This is all DEAD END Armageddon hysteria, and im not buying it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

On Friday, Bush gave a speech defending his troop surge plan. Midway through the talk, he flashed a detailed map of Baghdad on a large TV screen showing the location of 24 U.S. military "outposts" in the city. The information was an intelligence windfall for the insurgents and Al Qaeda, which points out we can't win in Iraq -- incompetent White House leadership.

Global warming is important but it can wait. Let's talk about why our kids are losing their lives and limbs in Iraq and what we can do to stop it.

Hugh E. Scott, editor of King-George.biz -- the only website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption. AlterNet readers who object to my NON-PROFIT campaign to expose President Bush as a lying crook can email me through the website rather than comment here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why no mention of nuclear power even though it is a very real element of this whole issue? Let's face it. A world without nuclear power and extensive damming in the future is going to be a fantasy. I want my national parks, but I also want to eat meat and be able travel to wherever I want in a 50 mile radius in less than an hour. Heavy industry generates happiness by maintaining our advanced level of civilisation and technological progress which is what people want. By all means criticise the very real dangers of safely disposing of plutonium and meltdowns, but we should not scrap nuclear power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Reduces Air and Water Pollution: Replacing a single incandescent bulb with a CFL will keep a half-ton of CO2 out of the atmosphere over the life of the bulb. If everyone in the U.S. used energy-efficient lighting, we could retire 90 average size power plants. Saving electricity reduces CO2 emissions, sulfur oxide and high-level nuclear waste.

Efficient: CFL's are four times more efficient and last up to 10 times longer than incandescents. A 22 watt CFL has about the same light output as a 100 watt incandescent. CFL's use 50 - 80% less energy than incandescents.

Less Expensive: Although initially more expensive, you save money in the long run because CFL's use 1/3 the electricity and last up to 10 times as long as incandescents. A single 18 watt CFL used in place of a 75 watt incandescent will save about 570 kWh over its lifetime. At 8 cents per kWh, that equates to a $45 savings.

High-Quality Light: Newer CFL's give a warm, inviting light instead of the "cool white" light of older fluorescents. They use rare earth phosphors for excellent color and warmth. New electronically ballasted CFL's don't flicker or hum.

Versatile: CFL's can be applied nearly anywhere that incandescent lights are used.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The bible says after 7 years of tribulation the world will end! So there! nothing to do but accept the truth and move on. Time is run out 7 years of the Bush Administration the word of god has been fulfilled the world has suffered tribulation and the break down of human rights, law and order plus the corruption of the laws of nature that cannot be restored. I do have a few private cabins left open on the mother ship; anyone interested please write down in 20 words or less why you would like to be one of chosen on the back of a $50 bill and send it to me.
AlienSlave

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The global economy needs to shift to solar, wind, geothermal, hydro power. Not only for our health and our planet's health, but also because a de-centralized free energy economy will liberate developing nations from being dominated by oil grabbing developed nations and their massive militaries.

What is holding this back? The endless War on Terror. This endless war is based on the lies of 9/11.

To liberate the global consciousness from false prioritizing, we must expose the lies of 9/11 by demanding in mass a new fully independent 9/11 investigation free of Bush Admin control (like the last one was. ie Philip Zelikow).

Nearly 100 high level military and intelligence experts now say we've been lied to, many stating outright the facts of 9/11 point to "inside job at the highest echelons of the US govt." See: PatriotsQuestion911.org

Also view by googling "9/11 Mysteries" a full free documentary on 9/11 that will set your hair of fire. Share it with all you know.

Lastly, go to youtube and search "BBC WTC 7 9/11" and learn that the BBC had foreknowledge of the collapse of Building 7, the Soloman Brothers Building.

By exposing the lies of 9/11, . . . the endless war on terror goes away. American wake up for their militaristic fear based trance, and we can return to the real work needed for human progress.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It may already be too late. It may help if humans change their lifestyles in hopes of slowing down global climate change but I believe it is too late. Nature trumps any human laws. Terrorism by U.S. and insurgents are nothing compared to the terror of global climate change.

Watch the show.

"We are all children of the Great Spirit, we all belong to Mother Earth. Our planet is in great trouble and if we keep carrying old grudges and do not work together, we will all die." - CHIEF SEATTLE

Aimee
DataOptions.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There's no promise to spare humans. Yes, I know, some people think that humans are the mos' precious darlings of God and Gaia, but it ain't written in Natural Law.

And some think humans are "our greatest natural resource." That may be true--they are edible and renewable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...Dr. Hansen would impose on grandmothers and babies who want to do wasteful, energy-intensive things like stay warm and eat food here in the U.S. Cut the coal? Alternative?

If we imposed a higher tax penalty on fuels, then sure, you might force your average hard working low-income citizens onto a bus (where available). Therefore, we consume less...the supply goes up....prices fall...and hard-working Americans end up subsidizing econonomic expansion in other countries fueled by cheap energy (especially oil) who'll burn it without the many emissions restrictions that we place on fuels here. Make no mistake, our neighbors who can't afford black gold at $60 or $70 a barrel will drain the dregs at $25 or $30, riding the backs of ideological market tampering here at home. Allowing our neighbors to gobble up every last drop while starving Americans for energy and....well, just plain starving Americans isn't the way forward. How many farm tractors can be run on that snazzy "new" moonshine technology, after all? (Not that that's what Dr. Hansen has proposed here, thank goodness. As always, I'm just searching for reasonable alternatives.)

