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

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)

2007-04-10 19:28:57 EST

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,,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

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
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

<snip moonbat-tery>

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

A New Disinformation Campaign, April 30, 1998

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.

TASSC "Global Warming"

TASSC "Singer, F."

"Fred Singer"

"Fred Seitz"

TASSC "Seitz, F"

TASSC "Lindzen, R"

"Richard Lindzen"

TASSC Milloy

TASSC Fumento

"Michael Fumento"

TASSC "Michaels, P"

"Patrick J. Michaels"

"Patrick Michaels"

"Science & Environmental Policy Project"

A New Disinformation Campaign, April 30, 1998

#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.[1]

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.[2]

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),[3]
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.[4] 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."[4] 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,, and

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.[5]

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.[6] 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
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 ( 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.[7]

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.[8]

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)


[1] William K. Stevens, "New Evidence Finds This is the Warmest
Century in 600 years," NEW YORK TIMES April 28, 1998, pg. C3.

[2] 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.

[3] J.J. Houghton and others, editors, CLIMATE CHANGE 1995: THE
SCIENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press,

[4] John H. Cushman, Jr., "Industrial Group Plans to Battle Climate
Treaty," NEW YORK TIMES April 26, 1998, pgs. A1, A24.

[5] 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*; telephone (415) 723-5924; fax: (415) 723-

[6] Colin Macilwain, "Petition strengthens hand of global warming
skeptics," NATURE Vol. 392 (April 16, 1998), pg. 639.

[7] 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.

[8] Joseph B. Treaster, "Insurer Curbing Sales of Policies in Storm
Areas," NEW YORK TIMES October 10, 1996, pgs. A1, D6.

Descriptor terms: global warming; greenhouse effect; corporations;
kyoto; insurance industry; libertarians; think tanks; ipcc;

2007-04-11 11:55:39 EST
"chico" <no@friggin.way> wrote in message news:461c1fd5$0$18855$
> 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" <no@friggin.way> wrote in message news:461c1fd5$0$18855$
>> 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" <no@friggin.way> wrote in message news:461d1024$0$8969$
> pearl wrote:
> > "chico" <no@friggin.way> wrote in message news:461c1fd5$0$18855$
> >> 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

2007-04-11 17:13:47 EST
pearl wrote:
> "chico" <no@friggin.way> wrote in message news:461d1024$0$8969$
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "chico" <no@friggin.way> wrote in message news:461c1fd5$0$18855$
>>>> 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

A Terrifying Truth

by Dave Lindorff

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

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

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

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:

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

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

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).

His home will be submerged when the Greenland icecap melts.

2007-04-12 07:51:57 EST

Eat Veggies, Help World
April 3, 2007

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
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.

2007-04-12 08:33:13 EST
"chico" <no@friggin.way> wrote in message news:461d5117$0$16722$
> pearl wrote:
> > "chico" <no@friggin.way> wrote in message news:461d1024$0$8969$
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "chico" <no@friggin.way> wrote in message news:461c1fd5$0$18855$
> >>>> 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!


"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.


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.

Centrepoint Science 1 textbook

Chemtrails News NBC - Los Angeles

Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)

2020 - | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron