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?



Bob

See

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun...glob-warm.html

Is global warming man made. From the hippies at Stanford.

Here are two that disagree
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-gwn081203.php


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?



Bob

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm

which I will post
The Final Proof: Global Warming is a Man-Made Disaster
by Steve Connor


Scientists have found the first unequivocal link between man-made
greenhouse gases and a dramatic heating of the Earth's oceans. The
researchers - many funded by the US government - have seen what they
describe as a "stunning" correlation between a rise in ocean temperature
over the past 40 years and pollution of the atmosphere.

The study destroys a central argument of global warming skeptics within
the Bush administration - that climate change could be a natural
phenomenon. It should convince George Bush to drop his objections to the
Kyoto treaty on climate change, the scientists say.

Tim Barnett, a marine physicist at the Scripps Institution of
Oceanography in San Diego and a leading member of the team, said: "We've
got a serious problem. The debate is no longer: 'Is there a global
warming signal?' The debate now is what are we going to do about it?"

The findings are crucial because much of the evidence of a warmer world
has until now been from air temperatures, but it is the oceans that are
the driving force behind the Earth's climate. Dr Barnett said: "Over the
past 40 years there has been considerable warming of the planetary
system and approximately 90 per cent of that warming has gone directly
into the oceans."

He told the American Association for the Advancement of Science in
Washington: "We defined a 'fingerprint' of ocean warming. Each of the
oceans warmed differently at different depths and constitutes a
fingerprint which you can look for. We had several computer simulations,
for instance one for natural variability: could the climate system just
do this on its own? The answer was no.

"We looked at the possibility that solar changes or volcanic effects
could have caused the warming - not a chance. What just absolutely
nailed it was greenhouse warming."

America produces a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases, yet under
President Bush it is one of the few developed nations not to have signed
the Kyoto treaty to limit emissions. The President's advisers have
argued that the science of global warming is full of uncertainties and
change might be a natural phenomenon.

Dr Barnett said that position was untenable because it was now clear
from the latest study, which is yet to be published, that man-made
greenhouse gases had caused vast amounts of heat to be soaked up by the
oceans. "It's a good time for nations that are not part of Kyoto to
re-evaluate their positions and see if it would be to their advantage to
join," he said.

The study involved scientists from the US Department of Energy, the
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and the US National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as well as the Met Office's
Hadley Center.

They analyzed more than 7 million recordings of ocean temperature from
around the world, along with about 2 million readings of sea salinity,
and compared the rise in temperatures at different depths to predictions
made by two computer simulations of global warming.

"Two models, one from here and one from England, got the observed
warming almost exactly. In fact we were stunned by the degree of
similarity," Dr Barnett said. "The models are right. So when a
politician stands up and says 'the uncertainty in all these simulations
start to question whether we can believe in these models', that argument
is no longer tenable." Typical ocean temperatures have increased since
1960 by between 0.5C and 1C, depending largely on depth. DR Barnett
said: "The real key is the amount of energy that has gone into the
oceans. If we could mine the energy that has gone in over the past 40
years we could run the state of California for 200,000 years... It's
come from greenhouse warming."

Because the global climate is largely driven by the heat locked up in
the oceans, a rise in sea temperatures could have devastating effects
for many parts of the world.

Ruth Curry, from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, said that
warming could alter important warm-water currents such as the Gulf
Stream, as melting glaciers poured massive volumes of fresh water into
the North Atlantic. "These changes are happening and they are expected
to amplify. It's a certainty that these changes will put serious strains
on the ecosystems of the planet," DR Curry said.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...489955,00.html

More proof that global warming is man made.

http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p1354.htm argue against it in the
presitigous "The Brownsville Herald"
http://www.abd.org.uk/pr/198.htm
from the Association of British Drivers.... Hardly an objective source.
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF...ouse_data.html

Well worth the objective read it. It's from the Wall Street Journal, the
radical right wing organizations:-)
Known causes of global climate change, like cyclical eccentricities in
Earth's rotation and orbit, as well as variations in the sun's energy
output, are the primary causes of climate cycles measured over the last
half million years. However, secondary greenhouse effects stemming from
changes in the ability of a warming atmosphere to support greater
concentrations of gases like water vapor and carbon dioxide also appear
to play a significant role. As demonstrated in the data above, of all
Earth's greenhouse gases, water vapor is by far the dominant player.

The ability of humans to influence greenhouse water vapor is negligible.
As such, individuals and groups whose agenda it is to require that human
beings are the cause of global warming must discount or ignore the
effects of water vapor to preserve their arguments, citing numbers
similar to those in Table 4b . If political correctness and staying out
of trouble aren't high priorities for you, go ahead and ask them how
water vapor was handled in their models or statistics. Chances are, it
wasn't!

Of course this came from biased sources/

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?



Bob

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

Beach Runner wrote:
http://www.commondreams....

From their "about us" page:

Common Dreams is a national non-profit citizens' organization
working to bring *progressive* Americans together to promote
*progressive* visions for America's future. Founded in 1997, we
are committed to being on the cutting-edge of using the internet
as a political organizing tool - and creating new models for
internet *activism*.

IOW, they admit they're *liberal* activists.

...

usual suspect wrote:
Beach Runner wrote:

http://www.commondreams....


From their "about us" page:

Common Dreams is a national non-profit citizens' organization
working to bring *progressive* Americans together to promote
*progressive* visions for America's future. Founded in 1997, we
are committed to being on the cutting-edge of using the internet
as a political organizing tool - and creating new models for
internet *activism*.

IOW, they admit they're *liberal* activists.

...
hat is correct. If IF the many models that say global warming are
correct, and there is no doubt there are many models, than radical
chance is necessary.