So, while the speaker has impeccable credentials, he needs to take a world view of energy consumption with regard to political policy. It turns out that we're not the only ones on the planet who like energy, and politicians (even bad ones) have to weigh the wants and needs of their constituency against what science suggests, as it has always been. Dr. Hansen, after all, isn't in danger of losing his job if his advice is heeded and half his state wakes up tomorrow unable to afford to get to work. I bet his senator is.

I don't know anything in our Constitution that says that the executive branch should filter scientific information going to Congressional committees.

^ Without a doubt, the most logical, best argued point in the entire article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why on earth (pun intended) would any rational person not list population control as the most pressing problem! At least China has faced up to that. We continue to SUBSIDIZE persons having more children. If the earth had half the population, it would have half as terrible problem. Put the politically unthinkable at the forefront of all global change problems!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One easy thing we can all do to help -- switch out all your light bulbs to CFL's. I've switched out throughout my house and the light's great!

Here's the cheapest source I've found for the absolute best traditionally-shaped CFL bulb out there, the MaxLite ($5.49 apiece):

http://www.okelectricsupply.com/ma13wprlasas.html

This one replaces your standard 60-watt traditional bulb. Looks practically the same so you can use them in fixtures where they're visible, great warm light, comes on immediately, no noise!

While I'm at it - www.environmentaldefense.org has two wonderful little programs.

http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagid=632
(a quick questionnaire to locate the type of CFL bulb you need, and links to buy)

http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=602
(a fun and amazing little calculator to determine how much money you save, and CO2 you keep out of the environment, by switching to CFLs throughout your home. The results are stunning.)

PLEASE -- Alternet readers -- make the CFL switch, pass along these links to your friends, and buy everybody CFL's for a weird but enlightening Christmas/Chanukkah present. :) This can make a HUGE difference!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In honor of EARTH DAY 2007, everyone is strongly encouraged to "Plug it Out", particulary between the hours of 6:30 and 10:30 pm. That means-- turning off all electrical appliances by physically unplugging everything from the walls (stand-by electricty uses enormous amounts of power). So that's right-- no TV folks, keeping the lights off (break out the candles), and treading lightly. If you can do this during the day as well, and go hang out with friends, at an ED Event, etc, even better.

Here's your chance to not vacuum, or do laundry or any sunday chores! Instead, hang out with friends, take a long ramble, have candlelit sexytime with loved ones, tell ghost stories, stare blankly, write with a pen in the dark-see
what comes out, dance around to the music in your head, or to a friend's acoustic guitar,drink wine, and
enjoy an evening without noisy distractions. and you save money, hello.

If you got the notion, PLEASE take a moment to pass this along to your friends and spread the word. It really does make a difference.

if you want to tell us about your experience, or just to confirm your participation, write to Pluggout@yahoo.com (note double g's). It will be great to hear from different people.

I hope you'll join us, EY?

And for just a couple of everyday power/cashmoney savings:

*Instead of plugging things into walls, use power strips and turn them off easily when not in use, especially when you are on Vacation. Don't leave chargers plugged in. Turn off everything, empty your fridge if you'll be
gone a while, and turn that off as well.

*Switch to Green Power. In NY Con Edison Solutions offers an easy switch to Wind Power. You pay a wee bit more, but if you use good sense (see above) you'll actually end up saving in the long run. go to:
http://www.conedsolutions.com/residentialgreenpowermain.htm

This was inspired by my awesome friend Sacha Jones who can be found at http://www.stigglynyc.com/
We hope to have a website up and running in the next couple of months encouraging regular Plug It Out days throughout the year.

Thank you all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I firmly believe, that our actions as human beings on this planet are mere reflections of our inner life and distresses. The systematic destruction of the environment that has sustained us for millilons of years, is, therefore, a clear act of rage. Justified, I might add. Human nature is complex and apparently still vastly unchartered territory. Human rights are distant dreams, much like the utopia of 'democracy' that no one yet has experienced. The development and aggressive distribution of systems, substances and technologies are showing us, just how angry we really are. Granted, some of our inventions have furthered survival of our species tremendously. Yet coming up with nonlethal ways to sustain humanity is not part of our agenda. Nondestruction will not suffice, when the rage we carry within apparently dictates our behavior despite the knowledge of its self destructive nature. We, as humans, have been profoundly violated in our birth rights. We are not being treated with love, compassion and respect. If we would have been supplied with these basic, absolute necessities, we would not dream of picking up a gun or sucking up black, sticky fluids form deep within the earth, for it incinerates so nicely. A flame, sky high, matching the fury, we harbour inside us. Yes, ladies and gentlemen: the burning of fossil fuel is an expression of our cellective rage. There is no way around that fact any longer. Our all consuming lifestyles are mirroring our desolate and devestated inner states. Where love and compassion was supposed to take a hold, mansions, ficticious luxuries and speedy transportation beyond the clouds have taken their place. No one, and I mean no one, truely wants to embrace this phenomens we refer to as being alive. Our HUMAN NATURE has been severely damaged. It is on life support and has been for quite some time now. The most common response to a devestated inner self is a sophisticated addiciton to power. Yet power can and will never be love and compassion, will never truely deliver trust. Power addiction is the direct result of deprivation in infancy and childhood. It's that simple, really. Addressing our individual origins, inspecting thoroughly the nests we were born into, is essential and more fruitful, in my opinion, than exchanging light bulbs right now. Ask yourself, why we need to hurl ourselves around with ever increasing speed. What is it truely we are trying to get away from? Without healing our inner most nature, our humanity, we will have a hard time building on new foundations, based on balance, trust and justice for all living creatures.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That's what we are doing as a species. That is, we are creating such a toxic environment that the only place to run away to is where we cannot survive. Suicide, it's called.

