"Finally, the destruction of the Brazilian rain forest is a horrible thing,"

-Well, it's not already destructed, but something should be done to save the forest (and fast). Amost every week we watch news on the Amazon in danger. Each year an area of the forest the same size of Switzerland or Maine is cut down. I don't think that's Mr. Bush's fault. On the contrary, we have to blame it on the Brazilian Government; some multinationals who finance this; scientists (most from Europe) who have permission from the government to work in the forest, registering, "smuggling" and copyrighting species, fruits and substances; owners of big areas around the Amazon who insist to cut down the forest for catlle breeding, even next to the banks of rivers with white sand beaches that look like sugar and clear crystal waters (a real crime) - cradles of thousands of species of turtles, tropical fish and some mamals such as the fresh water dolphins (pink dolphin and tucuxi dolphin, a smaller one that looks like the marine bottlenose dolphin).
The Brazilian territory and the Amazon are so big you could fit the entire continetal USA (without Alaska and Hawaii) inside of it. Personally I don't think Mr. Bush is a bad person, not even a bad administrator. I guess I share personnal chemistry with him. He went to Brazil recently to sign some agreements on cooperation between the 2 countries on huge plantations of sugar cane in order to make green gas (ethanol) since Brazil has its own technology to make ethanol (believe me, it works) and a huge fleet of cars (Brazilian plants: Wolksvagen, GM, Ford, Honda, Citroen, etc) woking with both regular gas and ethanol itself. Nasa recently hired a Brazilian who discovered the green diesel, already made in Brazil and available at some gas stations here along with ethanol (this one available throughout the whole country). But on the other hand, anyone can notice that huge plantations of sugar cane and mamona (that is the base material for the green diesel), require land and more land, and maybe among this land, some portions of the forest.
Recently, France, German and Japan have contributed to preserve huge areas of what's left of another forest - the Atlantic Forest, once stretched from the Northeast to the South of the country and nowadays reduced to some islands of green, some of them and the best preserved ones, located on the southern shores of the State of São Paulo. It is still a great place this other tropical rainforest, a real paradise - the Atlantic Forest. What a pity living in a world full of dogs and cats.

But wow, the idea that the news media is controlled by the Republicans?? I've heard this before from the same source, and to believe such a thing truly requires a major break from reality.
============
Last time I challenged you on this you lost the argument. Care to go detail for detail again John?

I don't like unsupported generalities. That is why I make the same challenge I did then. Want to challenge me on something in the news in the past week perhaps? What is your pleasure John?

The notion of the brainwashed that the news media is either "liberal" or "favors Democrats" is generated through repetition (Pavlov proved that works) or by unintelligent statements like, "LOL is he delusional"?

Point for point and detail for detail I can make the argument opposite that of conventional brainwashed wisdom and substantiate it. The same cannot be said for the opposite argument. That persists only through rhetoric and the inability to sustain it with examples.

In fact, why don't you pick apart my examples of this news media phenomenon that I already laid out up above in post number 7 John?

I suggested in several places in that post that the television news media covered up for Bush and the Republicans. Post a transcript for one or all of the networks that shows in fact that they did cover the stories about the Bush administration brow beating scidentists and changing their reports to help dumb down the public. Or post a transcript that they even discussed it at all on television.

Surely you can show us all that I made assumptions and it was not the result of a Nexis database search of all news reports from that time period.

Pick it apart and tell me detail for detail how it is delusional, or as I said pick something recent so that people might remember the subject in the news currently when I illustrate my point about the Republican controlled news media with specific examples based upon YOUR choice of topics in the news this past week.

John

I don't think Michael Moore had anything to do with An Inconvenient Truth.
=====================
My bad. The director is Davis Guggenheim.

I have been involved with the local school board on appropriateness of showing various provocative films without providing balance, and those films included not only this one, but several of Michael Moore's. I ended up lumping those films together in order to make my point to the school board, and forgot to separate them back out in my last post. Thanks for the correction.
I have been personally in touch with one of Gore/Moore's advisers on the movie "An Inconvenient Truth,"

=========
I am surprised when as you stated earlier, " I have been personally in touch with one of Gore/Moore's advisers on the movie "An Inconvenient Truth," the advisor didn't correct you about Moore not being involved in the film.
I hope you didn't make that mistake when you went hollering to the school board about "not providing balance".