If things were business as usual, it wouldn't matter, but of course, they
are not business as usual except to the really blind conservative people
as yourself. We are in the midst of a global change and you can't even
see it.

So you can correct some spelling or typos when I take medication for
back pain from a 90 mph car accident (Yes, I was hit on a residential
street) and make some minor mistake then. It doesn't change the substance.

You've still ignored the vast majority of my quotes from major
scientific organization or the Republican governor of Alaska who sees
the effects of global warming while you bury your head in the sand.

For more evice from MIRT and NOA (the governmenal organization) hardly
radical organizations
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/business/...01054309990002

Global Warming Making Hurricanes Stronger
By JOSEPH B.VERRENGIA, AP

Is global warming making hurricanes more ferocious?
New research suggests the answer is yes. Scientists
call the findings both surprising and "alarming"
because they suggest global warming is influencing
storms now - rather than in the distant future.

However, the research doesn't suggest global warming
is generating more hurricanes and typhoons.

The analysis by climatologist Kerry Emanuel of the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology shows for the
first time that major storms spinning in both the
Atlantic and the Pacific since the 1970s have
increased in duration and intensity by about 50
percent.

These trends are closely linked to increases in the
average temperatures of the ocean surface and also
correspond to increases in global average atmospheric
temperatures during the same period.

"When I look at these results at face value, they are
rather alarming," said research meteorologist Tom
Knutson. "These are very big changes."

Knutson, who wasn't involved in the study, works in
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton,
N.J.

Emanuel reached his conclusions by analyzing data
collected from actual storms rather than using
computer models to predict future storm behavior.

Before this study, most researchers believed global
warming's contribution to powerful hurricanes was too
slight to accurately measure. Most forecasts don't
have climate change making a real difference in
tropical storms until 2050 or later.

But some scientists questioned Emanuel's methods. For
example, the MIT researcher did not consider wind
speed information from some powerful storms in the
1950s and 1960s because the details of those storms
are inconsistent.

Researchers are using new methods to analyze those
storms and others going back as far as 1851. If early
storms turn out to be more powerful than originally
thought, Emmanuel's findings on global warming's
influence on recent tropical storms might not hold up,
they said.

"I'm not convinced that it's happening," said
Christopher W. Landsea, another research meteorologist
with NOAA, who works at a different lab, the Atlantic
Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory in Miami.
Landsea is a director of the historical hurricane
reanalysis.

"His conclusions are contingent on a very large bias
removal that is large or larger than the global
warming signal itself," Landsea said.

Details of Emanuel's study appear Sunday in the online
version of the journal Nature.

Theories and computer simulations indicate that global
warming should generate an increase in storm
intensity, in part because warmer temperatures would
heat up the surface of the oceans. Especially in the
Atlantic and Caribbean basins, pools of warming
seawater provide energy for storms as they swirl and
grow over the open oceans.

Emanuel analyzed records of storm measurements made by
aircraft and satellites since the 1950s. He found the
amount of energy released in these storms in both the
North Atlantic and the North Pacific oceans has
increased, especially since the mid-1970s.

In the Atlantic, the sea surface temperatures show a
pronounced upward trend. The same is true in the North
Pacific, though the data there is more variable, he
said.

"This is the first time I have been convinced we are
seeing a signal in the actual hurricane data," Emanuel
said in an e-mail exchange.

"The total energy dissipated by hurricanes turns out
to be well correlated with tropical sea surface
temperatures," he said. "The large upswing in the past
decade is unprecedented and probably reflects the
effects of global warming."

This year marked the first time on record that the
Atlantic spawned four named storms by early July, as
well as the earliest category 4 storm on record.
Hurricanes are ranked on an intensity scale of 1 to 5.

In the past decade, the southeastern United States and
the Caribbean basin have been pummeled by the most
active hurricane cycle on record. Forecasters expect
the stormy trend to continue for another 20 years or
more.

Even without global warming, hurricane cycles tend to
be a consequence of natural salinity and temperature
changes in the Atlantic's deep current circulation
that shift back and forth every 40 to 60 years.

Since the 1970s, hurricanes have caused more property
damage and casualties. Researchers disagree over
whether this destructiveness is a consequence of the
storms' growing intensity or the population boom along
vulnerable coastlines.

"The damage and casualties produced by more intense
storms could increase considerably in the future,"
Emanuel said.

NOAA's Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological
Laboratory: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/


Beach Runner wrote:


usual suspect wrote:

Beach Runner wrote:

http://www.commondreams....



From their "about us" page:

Common Dreams is a national non-profit citizens' organization
working to bring *progressive* Americans together to promote
*progressive* visions for America's future. Founded in 1997, we
are committed to being on the cutting-edge of using the internet
as a political organizing tool - and creating new models for
internet *activism*.

IOW, they admit they're *liberal* activists.

...

hat is correct. If IF the many models that say global warming are
correct, and there is no doubt there are many models, than radical
chance is necessary.

If things were business as usual, it wouldn't matter, but of course, they
are not business as usual except to the really blind conservative people
as yourself. We are in the midst of a global change and you can't even
see it.

So you can correct some spelling or typos when I take medication for
back pain from a 90 mph car accident (Yes, I was hit on a residential
street) and make some minor mistake then. It doesn't change the substance.




You've still ignored the vast majority of my quotes from major
scientific organization or the Republican governor of Alaska who sees
the effects of global warming while you bury your head in the sand.

The Evidence Mounts are MIT and NOA radical left wing organizations.
Like the Republican Governor of Alaska.

Global Change is very obvious to all but those in the oil business that
will make a quick buck and sacrifice our futures.