We are committing suicide by our own technology.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hansen bases his recommendations on false assumptions and premises. There's been a one degree rise in global temperatures? Dead Lord. How do you measure this? Since when? What is the baseline? No one would claim we can measure global temperature, except Hansen and other self-deluded people--you can only measure temperatures at different points, at certain times, and develop some average, perhaps. And there is another degree rise, he says, and yet another, he says. This man is no scientist; he's got an agenda.

This whole article is based on false premises and pseudo-scientific reasoning. Every time Alternet prints rubbish like this they diminish their credibility in other areas.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

US Government Controlled Climate Change is a method of modifying the weather, U.S. patent number 6315213 was filed November 13, 2001. This describes an alarming procedure. A Wright Patterson Air Force scientist stated at the time, that the planes are spraying barium salt, polymer fibers, aluminum oxide and other chemicals into the atmosphere to modify the weather and for military communications purposes. The patent specifically states: “The polymer is dispersed into the cloud and the wind of the storm agitates the mixture causing the polymer to absorb the rain. This reaction forms a gelatinous substance which precipitate to the surface below. Thus, diminishing the cloud’s ability to rain.” During this same time period the Saturday Review stated that a CIA report indicated that the U.S. government had the ability to massively manipulate the weather for war purposes. The jet chemtrail grid patterns now seen throughout the United States and the world are very likely this technology applied for weather modification and military purposes.
Chemtrails are not the natural contrails from the airlines.
Most of the United States has poison chemtrails overhead four days out of seven.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Space Preservation Act of 2001, introduced by Congressman Dennis Kucinich, "Chemtrails" are mentioned in House Bill HR 2977,[6] where it appears on the list of "exotic weapons system[s]" to be banned under the bill. Chemtrails were officially recognized in that bill as a weapons system. The reference to Chemtrails was omitted from later versions of the bill re-introduced by Kucinich in 2002 as HR 3616[7] and in 2003 as HR 3657.[8]

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This morning I saw an ad for a Sunday service addressing climate change and decided to email the minister to thank him. Activists are known to critizise but I urge all of you to PRAISE those who deserve it. They're more likely to hear from their critics and need the moral support.
(I did not tell him I'm an atheist who knows full well that theological 'reasons' based on 'scripture' are arbitrary as most every position can somehow be argued with biblical quotes).Here goes:

To
Trinity United Methodist Church, Denver, Colorado

Dear Rev. Dent,

I noticed your invitation for Sunday's service in the Rocky Mountain News, titled "Penguins, polar bears & people" and want to thank you for it.
First, for addressing the all-important issue of climate change in front of your congregation, and second, for advertising what you are doing to the public. People need to realize that mainline Christian churches are not buying into the right wing propaganda dished out in evangelical churches, and also that they are on firm theological ground to advocate environmental responsibility.
I will mail you a copy of a speech by an eminent climatologist, Stephen Schneider of Standford U. I filmed him at Jefferson Unitarian Church this spring. He argued that the issue of climate change very quickly leaves the terrain of science and becomes one of political judgement and values. In a nutshell, the answer to incalculable risk is insurance. When he asked the 200 people at JUC who had ever had fire damage to their home 2 people responded, a typical statistic. But when he asked who had fire insurance, all hands went up. In essence, we insure against catastrophic risks that are much less likely than the risk of catastrophic climate change which has been scientifically determined to carry a comparatively high risk. It's worth emphasizing that what is still uncertain is the degree to which climate change will affect us, not the fact that it's occurring, and action is required in any case. In addition, the measures to stabilize climate also have substantial side benefits as the world's economies shift into modes of production using renewable energy.
My wife, a science prof at the School of Mines, was very impressed with Schneider's talk because he didn't hype anything (unlike some environmentalists) and because of his focus on the need to develop policy actions in the face of situations that are not 100% certain.

Again, thanks for making a dent! (You've heard that one before...)

My Name

PS: My brother and his wife are both protestant ministers in Germany, he tells me the idea of stewardship has long since won out over the idea of man's divine mandate to subjugate earth, and that few wallow in the sado-masochist phantasies of an imminent rapture (only those converted by aggressive American missionaries, to be precise.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In his State of the Union Address this year, the Commander in Chief of the War on Terror asked the newly-elected Democrat-controlled Congress to join him "in pursuing a great goal."

... to reduce gasoline usage in the United States by 20 percent within ten years!

What’s so great about achieving that goal?

"When we do that we will have cut our total imports by the equivalent of three-quarters of all the oil we now import from the Middle East."

"To reach this goal, we must increase the supply of alternative fuels, by setting a mandatory fuels standard to require 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels in 2017."

Of course, if Bush goes ahead and does unto Iran what he did to Iraqi, our total imports of oil from the Middle East will be cut for us, by the Iranians, before Bush even leaves office, long before we achieve that goal.

Hence, Bush ought either to forego his impending War of Aggression against Iran, or ask Congress to require the production of 35 billion gallons per year of ethanol (from corn) before he leaves office.

