for 1.8 acres of cropland, 40 pounds of fertilizer, and 3 ounces of pesticides. It also would mean dumping 11,400 fewer pounds of animal manure into the environment.
Another benefit of eating fewer animal products is that fewer animals will need to be raised. Most livestock today suffer miserably when they are crammed together in small crowded cages, huge crowded sheds or filthy crowded feedlots.
If altruism isn't reason enough to eat a "greener" diet, consider the selfish reasons to switch from burgers and bacon to cantaloupe and carrots. Vegetarians and others who eat more-plant-based diets are healthier than the rest of us. They have much lower rates of obesity, heart attacks, strokes and diabetes. Eliminating all the fats from beef, pork, poultry and dairy foods from Americans' diets would save about 65,000 lives a year. And adding lots of plant foods would make arteries more flexible and reduce rates of cancer.
The government's Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends we eat more plant-based diets, but the it hasn't adopted supportive policies. The government gives corn farmers several billion dollars a year to provide cheap feed for livestock and cheap high-fructose corn syrup for soda makers.
Why not direct those billions to putting more fresh fruits and vegetables on the lunch trays of America's school kids? Also, the U.S. Department of Agriculture encourages the consumption of beef, pork, dairy and eggs. Why not do that for whole wheat bread and broccoli instead?
A greener diet won't stop all the glaciers from melting, but it protects hearts, cuts air and water pollution, and reduces animal suffering. Quite a bargain from eating delicious meals.
Michael F. Jacobson is executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington. This was distributed by McClatchy- Tribune Information Services.
"chico" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message news:email@example.com... > pearl wrote: > > "chico" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message news:email@example.com... > >> pearl wrote: > >>> "chico" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message news:email@example.com... > >>>> pearl wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> There is climate change censorship - and it's the deniers who dish it out > >>>> There are far more accounts of people seeing leprechauns... > >>>> -- Lesley, aka "pearl," 10 April 2007 > >>> Yep - in Irish mythology. > >> What part of MYTHology do you not comprehend, foot masseuse? People > >> don't see leprechauns, dope. > > > > They do in Irish mythology > > No, they don't. Leprechauns are fictional characters. > > >>> Typical and predictable ad hominem diversion by the usual suspects.
> >> It's not ad hominem, it's the truth: you're so feeble-minded that you > >> believe in and (try to) defend totally irrational BS. Moreover, you > >> think you have some kind of upperhand against your opponents when you do > >> that. You're a ranting nutjob. > > You *are* feeble-minded, you *are* a ranting nutjob, you *do* believe > you have an upperhand against those of us who don't believe in the > cure-all powers of foot massage, of inner earth beings, or of leprechauns.
Another of your fave hot topics would be more appropriate in this thread - chemtrails. | Check what these insane, evil ba$tards are at....
'Chemtrail Sunscreen Taught In US Schools by William Thomas
A is for Apple. B is for Boy. C is for Chemtrails.
At least this is what one American father found while paging through his child's science book. SmT was astonished to find seventh graders being taught about chemtrails. And geoengineeering their home planet.
Anyone with question about the "spray programs" he now says, "should perhaps just ask their kids."
The chemtrails section is found in the Centre Point Learning Science I Essential Interactions science book. Under "Solutions for Global Warming", section 5.19 features a photo of a big multi-engine jet sporting a familiar orange/red paint scheme.
The caption reads: "Figure 1- Jet engines running on richer fuel would add particles to the atmosphere to create a sunscreen".
The logo on the plane says: "Particle Air".
"I kid you not," SmT insists. "Why did I spend all of that time doing research when I could have just asked my kids?"
Helping habituate children to a life under lethal sunshine and "protective" spray planes, this trippy textbook urges young readers to "Use Sun Block". But its authors are referring to a sunscreen spread across the sky.
"Could we deliberately add particles to the atmosphere?" asks the text, before helpfully suggesting that "Burning coal adds soot to the air."
You might be old enough to recoil at such a notion. But in a country where down is up and wrong is right, your kids could be learning that what used to be bad and a bummer is a now good thing!
RUNNING ON EMPTY
"Be real interesting to see the politics of the folks putting this out." SmT suggests.
In the current White House, those politics are as "crude" as invading oil-rich Iraq over a bogus nuclear threat - while permitting Pakistan to export atom bomb materials to terrorist organizations in return for the chance at an election-boosting capture of Osama bin Laden by US forces in the Hindu Kush later this month. [New Yorker Mar1/04]
Why shouldn't the same petrol politics produce textbooks for children inheriting a nightmare? Led by a piggish petroleum president, with most major nations cutting back, US oil consumption is rising as steeply as supplies of cheap crude are collapsing.