Climate change may be fueling storms
Global warming is a probable cause of a dramatic upswing in the power
of hurricanes, according to a new study.
BY MARTIN MERZER

Mon, Aug. 01, 2005



The accumulated power of Atlantic hurricanes has more than doubled in
the past 30 years, with a particularly dramatic spike since 1995, and
global warming likely is a major cause, according to a study to be
published this week.

Though a connection between global warming and hurricane ferocity
might seem logical, the report by a reputable climatologist at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology is the first to draw a
statistical relationship between the two.

''The large upswing in the last decade is unprecedented and probably
reflects the effect of global warming,'' scientist Kerry Emanuel
wrote in a study that will appear in the Thursday edition of the
journal Nature. Copies of the article were made available Sunday.

Importantly, his study did not shed any light on the effect, if any,
of global warming on the number of storms.

But that is only of modest consolation.

One reason: Scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's hurricane research division on Virginia Key have
concluded that, due to long-term natural cycles, we are in the middle
of a decades-long period of more frequent hurricane formation.

The current season, with a record seven named storms by July 23,
provides unpleasant support for that conclusion.

Another source of concern: Most experts expect global warning to
persist.

DESTRUCTIVE POWER

So, if both camps of scientists are correct, we could be facing
stronger storms and more of them -- a potentially catastrophic
collision of phenomena.

''My results suggest that future warming may lead to an upward trend
in tropical cyclone destructive potential and -- taking into account
an increasing coastal population -- a substantial increase in
hurricane-related losses in the 21st century,'' Emanuel wrote.

He said his analysis of wind-speed reports by the National Hurricane
Center and other sources show that the accumulated power of
hurricanes in the Atlantic basin, which includes the Caribbean Sea
and the Gulf of Mexico, has more than doubled since 1970.

A particularly steep increase began in 1995, according to the study.

''This large increase in power dissipation over the past 30 years or
so may be because storms have become more intense, on the average,
and/or have survived at high intensity for longer periods of time,''
he wrote.

Emanuel said the trend is closely linked to an increase of about one
degree in the average ocean surface temperature, which might not seem
significant but can be crucial.

''It sounds like a small amount, but we know that as waters get even
a little bit warmer, the potential exists for hurricanes to get
dramatically stronger,'' said Chris Landsea, an NOAA scientist on
Virginia Key and one of the nation's leading hurricane researchers.

NOT CONVINCED

Still, he is not fully convinced by Emanuel's study.

Landsea said the 1995-04 spike in accumulated hurricane power
correlated precisely with the beginning of the period of increased
hurricane formation.

''It's very difficult to separate out what's caused by this natural
cycle of activity versus man-made warming,'' Landsea said.

He also raised concerns about some statistical procedures employed by
Emanuel, whom he described as ``a very respected researcher.''

''This is a serious study and it needs to be taken seriously,''
Landsea said. ``But when you take a close look at it, there's a lot
of caveats. So, at this point, I'm not convinced he's found the
smoking gun between global warming and hurricanes.''

In October 2004, Tom Knutson, a hurricane researcher at the
government's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton,
N.J., told The Herald he had noticed persistently high water
temperatures in the main hurricane production zone of the Atlantic.

''The latest 10-year average is warmer than anything else in the
record'' dating to 1870, he said. ``More research is needed to try to
figure out how much of this is attributed to natural fluctuations and
whether any of it is related to a broad-scale, global warming
factor.''

Knutson, who did not participate in Emanuel's study, coauthored a
report that was published in September 2004 and sparked new interest
in the topic.

FUTURE OUTLOOK

It found that by the 2080s, global warming could cause the typical
hurricane to produce 6 percent stronger winds and 18 percent more
rain.

In some cases, those winds could raise the average storm a half-step
on the five-category Saffir-Simpson scale of hurricane intensity.

''There's some uncertainty, but we're saying that environmental
conditions will support stronger hurricanes,'' Knutson told The Herald.

Fidyl
Live Simply So That
Others May Simply Live
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Yoga-With-Nancy-SoFla/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SignSoFla/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SoFlaVegans/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SoFlaSchools/



__________________________________________________ __
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs



* * * * * * * * * *

To post a message, send an email to:



To unsubscribe:








Beach Runner wrote:

For more evice from MIRT and NOA (the governmenal organization) hardly
radical organizations
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/business/...01054309990002

Global Warming Making Hurricanes Stronger
By JOSEPH B.VERRENGIA, AP

Is global warming making hurricanes more ferocious?
New research suggests the answer is yes. Scientists
call the findings both surprising and "alarming"
because they suggest global warming is influencing
storms now - rather than in the distant future.

However, the research doesn't suggest global warming
is generating more hurricanes and typhoons.

The analysis by climatologist Kerry Emanuel of the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology shows for the
first time that major storms spinning in both the
Atlantic and the Pacific since the 1970s have
increased in duration and intensity by about 50
percent.

These trends are closely linked to increases in the
average temperatures of the ocean surface and also
correspond to increases in global average atmospheric
temperatures during the same period.

"When I look at these results at face value, they are
rather alarming," said research meteorologist Tom
Knutson. "These are very big changes."

Knutson, who wasn't involved in the study, works in
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton,
N.J.

Emanuel reached his conclusions by analyzing data
collected from actual storms rather than using
computer models to predict future storm behavior.

Before this study, most researchers believed global
warming's contribution to powerful hurricanes was too
slight to accurately measure. Most forecasts don't
have climate change making a real difference in
tropical storms until 2050 or later.

But some scientists questioned Emanuel's methods. For
example, the MIT researcher did not consider wind
speed information from some powerful storms in the
1950s and 1960s because the details of those storms
are inconsistent.