No doubt the 110th Congress will support Bush’s impending attack on the Mullahs (and their non-existent nuclear-weapons program), especially if it means the next President can focus on assisting the "farm lobby" solve the principal remaining "threat" to our National Security (indeed, according to Al Gore, to the "survival of our civilization"): Climate Change.

The CNA Corporation has just issued a report of its Military Advisory Board entitled "National Security and the Threat of Climate Change."

"The nature and pace of climate changes being observed today and the consequences projected by the consensus scientific opinion are grave and pose equally grave implications for our national security."

According to the Board

"Climate change, national security, and energy dependence are a related set of global challenges.

"As President Bush noted in his 2007 State of the Union speech, dependence on foreign oil leaves us more vulnerable to hostile regimes and terrorists, and clean domestic energy alternatives help us confront the serious challenge of global climate change.

"Because the issues are linked, solutions to one affect the other."

The Board adopted the latest assessment of the International Panel on Climate Change.


"Carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values.

"The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in 2005 [1774 ppm] exceeds by far the natural range of the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm).

"The primary source of the increase in carbon dioxide is fossil fuel use."

So, how does the IPCC come to those conclusions?

And what are "fossil fuels"?

Well, according to Wikipedia, fossil fuels are buried combustible geologic deposits of hydrocarbon materials, formed from decayed plants and animals that have been converted to crude oil, coal, and natural gas by exposure to heat and pressure in the earth’s crust over hundreds of millions of years.

So what distinguishes such organic hydrocarbons from inorganic hydrocarbons?

Recall that isotopes are atoms that have the same chemical properties but have different physical properties. About 1.11 percent of the stable carbon atoms are C-13. The rest are C-12.

Plants take carbon dioxide out of the air and – through the process known as photosynthesis – fixate nitrogen, enabling them to eventually produce the 20 amino acids that both plants and animals need to live.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The reaction goes much faster for the C-12 isotope, so there is a C-13 deficiency in all organisms, plants and animals, living and dead.

Hence, there is a measurable C-13 deficiency in carbon dioxide that has been produced by burning something organic, like a tree, for example.

But on the basis of C-13 deficiency analysis of oil and gas found at considerable depths beneath the earth's surface, there is reason to believe fossil fuels may not be organic in origin after all.

Nobel Laureate Sir Robert Robinson, who investigated the chemistry of natural petroleum in some detail, noted that the deeper one goes into the earth's crust to find the oil reservoir, the fewer are the signs of anything biological in the oil one finds.

True, there are signs of organic activity – microbial life – in oil found near the surface. But as the depth from which the oil is obtained is increased – to the depths where microbes aren't found – the more nearly the C-13 deficit disappears.

Robinson concluded:

"Actually it cannot be too strongly emphasized that petroleum does not present the composition picture expected from modified biogenic products, and all the arguments from the constituents of ancient oils fit equally well, or better, with the conception of a primordial hydrocarbon mixture to which bio-products have been added."

Why does that matter?

Well, the measured C-13/C-12 ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere has decreased over the last 200 years by 1.5 parts per thousand. The IPCC assumes that decrease has resulted from a huge increase in additions of "organic" CO2. Since the IPCC assumes coal, oil and natural gas are "organic" hydrocarbons, the IPCC concludes that mankind is "very likely" [90% certain] to be responsible for that CO2 increase.

But, since the isotopic carbon ratios for natural gas obtained from great depths is indistinguishable from the methane ejected in volcanic eruptions, it follows that the carbon dioxide produced by burning natural gas obtained from deep reservoirs is also indistinguishable from the carbon dioxide ejected in volcanic eruptions.

Similarly, methanol produced from natural gas obtained from great depths will not have an organic C-13/C-12 ratio.

How about ethanol, produced from Iowa corn or Brazilian sugarcane?

Will that ethanol have an organic C-13/C-12 ratio? Will burning 35 billion gallons per year of that stuff contribute – according to IPCC lights – to Climate Change? Will burning all that organic ethanol contribute to our National Security problem?

You bet your sweet bippy.

http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=10848

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The biggest use of energy is in buildings, and the engineers and architects have said that they can readily reduce the energy requirement of new buildings by 50 percent.

That goal has been endorsed by the US Conference of Mayors, but you can't do it on a city-by-city basis. You need national standards.

That's the rub, right there. Nothing we as individuals do will matter unless and until addressing things like this becomes national policy. And then, and only then, will we have the moral standing to tell anyone else what they might do and how they might help.

All the rest is just feel-good stuff. Moral, yes. Effective...not so much.

And it's not only raising the cost of using CO2-generating fuels, it's absolutely vital to put a national-policy-level effort behind developing alternative power and transport systems and infrastructures. The Luddite extremists, who would have everyone become a mud-grubbing subsistence farmer, are as delusional as those who say there's nothing wrong. We don't move backwards, we move forward. Or we end right here.

Does anyone really claim life would be better if we all went back to near-medieval conditions? To never traveling more than 25 miles from home in our entire lives? Never knowing what's on "the other side"? No more culture or knowledge transmitted not only across space, but through time. No more contact with our fellows across the oceans or even on the other side of a mountain. No more vaccines. No more medical treatments of most kinds, for that matter. Break a leg someplace inopportune, you die. Want that for your kids? Great. You first...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Watch ''The Great Global Warming Swindle'' on google video.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is a simple comment about this global warming issue. What the global elite have planned will negatively affect all of us if we as citizens continue to do what we seem to do best, nothing. Global warming is occurring. However, human activity is not the cause. The global warming hysteria that has invaded the world is a global political issue. It is about control, primarily the control of the untapped natural resources of the third world. And with the newly proposed $1.00 per gallon carbon penance tax, that is being proposed, it is another way for governments to take more from its citizens.