John

2. Go down to the nearest ocean (sorry, lakes don't count because their levels have nothing whatsoever to do with Global Warming) and see if you can discern any rise. You won't because the increase is so slight as to be unnoticeable by anyone (40 mm since 1994 -- see the chart at this site, which is derived from NOAA satellite data Long-term mean sea level ). For those who don't think in metric, that's 1.5 inches in almost two decades. There are all sorts of scary predictions (Gore's movie shows amazingly scary animations of Florida and Bangladesh being innundated by the sea as oceans rise by 22-25 FEET, or 170 times the rise of the past 14 years), but so far those predictions are as accurate as the U.S. hurricane predictions the past two years, both of which were as wrong as wrong can be.
==========================
That comes from news media brainwashing that misrepresented Gore's book and movie An Inconvenient Truth. What Gore actually stated was that :

if the West Antarctic ice shelf "melted or slipped off its island mooring into the sea, it would raise sea levels worldwide by 20 feet." He added that "the West Antarctic ice shelf is virtually identical in size and mass to the Greenland ice dome, which also would raise sea levels worldwide by 20 feet if it melted or broke up and slipped into the sea."

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projection involved rising sea levels as they are affected by "continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates" not the melting or breakup of the West Antarctic ice shelf or the Greenland ice dome. See Chart SPM.2.
It projects the rise of sea levels in six different scenarios showing that the "the best estimate for the high scenario," which defined the "likely range" of temperature increases over the next century to be from "2.4°C to 6.4°C," resulting in an increase in sea levels between 0.26 meters and 0.59 meters, which converts to a range of 10.24 to 23.23 inches. The IPCC further claimed that "contraction of the Greenland ice sheet is projected to continue to contribute to sea level rise after 2100" and that "if a negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland ice sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m," which is equivalent to approximately 23 feet.

The confusion comes from news media outlets intentionally making a false comparison between the two thus accounting for this misinformation.
Popular pundit on the networks John Fund in the Wall Street Journal made this false comparison and accused Gore of "environmental exaggerations and hypocrisy."
People from the CATO institute such as Patrick Michaels appeared on the networks to make the same false comparison to discredit Gore. None of the networks revealed that Michaels is also editor of World Climate Report, a biweekly newsletter on climate studies funded in large part by the coal industry. The CATO institute has/had Ruppert Murdoch (head of News Corp - one of five large corporations that regulate information to Americans) on it's Board of Directors. The CATO INstitute has received financial support from energy companies -- including Chevron Companies, Exxon Company, Shell Oil Company, and Tenneco Gas, as well as the American Petroleum Institute, Amoco Foundation, and Atlantic Richfield Foundation. Their members are favorite "scientists" who appear on the networks to provide so-called "expert scientific anaylsis" offered as unboased alternative opinion to worldwide consensus on the problems of Global Warming.

Here is a memo from the Intermountain Rural Electric Association by general manager Stanley R. Lewandowski Jr., detailing IREA's financial support for Patrick Michaels:

We here at IREA believe that it is necessary to support the scientific community that is willing to stand up against the alarmists and bring a balance to the discussion. Many scientists have an opinion, but only a minority have any involvement in climatology. We decided to support Dr. Patrick Michaels and his group (New Hope Environmental Services, Inc.). Dr. Michaels has been supported by electric cooperatives in the past and also receives financial support from other sources. He has A.B. and S.M. degrees from the University of Chicago and a Ph.D. in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Dr. Michaels is the Virginia State Climatologist, Research Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, a Senior Fellow in environmental studies at the CATO Institute, and a Visiting Scientist with the Marshall Institute in Washington, DC. In February of this year, IREA alone contributed $100,000 to Dr. Michaels. In addition we have contacted all of the G & T's over in the United States and as of the writing of this letter, we have obtained additional contributions and pledges for Dr. Michaels group. We will be following up with the remaining G & T's over the next several weeks.