Researchers are using new methods to analyze those
storms and others going back as far as 1851. If early
storms turn out to be more powerful than originally
thought, Emmanuel's findings on global warming's
influence on recent tropical storms might not hold up,
they said.

"I'm not convinced that it's happening," said
Christopher W. Landsea, another research meteorologist
with NOAA, who works at a different lab, the Atlantic
Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory in Miami.
Landsea is a director of the historical hurricane
reanalysis.

"His conclusions are contingent on a very large bias
removal that is large or larger than the global
warming signal itself," Landsea said.

Details of Emanuel's study appear Sunday in the online
version of the journal Nature.

Theories and computer simulations indicate that global
warming should generate an increase in storm
intensity, in part because warmer temperatures would
heat up the surface of the oceans. Especially in the
Atlantic and Caribbean basins, pools of warming
seawater provide energy for storms as they swirl and
grow over the open oceans.

Emanuel analyzed records of storm measurements made by
aircraft and satellites since the 1950s. He found the
amount of energy released in these storms in both the
North Atlantic and the North Pacific oceans has
increased, especially since the mid-1970s.

In the Atlantic, the sea surface temperatures show a
pronounced upward trend. The same is true in the North
Pacific, though the data there is more variable, he
said.

"This is the first time I have been convinced we are
seeing a signal in the actual hurricane data," Emanuel
said in an e-mail exchange.

"The total energy dissipated by hurricanes turns out
to be well correlated with tropical sea surface
temperatures," he said. "The large upswing in the past
decade is unprecedented and probably reflects the
effects of global warming."

This year marked the first time on record that the
Atlantic spawned four named storms by early July, as
well as the earliest category 4 storm on record.
Hurricanes are ranked on an intensity scale of 1 to 5.

In the past decade, the southeastern United States and
the Caribbean basin have been pummeled by the most
active hurricane cycle on record. Forecasters expect
the stormy trend to continue for another 20 years or
more.

Even without global warming, hurricane cycles tend to
be a consequence of natural salinity and temperature
changes in the Atlantic's deep current circulation
that shift back and forth every 40 to 60 years.

Since the 1970s, hurricanes have caused more property
damage and casualties. Researchers disagree over
whether this destructiveness is a consequence of the
storms' growing intensity or the population boom along
vulnerable coastlines.

"The damage and casualties produced by more intense
storms could increase considerably in the future,"
Emanuel said.

NOAA's Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological
Laboratory: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/


Beach Runner wrote:



usual suspect wrote:

Beach Runner wrote:

http://www.commondreams....




From their "about us" page:

Common Dreams is a national non-profit citizens' organization
working to bring *progressive* Americans together to promote
*progressive* visions for America's future. Founded in 1997, we
are committed to being on the cutting-edge of using the internet
as a political organizing tool - and creating new models for
internet *activism*.

IOW, they admit they're *liberal* activists.

...


What is correct? IF the many models that say global warming are
correct, and there is no doubt there are many models, than radical
chance is necessary.

If things were business as usual, it wouldn't matter, but of course, they
are not business as usual except to the really blind conservative
people as yourself. We are in the midst of a global change and you
can't even see it.

So you can correct some spelling or typos when I take medication for
back pain from a 90 mph car accident (Yes, I was hit on a residential
street) and make some minor mistake then. It doesn't change the
substance.




You've still ignored the vast majority of my quotes from major
scientific organization or the Republican governor of Alaska who sees
the effects of global warming while you bury your head in the sand.

Beach Runner wrote:
http://www.commondreams....

From their "about us" page:

Common Dreams is a national non-profit citizens' organization
working to bring *progressive* Americans together to promote
*progressive* visions for America's future. Founded in 1997, we
are committed to being on the cutting-edge of using the internet
as a political organizing tool - and creating new models for
internet *activism*.

IOW, they admit they're *liberal* activists.

...

hat is correct. If IF the many models

SOME models...

that say global warming are correct,

There's no indication that they are.

and there is no doubt there are many models,

SOME models.

than radical chance is necessary.

Radical chance? You twit, you mean radical change. And it is NOT necessary.

If things were business as usual, it wouldn't matter, but of course, they
are not business as usual except to the really blind conservative people
as yourself.

Spoken as the elite leftist snob you really are. You want "radical
change" on the basis of inconclusive evidence. Why? Because the "radical
change" you advocate is consistent with your POLITICS. Such change is
unwarranted by the SCIENCE, which doesn't show a clear-cut problem (and
certainly not of the magnitude that would necessitate RADICAL change).

We are in the midst of a global change and you can't even
see it.

Neither can most studies.

http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm
http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html
http://www.free-eco.org/articleDisplay.php?id=294
http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccour...2/seedsci.html

Etc.

So you can correct some spelling or typos when I take medication

Your drug abuse is your own problem, not mine.

You've still ignored

No, you ****. I've addressed the substance of your "radical" claims
which you claim necessitate radical change. I don't think other human
beings should be subjected to your radical politics on the basis of your
irrational concerns which aren't substantiated by scientific discovery.
And at the end of the day, that's precisely what you want to do: require
every human being to adopt your political worldview. That's ALL this is
about. You're an authoritarian zealot. You've been exposed.

Beach Runner wrote:
The Evidence Mounts are MIT and NOA radical left wing organizations.

Strawman. You cannot deal with what I've actually written, can you.

Like the Republican Governor of Alaska.

Another strawman.

Global Change is very obvious to all but those in the oil business

Funny that, Boob. Oil exploration is a cornerstone of the Alaskan economy.

that will make a quick buck and sacrifice our futures.