Despite what you hear on the tube, hundreds of climatologists have not signed on to the carbon dioxide green house theory. Al Gore's information about the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is slanted to look like a disaster is about to occur. I don’t have the space in this short comment to adequately explain how the first half of the data for the CO2 "hockey stick" curve was taken from ice cores while the second half, the one that is increasing so rapidly, is taken from measurements on the Hawaiian volcanic island of Manua Loa. Eruptions from this volcano have increased in the past 50 years. Since CO2 is part of the gases that vent from volcanic eruptions, you would expect CO2 to increase rapidly over this island. Yet the world is being led to believe that this represents the entire planet. CO2 represents a very small portion of the total green house gases. Water vapor represents 95% yet it is not even mentioned in the documentary, An Inconvenient Truth.

These are the observations that scientists are really seeing around the world and the solar system that clearly show that man's industrialization has perhaps only a minor effect on climate change. The planets of the solar system all show signs of heating up because of increasing solar activity. This also coincides with historic data. Submarine volcanic activity has increased in the last couple of decades. Seventy five percent of the volcanoes in the world are under the ocean. There are some 5000 volcanos under the ocean. And they are erupting everywhere. Even under the Artic Ocean and next to the continent of Antarctica. These eruptions vent very hot magma and geothermal plumes of water with temperatures of 500 to 800 degrees into the oceans. Some of these eruptions are not just confined to the aerial extent of a typical volcano. They are basaltic lava flows that cover hundreds of square miles and are in some cases a 1000' thick. Giant plumes of superheated water tens of miles long have also been observed.

Since the largest CO2 reservoir in the world is the ocean, when oceans warm, CO2 is expelled. How much? I really don’t know. This issue of marine volcanoes has basically been ignored by the scientists that have signed on to the global warming issue. Why? This is just my speculation, but some of these advocates of global warming do receive grants for study of the issue from institutes, foundations, etc. that want only their point of view explained as the rational explanation for climate change.

Other points. Hundreds of glaciers around the world including parts of the Artic and Antarctica are growing. Sea levels around the world are lowering. This is evidence that is not discussed in An Inconvenient Truth. Also; the earth has been much warmer in the recent past. In the Medieval Warm Period, which peaked around 1000 years ago, Vikings had farms and settlements in parts of Greenland that are very cold today. Also England had vineyards, Europe was warmer. This is an historic fact. What we are experiencing today is a natural climate change. And humans can do nothing about it except adapt. Actually a warmer world means more vegetation, thus more food.

The Global Warming Issue is about control and money.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Where’s their outage? Why aren’t they in Washington, raising hell in front of the White House instead of whining over café lattes at Starbucks?

ANSWER: Greenies are pampered middleclass wimps who don’t have a clue about what REAL protest and activism is.

I listed my protest activities over a 40-year period under another article that AlterNet published today about global warming titled, “The Most Sexiest Greenest Unlikely Story of the Year.”

Bloggers eager to rebut me should read about my activist background before continuing, Meanwhile here’s something they should consider.

At this moment in American history, NOTHING is more important than ending the Iraq War, which is killing hundreds of innocent Iraqis each week and dozens of GIs, not mention thousands of injured and wounded -- all in the name of George W. Bush’s imperialist scheme to control Middle East oil. Yet there is no outrage, no picket lines around the White House, no sit-down strikes on university campuses. Until that happens, all this bullshit about global warming will remain just that. BULLSHIT!

Hugh E. Scott, editor of King-George.biz -- the only website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption. AlterNet readers who object to my NON-PROFIT campaign to expose President Bush as a lying crook can email me through the website rather than comment here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As homeowners and businesses get serious about alternate energy, it won't be the white collar workers installing those rooftop solar panels and backyard windmills. Blue collar workers will be needed by the tens of thousands - and soon!

Now is the time to develop those training programs and tax incentives for those who are willing to convert to the new technologies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

1. Dr Hansen would shut down, right away, all coal plants. Since most energy in America is generated by coal if you put nuclear to one side, what is his immediate alternative? More nuclear? That takes years to get online. True, he didn't reject nuclear out of hand, and that is a more reliable energy source for the massive consumption the US economy and residential sector needs than wind and solar. Hansen proposal to offset coal by "efficiency" sounds good but quick attention to the proposition demonstrates its absurdity. What would replace, albeit, in a more efficient way, the megawatts of energy that furnishes the electricity the human species now needs to survive? Remember, Hansen demands shutdown of all coal generation of power, now, not in a phased schedule over a period of years where nuclear or other alternatives provide the base but more efficiently generated amount needed for a modern society.

2. Certainly more stringent fuel efficiency standards and repricing of carbon base products suggested by Hansen are reasonable suggestions if done in accordance with free, competitive choice and not top down, command and control Soviet style economics.