So when the rest of you see Patrick Michaels appear as a "scientist" on the networks watch for yourself how Michaels will make:

a false comparison between Gore's claim that global warming could cause "sea level worldwide to go up 20 feet" with a section of the 2007 IPCC report, which, in the scenario Michaels cites, states sea levels would rise about 8 to 18 inches by the end of the 21st century.

Watch and you will see where people like John get these misrepresentations from.

John

Another misinformation statement you made John is as follows:

As for Kyoto, it was a joke (because it wouldn't have done ANYTHING to actually reduce CO2 emissions), and if anyone here paid any attention, it was defeated in the U.S. Senate while Al Gore was vice president of this country. Yes, failure to ratify happened on HIS watch, not Bush's (see Kyoto Protocol). Oh, and by the way, the vote in the U.S. Senate was 95-0 against ratification

Oh really?

The protocol has never been submitted to the senate for ratification John.

The Bush administration and it's minions in the news media have referred to (lied about) a vote on the non-binding Byrd-Hagel Resolution, which registered views on some aspects of protocol negotiations as a vote on ratification.
The vote on the Byrd-Hagel resolution took place prior to the conclusion of the Kyoto agreement, and before any of the flexibility mechanisms were established. The resolution was written so broadly that even strong supporters of the Kyoto Protocol, such as senators Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) voted for it. In doing so, Sen. Kerry said:

"It is clear that one of the chief sponsors of this resolution, Senator Byrd . . . agrees ... that the prospect of human-induced global warming as an accepted thesis with adverse consequences for all is here, and it is real.... Senator Lieberman, Senator Chafee and I would have worded some things differently... but I have come to the conclusion that these words are not a treaty killer."

Ratification would have required a 2/3 vote in the Senate by the way. The Senate in 1997 had an overwhelming Republican majority.
Sen Larry Craig (The Republican recently busted in the airport men's room gay scandal) at the time stated:

the treaty is "designed to give some nations a free ride, it is designed to raise energy prices in the United States and it is desigened to perpetuate a new U.N. bureaucracy to manage global resource allocation." It also would undermine the recent reform of farm programs and threaten U.S. agricultural production, warned Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.).

So your statement that :
it (Kyoto) was defeated in the U.S. Senate while Al Gore was vice president of this country. Yes, failure to ratify happened on HIS watch, not Bush's (see Kyoto Protocol). Oh, and by the way, the vote in the U.S. Senate was 95-0 against ratification

is completely false and a result of Republican controlled news media brainwashing.

John

Craftech, your link to the chart appears to be dead.

Have you actually seen the math model of melting of the polar cap? I have seen none that used actual geo data or radar measures of the earth and I'm been to a number NASA and university conferences in the last 10 years about Space Weather and Weather forecasting. The French government have some great sat radar image data of the oceans and the ice caps, fairly accurate when compared to some of the older Russia sat radar image data being shared. But I don't see any of this data being used(except in Japan research) which is troubling because the earth is a not true sphere and can not be modeled as one. Plus the ice caps have varying densities of ice and snow, which effects the amount of water produced by volume. 100 cubic meters of packed snow does not equal 100 cubic meters of ice(formed from compression) does not equal 100 cubic meters of water. Using weight yields best results for snow+ice+water, which is by the sat radar data is so important. An example of this can be seen by looking at deep ice cores, in the data analysis you note the amount of air gases and dust,etc,,, per sample------ meaning even a deep core sample is not pure water or close in actual volume.

Craftech, your link "(lied about) a vote on the non-binding Byrd-Hagel resolution" links to a political org and not to the Federal Register. If this document was produced in the Senate, it must be in the Federal Register, do you have a link.......... that would have more value since your claiming to have an actual accurate source vs a political org website. Since you are strongly claiming your view as correct, linking to the actual Federal register would avoid the issue of using political orgs or or congressional sites websites as "sources", ( not that the Federal Register is perfect, just the official source of rules,etc). Of course, investigative reporting and general discussion requires a number of different sources, so, I'm not claiming your views are right or wrong ;-) I just don't have much trust in political orgs on the web or in many news agency.