Blowhard leftwing hyperbole. Why does your side routinely exaggerate the
nature of the "problem" and offer only solutions compatible with your
radical worldview?

http://washingtontimes.com/commentar...0130-5881r.htm

Nissan & Hyundai: Just say "no" to Auto Alliance

http://ucsaction.org/campaign/7_05_nissan_hyundai/

Automakers Nissan and Hyundai will be introducing their first hybrid
models in 2006, helping to expand this important emerging market.
However, just as these automakers are seeking to establish their
“green credentials” with hybrids, the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers (a.k.a. the Auto Alliance) is courting these two
companies. The Auto Alliance is the lobbyist group representing most
of the major automobile manufacturers. Its stated priorities include
blocking any increase in fuel economy standards, and overturning
California’s breakthrough global warming regulations on vehicles.
Please contact the CEOs of Nissan and Hyundai and let them know that
the reputation they are trying to develop with these hybrid vehicles
will be severely damaged by associating with the Auto Alliance, a
group pushing to keep American drivers out of the cleaner cars we
want and deserve.

Personalize your letter: Increase the impact of your action by giving
it your own personal voice. Here are some questions that may help you
quickly and easily increase your letter's resonance:

* Are you in the market for a new car? Will you be in 2006?
* Do you own, or have you owned, either a Nissan or Hyundai
vehicle?
* Are you a current hybrid vehicle owner?
* Were you one of the over 20,000 people who took action and
filed a false advertising complaint against the Auto Alliance for
their "virtually emission-free" ad?
* Do you live on the West Coast and are currently being denied a
"clean air corridor?" because of the Auto Alliance's activities?

Tell me more


Subject:

Dear Mr. Ghosn and Mr. Cosmai,

(Edit Letter Below)

I am writing to applaud your planned 2006 introductions of hybrid
vehicles. As a consumer interested in cleaner, more fuel-efficient
car options, I am pleased that the Altima and Accent hybrids will
help push forward this emerging clean vehicle market. The fact that
the Altima hybrid will be assembled in the United States, and the
Accent hybrid may help make hybrid technology affordable to a larger
segment of the driving public are both very exciting developments.

I have also read, however, that the DC-based lobbyist group for many
of the major automakers, the Auto Alliance, is courting both of you
to join its ranks. The Auto Alliance has continually used fear and
deception to prevent any meaningful improvements in vehicle
pollution, safety, and fuel economy standards. For example, the Auto
Alliance recently ran advertisements calling today's autos "virtually
emission-free" -- deceptive language that resulted in over 20,000
false advertising complaints. Now the Alliance is purportedly focused
on preventing higher fuel economy standards and overturning
California's breakthrough regulations on global warming pollution
from autos among its top agenda items.

Your association with this group would severely undermine whatever
environmentally-friendly reputation you hope to develop through your
hybrid models, not to mention my interest as a potential customer. A
clear, public "no thank you" to this lobbyist group would, in turn,
give an indication that your hybrid models are not merely
"greenwashing," but a genuine step toward addressing the
environmental, public health, and gas saving needs of the American
consumer.

I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,
[Your name]
[Your address]


usual suspect wrote:

Beach Runner wrote:

http://www.commondreams....


From their "about us" page:

Common Dreams is a national non-profit citizens' organization
working to bring *progressive* Americans together to promote
*progressive* visions for America's future. Founded in 1997, we
are committed to being on the cutting-edge of using the internet
as a political organizing tool - and creating new models for
internet *activism*.

IOW, they admit they're *liberal* activists.

...


hat is correct. If IF the many models


SOME models...

that say global warming are correct,


There's no indication that they are.

and there is no doubt there are many models,


SOME models.

than radical chance is necessary.


Radical chance? You twit, you mean radical change. And it is NOT necessary.

If things were business as usual, it wouldn't matter, but of course, they
are not business as usual except to the really blind conservative
people as yourself.


Spoken as the elite leftist snob you really are. You want "radical
change" on the basis of inconclusive evidence. Why? Because the "radical
change" you advocate is consistent with your POLITICS. Such change is
unwarranted by the SCIENCE, which doesn't show a clear-cut problem (and
certainly not of the magnitude that would necessitate RADICAL change).

We are in the midst of a global change and you can't even see it.


Neither can most studies.

http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm
http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html
http://www.free-eco.org/articleDisplay.php?id=294
http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccour...2/seedsci.html

Etc.

So you can correct some spelling or typos when I take medication


Your drug abuse is your own problem, not mine.

You've still ignored


No, you ****. I've addressed the substance of your "radical" claims
which you claim necessitate radical change. I don't think other human
beings should be subjected to your radical politics on the basis of your
irrational concerns which aren't substantiated by scientific discovery.
And at the end of the day, that's precisely what you want to do: require
every human being to adopt your political worldview. That's ALL this is
about. You're an authoritarian zealot. You've been exposed.

Beach Runner wrote:
Nissan & Hyundai: Just say "no" to Auto Alliance

You've gone to a leftwing website and produced an activism form letter
without understanding the real issue at hand. The Auto Alliance is not
anti-environment.

http://www.autoalliance.org/environment/

Automakers Nissan and Hyundai will be introducing their first hybrid
models in 2006, helping to expand this important emerging market.
However, just as these automakers are seeking to establish their
“green credentials” with hybrids, the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers (a.k.a. the Auto Alliance) is courting these two
companies. The Auto Alliance is the lobbyist group representing most
of the major automobile manufacturers. Its stated priorities include
blocking any increase in fuel economy standards, and overturning
California’s breakthrough global warming regulations on vehicles.
Please contact the CEOs of Nissan and Hyundai and let them know that
the reputation they are trying to develop with these hybrid vehicles
will be severely damaged by associating with the Auto Alliance, a
group pushing to keep American drivers out of the cleaner cars we
want and deserve.