3. Hansen displays however a level of certainty that I do not recall the IPCC had of significantly higher sea levels. I am sure there is a quantitative basis for his estimates. However I would doubt that the scientific community shares Hansen's certainty as to the precise level or magnitude of sea level change, or ice sheet thickness, for that matter.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I have a feeling that "Global warming" no matter how obvious it is, is not the environmental point, The point is that "Earth" is a self-correcting system. The operative factor is probably the temperature, salinity ( or lessening of it) and other factors we may never get the chance to discover. To re-balance the ocean, water will be thrown out on the land and when it doesn't stay on the land the next step will be freezing the water that is thrown up on land, i.e. Ice Age.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There are some 150 coal-fired power plants in planning stages in the US today, all to be financed by Wall Street banks: JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Credit Suisse, Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, and Morgan Stanley.
The Wall Street Seven, UCS

A first step towards preventing the high end climate change outcome is to stop those 150 coal-fired power plants from being built.

At the same time, there will have to be a massive investment in renewable energy systems, including storage and delivery, that will cost trillions of dollars, but which will also create an entirely new economy.

Who doesn't want to see the world get off fossil fuels? Everyone from Wall Street and London banks to Saudi and Iranian and Venezuelan and Russian oil ministers - the entire global economic system currently revolves around fossil fuel use. Vested fossil fuel economic interests are resistant to loss of sales and market share; that's why they're spending 100's of millions on a global disinformation campaign, just as the tobacco industry did - to protect their billions in sales revenue.

Change is tough, but will have to happen - and halting the use of coal should be the first priority, since it's far dirtier and lower in energy content than natural gas. If China bans new coal-fired power plants, why can't the US?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No plan, scheme, or agenda about global warming or any other ecological issue means a thing without population reduction. The fundamental issue is population. Carbon taxes, flourescent light bulbs, electric cars, solar panels, etc., etc, ad infinitum are all meaningless without population reduction.
Nobody is talking about this.
There was a book published in the 70's called "The Population Bomb". It needs to be re-issued.
If your cause does not include population control, it's a lost cause.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Easily the stupidest book written in the 70's.
Predictions:
complete end of petroleum by the mid-eighties followed by
massive human die off.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The accident at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania and the disaster at Chernobyl, in what is now Ukraine, nearly halted the U.S. nuclear industry. Major cost overruns in the 1970s and 1980s and a long-term bare-bones price for natural gas almost finished the job.

But fossil-fuel prices have skyrocketed and stayed there, and a new mainstream concern over global climate change may lead to the regulation of polluting emissions, which makes nuclear a better competitor.

"I'll be very surprised if the U.S. does not make a decision to build within the next five years," Wang said. "I think the U.S. looks very promising. It's a matter of how big of a build it is." The Nuclear Regulatory Commission expects applications for around 30 new reactors in the coming decade, including a dozen moving quick to take advantage of new federal financial incentives.

The NRC has created a new licensing process as well, hoping to reduce regulatory costs and time frame...

"Rising energy demand, a concern for the environment and a proven record of operating nuclear power plants safely and efficiently are all contributing to a renewed interest in nuclear power," Conrad said. "The recent approval of early site permits and the announced intentions to seek combined construction and operating licenses are concrete steps toward the development of new nuclear power in this country." A recent study by the Congressional Research Service, however, found extending federal incentives are vital for new nuclear in the United States, unless its competition is priced out.

"Under base case conditions, it seems unlikely that a new nuclear power plant would be constructed in the United States, barring a sustained, long-term increase in natural-gas prices and the creation of a substantial, mandatory greenhouse gas reduction program that would increase coal-fired and natural gas-fired generating costs," it said.

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/48828.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is ok for people who have everything to talk about Global warming what about people who have not even owned a car or have electricity in their homes, how are you going to explain them both are causing global warming the most likey answer you will get global warming can wait, I want my car now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

TEHRAN April 21 (UPI) -- Iran's former president, Mohammad Khatami, says his nation's controversial nuclear program is in line with the world's goal of limiting fossil fuel use.
Khatami told a Kazakhstan television station that Iran is like any other developing nation and is developing nuclear power to conserve its hydrocarbons and improver the environment.

"The world's developed countries are using nuclear energy and trying to replace fossil fuels with other sources of energy for a better environment and Iran wants to do the same," Khatami said.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor
Official documents reveal volunteers drank and inhaled infected material to assess contamination risks

DOZENS OF people drank, inhaled or were injected with radioactivity as part of a series of secret experiments carried out by the nuclear industry in the 1960s, according to official documents passed to the Sunday Herald.

Tests exposing humans to radioactive caesium, iodine, strontium and uranium were conducted despite doubts about their legal and ethical implications. One proposal even envisaged injecting plutonium into elderly people to help assess contamination risks.

The new evidence could form part of the government inquiry launched last week into the industry's shady past...
Now documents from the National Archives in London have shed new light on other scandals involving the nuclear industry. A memo from the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) in August 1965 summarised a series of "experiments involving exposure of volunteers to radiation".

It said 10 volunteers from Harwell in Oxfordshire drank a liquid containing caesium-132 and caesium-134 in November 1962. Two volunteers from Sellafield, then known as Windscale, also ingested some strontium 90 to investigate "uptake by the gut".

A further 18 volunteers at Harwell in 1964 breathed in a vapour of methyl iodide-132 to test its retention in the thyroid gland. If anyone became ill as a result, the memo said, they would be able to sue for damages, though the risk was dismissed as "negligible".

A letter from May 1968 mentioned moral and practical concerns raised over two uranium tests planned for the Springfield nuclear plant near Preston.