Not about modelling however this paper from our CSIRO shows just how bogus The Great Climate Swindle is:
http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pfb4.pdf
Sorry but it is heavy reading, real science stuff.
Another interesting read here:
http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=EC125p34.pdf

The CSIRO is not a political organisation, just pure science. They're also trying to find ways to sequester CO2 into the oceans.

And for what might seem funny at first:

http://www.csiro.au/news/ps2sp.html

They're measuring how much sheep fart to see if there's a way to reduce methane emissions. I'd be more worried about all those camels in our outback personally, phew.

Bob.

Byrd Hagel resolution

link to the text
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:S.RES.98:

link to the vote
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00205

Byrd Hagel resolution

link to the text
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:S.RES.98:

link to the vote
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00205
================
Thanks Buster.

John

Apit34356:
I haven't heard such absurd baloney from anyone concerning the Greenland ice cap as from you. First of all hard pack snow exists only on the top 30 feet of the ice cap and from then on it is solid ice. The 5 million pound military Dye sites were built on this engineering criterea with foundations 30 feet down. The 30 foot surface consists of layers of melted snow and compressed snow until a level of 30 feet which then turn to solid ice. I was there and saw it with my own eyes as the foundations were enclosed with marine plywood with ladders to the bottom of the foundation. The huge steel "I" beams were placed on huge oak timbers placed 18" apart sitting on the ice. The 8 huge columns had jacks to raise the building approximately 30 feet every 3/4 years to keep ahead of the annual 3 foot of snow and wind drifts buildup.
Your assumption of the ice cores not being solid ice are as wrong as the middle ages Catholic belief of the sun orbiting around the Earth.
The NASA photographs are what I viewed and I didn't realize that you needed a "technological" camera to take pictures of ice. Can you provide me with this special contraption for my Z1 to take pictures of ice?
JJK

Craftech, your link to the chart appears to be dead.

Craftech, your link "(lied about) a vote on the non-binding Byrd-Hagel resolution" links to a political org and not to the Federal Register
===================
Both links fixed Apit. Thanks for pointing that out.

John

Not about modelling however this paper from our CSIRO shows just how bogus The Great Climate Swindle is:
http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pfb4.pdf
Sorry but it is heavy reading, real science stuff.
Another interesting read here:
http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=EC125p34.pdf

The CSIRO is not a political organisation, just pure science. They're also trying to find ways to sequester CO2 into the oceans.

Bob.
==================
And imagine going to the school board in your community and demanding that they teach Great Climate Swindle drivel in the schools to provide balance just because that person is brainwashed by Right Wing Republican media propaganda and is demanding that the teachers in the schools teach Republican propaganda to the students as well?

John

The big lie of global warming is that people assume scientists agree that it is happening and that it is man made, but the truth is many scientists - especially those who don't make money by researching it - believe global warming is not caused by man...

I'm all for not polluting but buying into the great lie that running your car is warming the Earth in any meaningful way is ridiculous.

Farss, Csiro was not heavy reading, actually they did not explain the data set handling for the graphs. They were very dependent on Activitist Dr Hansen of NY and friends committees to "prove" their point. Dr. Hansen is not part of US weather research department nor actually any past or current real and meaningful research at NASA or DAPRA. .But he is entitled to his view.

Recently it was discovered and it is well published that the last 15 years(especially the last 8 years) of temp measures in the US was faulty because during the early 90s a policy for proper placing, calibrating of the temp recording equipment became "misplaced", so as new equipment was added, updated or new sites added measuring gear, some were place near or on asphalt areas or in enclosed areas with no ventilation, etc.

One could easily argue that Gore and his administration was a little too eager to prove their claims and let specific policies slide. Remember, Gore also produced the great airline security that concluded nothing was required to be done.

But either way, a discussion about clean air is important. But thinking CO2 is the real problem of climate change, is more political ease than science nor will it produce workable solutions to the changing environment which requires massive amounts of energy.