They're not trying to keep anyone out of any cars: they favor allowing
freedom of choice, something you authoritarian leftists don't respect.

Personalize your letter: Increase the impact of your action by giving
it your own personal voice.

Hahaha. They know that most of you morons will just send what they've
written.

Here are some questions that may help you
quickly and easily increase your letter's resonance:

* Are you in the market for a new car? Will you be in 2006?
* Do you own, or have you owned, either a Nissan or Hyundai
vehicle?
* Are you a current hybrid vehicle owner?
* Were you one of the over 20,000 people who took action and
filed a false advertising complaint against the Auto Alliance for
their "virtually emission-free" ad?
* Do you live on the West Coast and are currently being denied a
"clean air corridor?" because of the Auto Alliance's activities?

Tell me more


Subject:

Dear Mr. Ghosn and Mr. Cosmai,

(Edit Letter Below)

I am writing to applaud your planned 2006 introductions of hybrid
vehicles. As a consumer interested in cleaner, more fuel-efficient
car options, I am pleased that the Altima and Accent hybrids will
help push forward this emerging clean vehicle market. The fact that
the Altima hybrid will be assembled in the United States, and the
Accent hybrid may help make hybrid technology affordable to a larger
segment of the driving public are both very exciting developments.

I have also read, however, that the DC-based lobbyist group for many
of the major automakers, the Auto Alliance, is courting both of you
to join its ranks. The Auto Alliance has continually used fear and
deception to prevent any meaningful improvements in vehicle
pollution, safety, and fuel economy standards.

Bullshit.

For example, the Auto
Alliance recently ran advertisements calling today's autos "virtually
emission-free" -- deceptive language that resulted in over 20,000
false advertising complaints.

None of which has resulted in adverse actions against them.

Now the Alliance is purportedly focused
on preventing higher fuel economy standards and overturning
California's breakthrough regulations on global warming pollution
from autos among its top agenda items.

Your association with this group would severely undermine whatever
environmentally-friendly reputation you hope to develop through your
hybrid models, not to mention my interest as a potential customer. A
clear, public "no thank you" to this lobbyist group would, in turn,
give an indication that your hybrid models are not merely
"greenwashing," but a genuine step toward addressing the
environmental, public health, and gas saving needs of the American
consumer.

I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,
[Your name]

Just sign it "another mindnumb activist following marching orders."

BTW, note that you failed to address any points I made below.

usual suspect wrote:

Beach Runner wrote:

http://www.commondreams....



From their "about us" page:

Common Dreams is a national non-profit citizens' organization
working to bring *progressive* Americans together to promote
*progressive* visions for America's future. Founded in 1997, we
are committed to being on the cutting-edge of using the internet
as a political organizing tool - and creating new models for
internet *activism*.

IOW, they admit they're *liberal* activists.

...



hat is correct. If IF the many models



SOME models...

that say global warming are correct,



There's no indication that they are.

and there is no doubt there are many models,



SOME models.

than radical chance is necessary.



Radical chance? You twit, you mean radical change. And it is NOT
necessary.

If things were business as usual, it wouldn't matter, but of course,
they
are not business as usual except to the really blind conservative
people as yourself.



Spoken as the elite leftist snob you really are. You want "radical
change" on the basis of inconclusive evidence. Why? Because the
"radical change" you advocate is consistent with your POLITICS. Such
change is unwarranted by the SCIENCE, which doesn't show a clear-cut
problem (and certainly not of the magnitude that would necessitate
RADICAL change).

We are in the midst of a global change and you can't even see it.



Neither can most studies.

http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm
http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html
http://www.free-eco.org/articleDisplay.php?id=294
http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccour...2/seedsci.html

Etc.

So you can correct some spelling or typos when I take medication



Your drug abuse is your own problem, not mine.

You've still ignored



No, you ****. I've addressed the substance of your "radical" claims
which you claim necessitate radical change. I don't think other human
beings should be subjected to your radical politics on the basis of
your irrational concerns which aren't substantiated by scientific
discovery. And at the end of the day, that's precisely what you want
to do: require every human being to adopt your political worldview.
That's ALL this is about. You're an authoritarian zealot. You've been
exposed.

usual suspect wrote:

Beach Runner wrote:

Nissan & Hyundai: Just say "no" to Auto Alliance


You've gone to a leftwing website and produced an activism form letter
without understanding the real issue at hand. The Auto Alliance is not
anti-environment.

http://www.autoalliance.org/environment/

Look who finances them you dolt. Includes ads by our friends at
Mitsubishi that brought us the Zero. They want to use hybrids without
sacrificing "performance". Guess what? Global warming is real and
changes are needed.
We may need to sacrifice some performance for the greater good.

You ignore MIT and NOA and only use a few organizations that agree with
you. I call MIT and NOA MUCH more authoritative. The effects of Global
Warmings are either an incredible coincidence or just happening while
we pump greenhouse gas into the air. Seems the secondary is much more
probable.

The time to take action against global warming is now instead of
sticking your head in the sand.

Automakers Nissan and Hyundai will be introducing their first hybrid
models in 2006, helping to expand this important emerging market.
However, just as these automakers are seeking to establish their
“green credentials” with hybrids, the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers (a.k.a. the Auto Alliance) is courting these two
companies. The Auto Alliance is the lobbyist group representing most
of the major automobile manufacturers. Its stated priorities include
blocking any increase in fuel economy standards, and overturning
California’s breakthrough global warming regulations on vehicles.
Please contact the CEOs of Nissan and Hyundai and let them know that
the reputation they are trying to develop with these hybrid vehicles
will be severely damaged by associating with the Auto Alliance, a
group pushing to keep American drivers out of the cleaner cars we
want and deserve.