Another memo from 1962 referred to highly controversial US experiments in which elderly and sick hospital patients were injected with plutonium. It suggested carrying out a similar experiment in the UK, mentioning old people as potential candidates.

The nuclear researcher and consultant who unearthed the documents, Dr David Lowry, has offered to submit his evidence to the Redfern inquiry. "The revelations put a large question mark against official reassurances given by the nuclear industry to successive public inquiries that radiation protection measures were adequate," he said.

Lowry, co-author of a forthcoming book on nuclear power, is particularly concerned about the way he alleges the UKAEA planned to spin the human experiments. "The nuclear industry must learn that the public demands the whole truth not half-truths when it comes to public health and safety," he said.

One memo from January 1963 recommended against announcing experiments before they began. Instead it suggested providing a brief for public relations staff "for use only if the experiments become public knowledge"...

The meeting also discussed the "ethical problems" of feeding radioactively contaminated whelks from near Sellafield to children...

The UKAEA is investigating whether any tissue from workers who had died at the Dounreay nuclear plant in the north of Scotland had been involved in the experiments. It is expecting to make a statement next week, and submit evidence to the Redfern inquiry...


The need to develop nuclear power and nuclear weapons were "adequate justification" for exposing workers, one 1963 memo said.

http://www.sundayherald.com/news/her aldnews/display.var.1346632.0.hu mans_in_secret_radioactive_tests.php

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Since it appears that the American Southwest is going to be one of the hardest hit areas under global warming (look for persistent drought, like that which is currently hitting Australia and western China) it makes sense that the locals don't want any more polluting coal plants:

Speaking Diné to Dirty Power: Navajo Challenge New Coal-Fired Plant

by Jeff Conant, Special to CorpWatch
April 3rd, 2007

In a makeshift hut on a hilltop in the high desert near Farmington, New Mexico, local schoolteacher David Nez projects a PowerPoint presentation on a blanket nailed to the wall. Outside the door, a small wind and solar generator silently provides the electricity for his computer-aided presentation. Less than a mile away, a different technology rules. Smoke plumes mark the horizon from huge coal-fired power plants, as an enormous crane rips into the Navajo coal mine, the largest open pit mine in the western U.S.

If plans go through for a massive new plant, co-owned by Houston-based Sithe Global Power and the Diné Power Authority (DPA), another coal-fired facility will generate electricity on the lands of the Diné indigenous peoples (also known as the Navajo by the colonizers). This tribal enterprise has split the Navajo Nation, with some praising the opportunity for economic development and others decrying the inevitable effect on environment and values.

Elouise Brown, Hank Dixon, Nez and a few of their Navajo elders have gathered in the rustic hut to figure out how to block the new construction. Brown found out about the project in December when she came on a man drilling a test well on her family’s grazing land. She cornered the worker and forced him to leave. That same day she established a blockade at the site now known as the Dooda Desert Rock vigil (Dooda means “no” in the Diné language). Even without the new project a dense curtain of brown smog hangs over the desert between the site of the vigil and the distant silhouette of Shiprock peak.

The plant would burn 5.5 million tons of Navajo coal per year and produce 1,500 megawatts of electricity for the fast-growing cities of the Southwest. "You will hear that the Navajo Nation supports this power plant, but grassroots people do not support this," said Nez, who lives 20 miles from the site of the proposed plant.

Hank Dixon, a young Navajo whose family’s land is impacted by the project, called the decision-making process “undemocratic.”

Banning coal is absolutely necessary.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The steps you are suggesting are nice but still inadequate. The problem of the current way we use energy is that it isn't recycling. We dig up old trees from the earth but we don't put any trees back into the ground. We have to go to a recycling form of energy.

1) The sun shines
2) Tree grows and filter CO2 from the air
3) We chop down trees and burn then and use the energy and turn wood in CO2.

So lets start growing massive forrests, and filter all that CO2 from the atmosphere. And once we got them we can start using them as a source for our energy. All we have to do is plant other trees to replace the ones we chopped down. It's that simple.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As to the other problem, finding enough renewable energy to support an over-sized human population, there are about ten different approaches, all valuable, all useful, all applicable.

Why are fossil fuel interests spending hundreds of millions on PR that attacks climate science and renewable energy production? Because they like being the richest, most powerful people on Earth, and they don't want to see that change! It's called GREED...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Those who either cannot or will not comprehend SCIENTIFIC STUDY resort to attacks on the scientists themselves or to Armageddon nihilism. Tragically many of this type either occupy or control governance positions and therein lies our REAL dilemna.

Human (that excludes Neanderthals) ingenuity MAY, JUST MAY, be able to mark a perilous path away from what appears to be an unimaginably catastrophic future. But that path will have to be strewn with the corpses of THOSE WHO WILL NOT SEE! The future must not try to accommodate idiocy no matter how strident!

Geezer means octogenarian who regrets fathering grandchildren

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think that the author pretends to be informed but I wonder; Where is his mention of climate control technology HAARP and chemtrails? Anyone who fails to include these two topics in such a lengthy global weather analysis is either uninformed or a mouthpiece for the globalists and thereby unqualified as a source. Frankly I think this article is simply more propaganda for the sheeple. It is sad that this kind of "tell them what to think" article seems to pass through into many peoples mind as honest. I suspect that the author of this article is not as honest a person as the alternet would like us all to believe.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Taking the GW priests own numbers, humans have increased the net CO2 production rate (over natural processes) by 4%. The US population produces 25% of all CO2 emissions of the world's population. Automobiles produce 22% of the CO2 that Americans emit.