Does man have an impact? I think so, not as much about CO2 but with massive EM radiation from super stations, from some old Russian super "size" radar sites, and the increase of more EM high band transmitters. Of course, some of our exotic chemical molecule designs need to carefully studied before exposing anyone. RetroVirus research needs to be seriously monitored and buried deep in the earth for confinement.

thanks, Busterkeaton for the links and Craftech for the update links.

JJKizak, "The 8 huge columns had jacks to raise the building approximately 30 feet every 3/4 years to keep ahead of the annual 3 foot of snow and wind drifts buildup." Gee, growing snow levels, snow compression, then ice-------- in case you miss the graduate science on ice engineering, compressed snow still has air in it, compressed snow converted to ice has micro bubbles in it---- science 101.

JJKizak, "Your assumption of the ice cores not being solid ice are as wrong " you need to actually work with deep ice cores or read the analysis of a couple of ice core samples----------- how do they produce studies of ancient times of CO2, suflur, etc. An example of Greenland cores-- published text;
1;) Data obtained from ice cores indicate that between AD 800 and 1300 the regions around the fjords of the southern part of the island experienced a relatively mild climate similar to today. Trees and herbaceous plants grew in the south of the island and the prevailing climate initially permitted farming of domestic livestock species as farmed in Norway,
2.)Between 1989 and 1993, U.S. and European climate researchers drilled into the summit of Greenland's ice sheet, obtaining a pair of two-mile-long (3.2 km) ice cores. Analysis of the layering and chemical composition of the cores has provided a revolutionary new record of climate change in the Northern Hemisphere going back about 100,000 years and illustrated that the world's weather and temperature have often shifted rapidly from one seemingly stable state to another, with worldwide consequences.[8] The glaciers of Greenland are also contributing to global sea level rise at a faster rate than was previously believed.

Noticed the word "chemical composition".

JJKizak, you are right about Greenland being very unique compared to the poles. Its pretty cool that you visited it. I had forgotten about how beautiful parts of Greenland is. Greenland, Norway very unique.

JJKizak, I never reference the Greenland ice cap, only the poles, mostly thinking of South pole because its the latest research hot spot.

"The NASA photographs are what I viewed and I didn't realize that you needed a "technological" camera to take pictures of ice. Can you provide me with this special contraption for my Z1 to take pictures of ice"???? Are you referring to my comments of "radar imagery" for depth measurement and density measurement of snow and ice vs. sounding? Sounding gear has unique issues measuring deep thru ice vs. other techs but is is more mobile than the other techs if your on the surface. Radar can be tuned to see thru packed snow to the ice surface, then deeper, but its not a perfect fit either.

"...these "documentaries" use pretty heavy-handed approaches designed to blantantly [sic] appeal to the emotions..."

Um... I believe that's called film making.

I'm amazed at the extent of the "ostrich policy" displayed in this thread. Let's all join the Flat Earth Society.

"Knock, knock, knock"

Excuse me.... Sorry to interrupt, I have a question.....

Didn't we all read about the ice age? The ice melting leaving mountains in North America. The age of dinosauers, the age of......

Weren't we all taught about the warming and cooling and warming and cooling of earth?

Do we think that this has all ended now that man is on earth. Didn't we learn that everything that happens on earth effects earth and earth's cycles effects everything that happens on earth?

Is it reasonable to think that regardless of what we do, or don't do, the cycles on earth will continue and someday we will be gone and so will the earth......

Does anyone think because man showed up on earth these cycles should have stopped? If so, that's ego for you, I guess.

At the same time may I say, we should all be reasonable in our use of our natural resources, and do the best we can in our biosphere called earth.

David
www.EventVideoTeam.com

Apit34356:
I worked in Greenland for 10 years, 2 years on the ice cap and 8 years on both coasts. Also briefly in Canada and Iceland. I was referring strictly to photographing ice as trying to compute how much ice by radar imaging would be very difficult with the ice cap sitting on a mountain range. The one abandoned core hole at Dye Three hit the top of a mountain (3400 ft). Dye Three is at height of 10700 ft above sea level with the depth of the ice at approximately 12000 feet. Keep in mind there are also air bubbles in granite.
JJK

www.icecap.us