The coal connection is this: In order to briefly "stretch the glide" of the fast-looming end of cheap oil that will utterly transform life as we know it, America's unelected oil president recently revoked pollution regulations on more than 2,000 of the nation's biggest polluting coal-fired power plants.
Ironically, this move - like so many others made by an oil-addled White House - will only hasten an Earthwreck as shattering to all onboard as a lurching square-rigger striking a rocky reef. Except our spaceship is surrounded by the cold, irradiated vacuum of deep space.
It turns out that a single 150-megawatt coal-burning power plant produces more emissions than 300,000 cars. Termed an "Extreme Human health Hazard" by the EPA, microscopic coal particles also rot lungs, stop hearts, kill lakes, choke cities - and stunt the lives of school kids with deadly sulphuric acid rain. [AP Aug27/03; LA Times Aug28/03]
Airborne soot also blocks sunlight, lowering greenhouse temperatures. Volcanic eruptions like Krakatoa and Pinatubo - and globe-circling soot from 1,000 burning oil wells during Desert Storm - belched enough sulphur into the stratosphere to cause a plunge in world temperatures, temporarily slowing global warming.
World scientists looking at deliberately putting megatons more sulphur into a closed, recirculating atmosphere already smoggy enough to depresses orbiting astronauts, decided that a sulphur sunscreen is not a swift idea.
But not this Jr. High science text. "Creating either kind of sunscreen would be cheap," it tells young readers. As if "cheap" is the only consideration.
Even this claim is bogus. SmT says he looked, but the section on the downstream costs associated with the health and environmental effects of massive coal pollution - or the 10 million tons of a chemical sunscreen suggested by the late Edward Teller - "seemed to have been left out."
Ditto "the cost to the solar industry". Or cumulative impacts on kids, critters and plants on which our future depends.
Sunlight is already on the way out. Repeatedly expressing shock at how quickly our space colony's life-support systems are failing, scientists are finding levels of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface decreasing by almost 3% a decade.
"Global Dimming" is too small to detect with the eye. "But it has implications for everything from climate change to solar power and even the future sustainability of plant photosynthesis," reports the Guardian.
All those jet-propelled vacations and car trips to the corner store add up. Since 1960, 10% less sunlight has reached Earth's inhabitants. Levels of solar radiation reaching parts of the former coal-belching Soviet Union are down almost 20%.
In any greenhouse, the rule of a green thumb is that every 1% decrease in solar radiation results in a 1% drop in plant productivity.
"It's actually quite a big deal," says Graham Farquhar, a climate scientist at the Australian National University in Canberra. But get this: Farquhar doesn't think that identified pollutants, "by themselves would be able to produce this amount of global dimming." [Guardian Dec18/03]
The baffled Aussie should check out the role of contrails in turning off sunlight. Since the Jet Age took off in the 1960s, normal condensation trails from five million jet flights every year have been found to block 10% of sunlight across Europe and the USA. Over heavily trafficked Atlantic and American air-routes, artificial cloud cover caused by jet engine pollutants has increased 20%. [Chemtrails Confirmed '04]
Chemtrails are another major sunblock. Measurements taken with a calibrated photometer by Clifford Carnicom in Santa Fe show a rapid reduction in sunlight - from a value of 97% on a "clear day" to around 80% during the early stages of heavy chemtrailing. Using a simple UV radiation meter, this reporter has confirmed similar drops in sunlight beneath artificial "chemcasts" on Canada's west coast.
WHAT JANE AND DICK DIDN'T LEARN IN SCHOOL TODAY
In a country whose self-appointed regime routinely censors scientific studies, at least some 7th grade science are more focused on indoctrinating kids with risky techno "quick-fixes" than conscious conservation and common sense.
Forget science. SmT gazed in disbelief at another schoolbook picture showing a helicopter seeding the ocean with iron particles. These desperate "IronX" experiments did indeed trigger plankton "blooms" that, in turn, transferred tons of atmospheric C02 underwater as those carbon-inhaling critters eventually died and sank to the seafloor.
But - oops! - his kid's science book fails to mention that the resulting ocean blooms also sucked all available oxygen from the seawater, suffocating all marine life in massive, spreading "dead zones". [Chemtrails Confirmed '04]
Where are the picture, SmT wonders, "of people planting trees, or turning down thermostats, or bicycling, or any of the other ways not to add to the problem?"
Though his family gave up the idea of home schooling, he says, "it's perhaps time to reconsider."
Perhaps it's also time to reconsider state-sponsored brainwashing. And other escalating consequences of our carbon addiction, as well.