Now imagine the unbelievable goal of stopping all auto emissions in a country whose population is still growing. Even that incredible achievement would reduce the total CO2 emissions into planet earth by 1/450 th (0.22 * 0.25 * 0.04 = 0.0022). The notion that anyone has a model proven to be so accurate that this infinitismal change would make a difference is laughable.

And that, my friends, is why this issue is DOA with enough Americans you will get nothing done democratically. As long as this whole discussion is so irrational-- like a new religion-- it wil be nothing more than more hot CO2.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

there's a way to improve the enviroment as we speak. I've been doing it for five years. it's called Engine Pressure Modulation Systems. the way it works is simple; it works off the car's emission control system, and it's a great idea I came up with over five years ago. Most people think of it as a joke, but it makes sense.

By replacing the oil cap with a breather, commonly found on most race cars and sold at auto stores all over, what happens is that oxygen is moved at a faster rate than normal, and by using the pressure differences inside the engine, it reduces carbon emissions to like, zero(0.260 grams or less).

How would this work on cars that don't require emission control systems, like hydrogen, flex-fuel cars and trucks? Simple; just drill a hole in one of your valve covers, and drill a hole(all small holes, the size of a pvc tube) into either your airbox or a part of your intake system, then run a rubber or flexible plastic tube(make sure the plastic tube is heat resistant, don't want it to melt away) between them, placing a connection at each end to be able to join them together, and the engine does the rest.

Instead of changing your oil every 3000-4000 miles, you can wait up to 7000 miles to change it, gain 5-7mpg, including what you automobile already is rated for(trust me, it will change), gain lots of horsepower, for that the engine dosen't build pressure quickly, in fact, it does what weather is for the earth.

It works even better or large and hi-performance cars and trucks.....and motorcycles, too, anything that uses fuel to make a fire, it works!!!!

If they get dirty, it's ok. Like a reuseable air filter, let the build up work in your favor, remember, the engine is breathing in and out all the time, and will be a cooler motor, which will last longer, and will be easier to maintain, which will save you the trouble of always buying a car because the old one kept failing emissions test(by the way, the carbon buildup, without the engine pressure modulation systems, cannot be avoided, for the engine dosen't "breathe"!)
In most cases, it only has to be changed once a year, and on some cars, once is enough, since for some reason the engines on them are designed better!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

by accident I read some parts of the Manifest of the UMABomber lately,it seems to me that this man was not mad but an alternet.org fan.

Our engineers and professors scrutinised Al Gore s sayings
geologically they are not true.
Of course to restrict on peak oil is not bad.
In fact in Europe many municipilities have their buses on alternative energie already.

Is it possible because USA has so many corporations that want profits they donot change into alternatives????
Because a non profit company gets his losses refund by the State.
Informally in Holland since the cold war excists so called control shelters for the authorities including food and bicyclettes to obtain electricity. (I have seen a 4personbyciclette.
In Schwitzerland even nowadays if you build a house outside town you must build also an atomic cellar,that is inspected every two monthes.
Could it be possible your authorities allready have done many alternatives but YOU donot know this.?
In many cases statecontrolled companies are less efficient but not allways as we see in Holland with gas,electricity,trains
after privatisation prices went up.

In India and Asia people want the same techno level as Europe and USA so if you follow Al Gores scenario in America
in the world nothing changes.
(USA less pollution=CHINAmore pollution.
What will your next president do? to save enviroment bomb all the coalinstallations in China????
The solution is maybe less work more vacation for you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

by accident I read some parts of the Manifest of the UMABomber lately,it seems to me that this man was not mad but an alternet.org fan.

Our engineers and professors scrutinised Al Gore s sayings
geologically they are not true.
Of course to restrict on peak oil is not bad.
In fact in Europe many municipilities have their buses on alternative energie already.

Is it possible because USA has so many corporations that want profits they donot change into alternatives????
Because a non profit company gets his losses refund by the State.
Informally in Holland since the cold war excists so called control shelters for the authorities including food and bicyclettes to obtain electricity. (I have seen a 4personbyciclette.
In Schwitzerland even nowadays if you build a house outside town you must build also an atomic cellar,that is inspected every two monthes.
Could it be possible your authorities allready have done many alternatives but YOU donot know this.?
In many cases statecontrolled companies are less efficient but not allways as we see in Holland with gas,electricity,trains
after privatisation prices went up.

In India and Asia people want the same techno level as Europe and USA so if you follow Al Gores scenario in America
in the world nothing changes.
(USA less pollution=CHINAmore pollution.
What will your next president do? to save enviroment bomb all the coalinstallations in China????
The solution is maybe less work more vacation for you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

asking is no longer an option. the Constitution was formed after much bloodshed. But that was in the day when civilians had arms equal to standing armies. stop paying Federal Taxes they just go to the very few who control us and make us fearful. They may not even need this planet like we do who knows. Let's find them and neutralize their agenda to preserve a world we can truely live in. thank you

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What is needed?

This issue requires a political settlement that involves large, capital-intensive sectors of the American economy. It is pure folly to expect there to be a negotiating table set up as things stand. The governors and mayors of American have initiated much of the current activity. There needs to be a political mandate that is defined through the Congressional and Presidential elections specifically to move from no-action to a Preferred Scenario that will have the needed impact on global warming.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]