Beach Runner wrote:

> I admit, he may have replied.
> But the Republican Governor of Alaska is saying this quick increase in
> temperature is devastating. He ignores such comments. And points to the
> world "dispute". Name a group of independent scientists that don't say
> we are accelerating global greenhouse effect.
>
> There is one I can point to. Michael Chritner (sp). Not really a
> scientist.
>
> Most of the ones are on Bush's payroll.
>
> When I pointed out that his cabinet member quit over the deregulation's
> of environmental laws, his statement was she was a liberal. Maybe I
> missed a reply with substance, and concede that possibility but I doubt it.
>
> Global Warming is a disaster that Glinton and Gore were working on. Bush
> reversed all their work to protect the oil industry. We should be
> preparing for a new kind of future. Based on trains, centralized
> resources and energy passive buildings.
>
> Hybrid technology does not meet the objects already in place that Bush
> canceled.
>
> Hybrids could be very fuel efficient. The Prious demonstrated that.
> It would mean American's would be forced to give up some performance and
> space. That's called reality.
>
> He declared the Iraq war over. In fact the insurgency grows. We were
> originally told the troops would be home in a few months.
>
> What's his answer to the governor to the state of Alaska? Alaska is in
> big trouble. Houses are collapsing as the temperature rose 8 degrees in
> a short period. This is far to fast a change to compare to the "ice age".
>
> Or the vast independent majority of scientists that predict global
> warming? That Bush questions it?
>
> It requires strong action now.
>
>
> Don't get me wrong, I'm against terrorism, yet Bush continues placating
> the Saudis because they have oil. How about wind and solar energy
> rebates? Why won't he do that? Because he's in the oil business as are
> his friends.
>
> I documented several models that show Britain will freeze when polar
> caps melt. He was unaware of such a possibility. He should thank me
> for bringing them to his attention. If he did, with my news reader, I
> apologize.
>
>
> The fact is the US contributes far more than it's share of greenhouse
> gasses. Shy did he cancel the great legislature that Clinton and Gore
> had in effect. If they were in effect maybe Detroit's cars could
> compete, and Detroit auto company's bonds wouldn't be junk status.
>
> If he chooses to have a meaningful, NON INSULTING discussion we can do
> it. Usually his answers attack the person, as he has repeatedly called
> me stupid. Objective data prove otherwise.
>
>
> He calls "Change Agents" radicals. Carl Sagon was a change agent. A
> brilliant scientist he called for change regarding energy, the use of
> natural resources, and seeing the world as one.
>
> Bush wants to change social security in such a way as to put money in
> the hands of businesses. That's being a change agent. The arguments
> are worth examining. The risk is very real. Is Bush a radical since
> he's a change agent?
>
> http://www.abd.org.uk/pr/198.htm

sponsored by Automotive society of Britain.


http://www.countercurrents.org/cc-borenstein190205.htm

On the other hand, independent researchers wrote
New measurements from the world's oceans, announced Thursday, give the
most compelling evidence yet that man-made global warming is under way
and hint at a more dramatic and sudden climate change in the future.

Two different sets of ocean readings presented at the annual meeting of
the prestigious American Association for the Advance of Science solidify
the scientific underpinnings of global warming and point to an increased
chance for a much-feared side effect that was popularized and
fictionalized in last year's movie "The Day After Tomorrow," in which
global warming triggers a new ice age in the Northern Hemisphere.

"The debate is no longer whether there is a global warming signal," Tim
Barnett, a marine physicist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography who
analyzed 9 million ocean-temperature and salinity readings. "The debate
is what are we going to do about it."

The new data show that the world's oceans have heated up just as
predicted in global-warming computer models, and, more ominously, that
massive amounts of fresh water from melting Arctic ice are seeping into
the Atlantic Ocean, threatening to trigger a climate crisis.

What scientists have found could cause parts of the Eastern United
States to cool by several degrees, according to new calculations
announced by Ruth Curry, a scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institute. The same worst-case "Day After Tomorrow"-type scenario is one
that a 2003 Pentagon analysis said "would challenge United States'
national security in ways that should be considered immediately." A 2002
National Academy of Sciences study worried about it, too.

Curry found that between 1965 and 1995, about 4,800 cubic miles of fresh
water - more water than is in Lake Superior, Lake Erie, Lake Ontario and
Lake Huron combined - melted from the Arctic region and poured into the
normally salty northern Atlantic.

If it continues, the increased influx of fresh water eventually could
shut down the great ocean conveyor belt, which helps regulate air and
water temperatures, abruptly changing the climate around the Atlantic
and elsewhere.

The conveyor belt, which is a system of currents, moves water in
multiple directions from the Greenland coast all the way to Australia
and back. It depends on heavier salt water sinking to pull warm water
from the tropics to higher latitudes.

Climate scientists fear that if polar ice continues to melt, the
resulting lower salinity in the Atlantic would shut down the conveyor
belt, something that happened once about 8,200 years ago, Curry said.

Early calculations show that it would take another 4,300 cubic miles of
fresh water from the Arctic to trigger a shutdown of the conveyer belt,
Curry said.

If the thaw continues at current rates, the shutdown scenario would
occur in about two decades. What's worrisome, Curry said, is that the
Greenland ice, which hadn't been melting with the rest of the Arctic, is
starting to thaw.

"We are taking the first steps" toward this scenario, Curry said in a
news conference. "The system is moving in that direction."

Curry said abrupt climate change was "just possible" but not necessarily
likely.

While Curry was speculating on the future, the new ocean data from
Scripps reveal how global warming already has changed the Earth.

Seven million temperature readings and 2 million salinity readings
collected by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration created
the best "fingerprint" of man-made global warming ever, Scripps' Barnett
said.

From 1969 to 1999, surface ocean temperatures rose about two-thirds of
a degree Fahrenheit, while temperatures hundreds of feet deeper hadn't
warmed as much. The readings are nearly exactly what computer models of
global warming say they should be, Barnett said.

If the global warming were the result of natural variability or
increased sun activity, the temperature and salinity changes would be
very different from the ones seen in the NOAA data, Barnett said.

"The evidence really is overwhelming," Barnett said.

© 2005 KR Washington Bureau and wire service source

One can do their own research, and except for a few, all the independent
science journals, often published in places like the Wall Street Journal
point to human causes for change than might have existed with other data.


I agree Kyoto was flawed, as it excluded many nations.



At this point it is clear that the vast majority of indpendent scientists
point to man made causes.

Please research yourself, and see if it is funded by groups such
as the British automotive society.

Look for research such as was published by Stanford.

My typing is going to heck, so that will he all for now.




>
> Bob