They're not trying to keep anyone out of any cars: they favor allowing
freedom of choice, something you authoritarian leftists don't respect.

Personalize your letter: Increase the impact of your action by giving
it your own personal voice.


Hahaha. They know that most of you morons will just send what they've
written.

Here are some questions that may help you
quickly and easily increase your letter's resonance:

* Are you in the market for a new car? Will you be in 2006?
* Do you own, or have you owned, either a Nissan or Hyundai
vehicle?
* Are you a current hybrid vehicle owner?
* Were you one of the over 20,000 people who took action and
filed a false advertising complaint against the Auto Alliance for
their "virtually emission-free" ad?
* Do you live on the West Coast and are currently being denied a
"clean air corridor?" because of the Auto Alliance's activities?

Tell me more


Subject:

Dear Mr. Ghosn and Mr. Cosmai,

(Edit Letter Below)

I am writing to applaud your planned 2006 introductions of hybrid
vehicles. As a consumer interested in cleaner, more fuel-efficient
car options, I am pleased that the Altima and Accent hybrids will
help push forward this emerging clean vehicle market. The fact that
the Altima hybrid will be assembled in the United States, and the
Accent hybrid may help make hybrid technology affordable to a larger
segment of the driving public are both very exciting developments.

I have also read, however, that the DC-based lobbyist group for many
of the major automakers, the Auto Alliance, is courting both of you
to join its ranks. The Auto Alliance has continually used fear and
deception to prevent any meaningful improvements in vehicle
pollution, safety, and fuel economy standards.


Bullshit.

For example, the Auto
Alliance recently ran advertisements calling today's autos "virtually
emission-free" -- deceptive language that resulted in over 20,000
false advertising complaints.


None of which has resulted in adverse actions against them.

Now the Alliance is purportedly focused
on preventing higher fuel economy standards and overturning
California's breakthrough regulations on global warming pollution
from autos among its top agenda items.

Your association with this group would severely undermine whatever
environmentally-friendly reputation you hope to develop through your
hybrid models, not to mention my interest as a potential customer. A
clear, public "no thank you" to this lobbyist group would, in turn,
give an indication that your hybrid models are not merely
"greenwashing," but a genuine step toward addressing the
environmental, public health, and gas saving needs of the American
consumer.

I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,
[Your name]


Just sign it "another mindnumb activist following marching orders."

BTW, note that you failed to address any points I made below.

usual suspect wrote:

Beach Runner wrote:

http://www.commondreams....




From their "about us" page:

Common Dreams is a national non-profit citizens' organization
working to bring *progressive* Americans together to promote
*progressive* visions for America's future. Founded in 1997, we
are committed to being on the cutting-edge of using the internet
as a political organizing tool - and creating new models for
internet *activism*.

IOW, they admit they're *liberal* activists.

...




hat is correct. If IF the many models




SOME models...

that say global warming are correct,




There's no indication that they are.

and there is no doubt there are many models,




SOME models.

than radical chance is necessary.




Radical chance? You twit, you mean radical change. And it is NOT
necessary.

If things were business as usual, it wouldn't matter, but of course,
they
are not business as usual except to the really blind conservative
people as yourself.




Spoken as the elite leftist snob you really are. You want "radical
change" on the basis of inconclusive evidence. Why? Because the
"radical change" you advocate is consistent with your POLITICS. Such
change is unwarranted by the SCIENCE, which doesn't show a clear-cut
problem (and certainly not of the magnitude that would necessitate
RADICAL change).

We are in the midst of a global change and you can't even see it.




Neither can most studies.

http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm
http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html
http://www.free-eco.org/articleDisplay.php?id=294
http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccour...2/seedsci.html

Etc.

So you can correct some spelling or typos when I take medication




Your drug abuse is your own problem, not mine.

You've still ignored




No, you ****. I've addressed the substance of your "radical" claims
which you claim necessitate radical change. I don't think other human
beings should be subjected to your radical politics on the basis of
your irrational concerns which aren't substantiated by scientific
discovery. And at the end of the day, that's precisely what you want
to do: require every human being to adopt your political worldview.
That's ALL this is about. You're an authoritarian zealot. You've been
exposed.

Hardly, Zealot that uses MIT and MOA as such support. You're the man
with your head in the head in the sand.

usual suspect wrote:

Beach Runner wrote:

The Evidence Mounts are MIT and NOA radical left wing organizations.


Strawman. You cannot deal with what I've actually written, can you.


You only respond to the radical right stick your head up your ass and
ignore reliable arguments brought by people like MIT and NOA, people
without agendas except science,
Like the Republican Governor of Alaska.


Another strawman.

Global Change is very obvious to all but those in the oil business


Funny that, Boob. Oil exploration is a cornerstone of the Alaskan economy.

Except when they see that global change is causing their homes to collapse!

that will make a quick buck and sacrifice our futures.


Blowhard leftwing hyperbole. Why does your side routinely exaggerate the
nature of the "problem" and offer only solutions compatible with your
radical worldview?
Hardly.


http://washingtontimes.com/commentar...0130-5881r.htm

I read your minotiry URL. It ignores the expert opinions of NOA and
MIT and other expert organizations. What are their agendas?

usual suspect wrote:

Beach Runner wrote:

Nissan & Hyundai: Just say "no" to Auto Alliance


Which is paid for by Mittsubishi amonst other's you dolt!

You've gone to a leftwing website and produced an activism form letter
without understanding the real issue at hand. The Auto Alliance is not
anti-environment.

http://www.autoalliance.org/environment/

Automakers Nissan and Hyundai will be introducing their first hybrid
models in 2006, helping to expand this important emerging market.
However, just as these automakers are seeking to establish their
“green credentials” with hybrids, the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers (a.k.a. the Auto Alliance) is courting these two
companies. The Auto Alliance is the lobbyist group representing most
of the major automobile manufacturers. Its stated priorities include
blocking any increase in fuel economy standards, and overturning
California’s breakthrough global warming regulations on vehicles.
Please contact the CEOs of Nissan and Hyundai and let them know that
the reputation they are trying to develop with these hybrid vehicles
will be severely damaged by associating with the Auto Alliance, a
group pushing to keep American drivers out of the cleaner cars we
want and deserve.


They're not trying to keep anyone out of any cars: they favor allowing
freedom of choice, something you authoritarian leftists don't respect.

Personalize your letter: Increase the impact of your action by giving
it your own personal voice.


Hahaha. They know that most of you morons will just send what they've
written.

Here are some questions that may help you
quickly and easily increase your letter's resonance:

* Are you in the market for a new car? Will you be in 2006?
* Do you own, or have you owned, either a Nissan or Hyundai
vehicle?
* Are you a current hybrid vehicle owner?
* Were you one of the over 20,000 people who took action and
filed a false advertising complaint against the Auto Alliance for
their "virtually emission-free" ad?
* Do you live on the West Coast and are currently being denied a
"clean air corridor?" because of the Auto Alliance's activities?

Tell me more


Subject:

Dear Mr. Ghosn and Mr. Cosmai,

(Edit Letter Below)

I am writing to applaud your planned 2006 introductions of hybrid
vehicles. As a consumer interested in cleaner, more fuel-efficient
car options, I am pleased that the Altima and Accent hybrids will
help push forward this emerging clean vehicle market. The fact that
the Altima hybrid will be assembled in the United States, and the
Accent hybrid may help make hybrid technology affordable to a larger
segment of the driving public are both very exciting developments.

I have also read, however, that the DC-based lobbyist group for many
of the major automakers, the Auto Alliance, is courting both of you
to join its ranks. The Auto Alliance has continually used fear and
deception to prevent any meaningful improvements in vehicle
pollution, safety, and fuel economy standards.


Bullshit.

For example, the Auto
Alliance recently ran advertisements calling today's autos "virtually
emission-free" -- deceptive language that resulted in over 20,000
false advertising complaints.


None of which has resulted in adverse actions against them.

Now the Alliance is purportedly focused
on preventing higher fuel economy standards and overturning
California's breakthrough regulations on global warming pollution
from autos among its top agenda items.

Your association with this group would severely undermine whatever
environmentally-friendly reputation you hope to develop through your
hybrid models, not to mention my interest as a potential customer. A
clear, public "no thank you" to this lobbyist group would, in turn,
give an indication that your hybrid models are not merely
"greenwashing," but a genuine step toward addressing the
environmental, public health, and gas saving needs of the American
consumer.

I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,
[Your name]


Just sign it "another mindnumb activist following marching orders."

BTW, note that you failed to address any points I made below.

usual suspect wrote:

Beach Runner wrote:


Yes I have, I've pointed out your "non profit organization" is paid for
by Mittsubisi and friends, and you ignore the responsible organizations
such as MIT and NOA amongst other's. You find a fringe scientist that
supports your contention. Big deal. Global warming is real.
http://www.commondreams....




From their "about us" page:

Common Dreams is a national non-profit citizens' organization
working to bring *progressive* Americans together to promote
*progressive* visions for America's future. Founded in 1997, we
are committed to being on the cutting-edge of using the internet
as a political organizing tool - and creating new models for
internet *activism*.

IOW, they admit they're *liberal* activists.

There is nothing wrong with being a liberal. Ben Franklin would be
considered a liberal for example. When change is needed, then you need
it. Or do you favor a nation that only allows conservative views to be
expressed?

It's liberals that exposed things like the toxic love canal and Nixon's
election scandle. Thank God I live in a country that can have liberals
who express their views and conservatives. You actions insult every
liberal organization that is doing good.

Yes, the VEGAN movement is a liberal movement by and large. So expect
to find liberals here. We are here. In fact the majority of the nation
voted for a liberal candidate in 2000 and should have been president.
We'd be a lot better off now.



...




hat is correct. If IF the many models




SOME models...

that say global warming are correct,




There's no indication that they are.

and there is no doubt there are many models,




SOME models.

than radical chance is necessary.




Radical chance? You twit, you mean radical change. And it is NOT
necessary.

If things were business as usual, it wouldn't matter, but of course,
they
are not business as usual except to the really blind conservative
people as yourself.




Spoken as the elite leftist snob you really are. You want "radical
change" on the basis of inconclusive evidence. Why? Because the
"radical change" you advocate is consistent with your POLITICS. Such
change is unwarranted by the SCIENCE, which doesn't show a clear-cut
problem (and certainly not of the magnitude that would necessitate
RADICAL change).

We are in the midst of a global change and you can't even see it.




Neither can most studies.

http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm
http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html
http://www.free-eco.org/articleDisplay.php?id=294
http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccour...2/seedsci.html

Etc.

So you can correct some spelling or typos when I take medication




Your drug abuse is your own problem, not mine.

You've still ignored




No, you ****. I've addressed the substance of your "radical" claims
which you claim necessitate radical change. I don't think other human
beings should be subjected to your radical politics on the basis of
your irrational concerns which aren't substantiated by scientific
discovery. And at the end of the day, that's precisely what you want
to do: require every human being to adopt your political worldview.
That's ALL this is about. You're an authoritarian zealot. You've been
exposed.