VeggieBoards banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,374 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Quote:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

JUNE 25, 2003

11:05 AM

CONTACT: The Green Party

Nancy Allen 207-326-4576, [email protected]

Scott McLarty 202-518-5624, [email protected]

Green Party Calls On Bush Administration To Stop Second-Guessing Thousands Of Climatologists

Bush Administration Edits EPA Report, Denies Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

WASHINGTON - June 25 - The Green Party of the United States today expressed outrage at the latest in a long string of lies about human-induced climate change. The EPA's June 23rd Report on the Environment has been so significantly altered by the Bush Administration, that an internal EPA memo, dated April 29, stated in part "The Bush Administration changes watered down the language to the point where it no longer accurately reflects the scientific consensus on climate change" (NBC Nightly News, June 19).

"The officials within the Bush Administration are not climatologists, and have no sound reason for denying the scientific expertise in the initial EPA report. By meddling in this report, they show an overt bias in favor of their close friends in the oil business," said Kirstin Marr, Colorado Green Party State Media Director and spokesperson.

Greens encourage Senator Jeffords and other members of the Senate Environment and Public Works committee's initial inquiry for the original climate portions of the EPA report. This administration is so bold and so wrong; a true opposition party is needed to raise the U.S. public's awareness about Bush's behind-the-scenes work. This is a true test of the major political players in Congress who among them is willing to fight for our environment?

Over 1,500 scientists representing many countries have been working, using consensus, for nearly two decades on the realities of climate change. Using many different sources of data including ice core samples, the Keeling Curve, and the changing patterns of El Nino and La Nina, scientists have been able to confirm the rapid rise in the global temperature over the past 150 years. The industrial revolution has created a variance in the global temperature beyond any naturally occurring climate changes, including recurring ice ages.

"It is outrageous that since we are either at war or threatening most of the oil-producing countries, the Bush Administration is running away in a polluted sea of denial from the need to diminish our heavy dependence on oil," said Mark Dunlea, Chair, Green Party of New York State.

Click here for the EPA Report on the Environment.

###
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,778 Posts
I like that.


Not long ago I saw a senate hearing on environment on C-SPAN. The most vocal Republican Senator was frighteningly simplistic and naive in his views about the envorinment. One Democrat took issue with him and destroyed him pretty well, but I really thought I could see on his face how baffled he is about his colleague.

The other day I was watching Savage Nation on MSNBC (hmmm... why do I watch all the top conservative shows?
) and Michael Savage replied to a caller something like "trust me, I have a Ph.D. and I've seen all the data - there is no global warming". I almost fell out of my chair. Well maybe we just should trust him, I mean he has a Ph.D.... (I hope not in trombone playing though)

I think the Republicans and this administration deserve to be poked when it comes to the environment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,374 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
We should make sure they all have beachfront property, and make sure there's a clause that won't get them bailed out by Homeland Defense when their houses are flooded.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,374 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Don't know what to say to ya, Tame, but I'm sure you'll come up with a flip response just the same.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,374 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Quote:
Published on Tuesday, July 1, 2003 by the Guardian/UK

Shadow of Extinction

by George Monbiot

It is old news, I admit. Two hundred and fifty-one million years old, to be precise. But the story of what happened then, which has now been told for the first time, demands our urgent attention. Its implications are more profound than anything taking place in Iraq, or Washington, or even (and I am sorry to burst your bubble) Wimbledon. Unless we understand what happened, and act upon that intelligence, prehistory may very soon repeat itself, not as tragedy, but as catastrophe. The events that brought the Permian period (between 286m and 251m years ago) to an end could not be clearly determined until the mapping of the key geological sequences had been completed. Until recently, palaeontologists had assumed that the changes that took place then were gradual and piecemeal. But three years ago a precise date for the end of the period was established, which enabled geologists to draw direct comparisons between the rocks laid down at that time in different parts of the world.

Having done so, they made a shattering discovery. In China, South Africa, Australia, Greenland, Russia and Svalbard, the rocks record an almost identical sequence of events, taking place not gradually, but relatively instantaneously. They show that a cataclysm caused by natural processes almost brought life on earth to an end. They also suggest that a set of human activities that threatens to replicate those processes could exert the same effect, within the lifetimes of some of those who are on earth today.

As the professor of paleontology Michael Benton records in his new book, When Life Nearly Died, the marine sediments deposited at the end of the Permian period record two sudden changes. The first is that the red or green or gray rock laid down in the presence of oxygen is suddenly replaced by black muds of the kind deposited when oxygen is absent. At the same time, an instant shift in the ratio of the isotopes (alternative forms) of carbon within the rocks suggests a spectacular change in the concentration of atmospheric gases.

On land, another dramatic transition has been dated to precisely the same time. In Russia and South Africa, gently deposited mudstones and limestones suddenly give way to massive dumps of pebbles and boulders. But the geological changes are minor in comparison with what happened to the animals and plants.

The Permian was one of the most biologically diverse periods in the earth's history. Herbivorous reptiles the size of rhinos were hunted through forests of tree ferns and flowering trees by saber-toothed predators. At sea, massive coral reefs accumulated, among which lived great sharks, fish of all kinds and hundreds of species of shell creatures.

Then suddenly there is almost nothing. The fossil record very nearly stops dead. The reefs die instantly, and do not reappear on earth for 10 million years. All the large and medium-sized sharks disappear, most of the shell species, and even the great majority of the toughest and most numerous organisms in the sea, the plankton. Among many classes of marine animals, the only survivors were those adapted to the near-absence of oxygen.

On land, the shift was even more severe. Plant life was almost eliminated from the earth's surface. The four-footed animals, the category to which humans belong, were nearly exterminated: so far only two fossil reptile species have been found anywhere on earth that survived the end of the Permian. The world's surface came to be dominated by just one of these, an animal a bit like a pig. It became ubiquitous because nothing else was left to compete with it or to prey upon it.

Altogether, Benton shows, some 90% of the earth's species appear to have been wiped out: this represents by far the gravest of the mass extinctions. The world's "productivity" (the total mass of biological matter) collapsed.

Ecosystems recovered very slowly. No coral reefs have been found anywhere on earth in the rocks laid down over the following 10 million years. One hundred and fifty million years elapsed before the world once again became as biodiverse as in the Permian.

So what happened? Some scientists have argued that the mass extinction was caused by a meteorite. But the evidence they put forward has been undermined by further studies. There is a more persuasive case for a different explanation. For many years, geologists have been aware that at some point during or after the Permian there was a series of gigantic volcanic eruptions in Siberia. The lava was dated properly for the first time in the early 1990s. We now know that the principal explosions took place 251 million years ago, precisely at the point at which life was almost extinguished.

The volcanoes produced two gases: sulphur dioxide and carbon dioxide. The sulphur and other effusions caused acid rain, but would have bled from the atmosphere quite quickly. The carbon dioxide, on the other hand, would have persisted. By enhancing the greenhouse effect, it appears to have warmed the world sufficiently to have destabilized the super concentrated frozen gas called methane hydrate, locked in sediments around the polar seas. The release of methane into the atmosphere explains the sudden shift in carbon isotopes.

Methane is an even more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The result of its release was runaway global warming: a rise in temperature led to changes that raised the temperature further, and so on. The warming appears, alongside the acid rain, to have killed the plants. Starvation then killed the animals.

Global warming also seems to explain the geological changes. If the temperature of the surface waters near the poles increases, the circulation of marine currents slows down, which means that the ocean floor is deprived of oxygen. As the plants on land died, their roots would cease to hold together the soil and loose rock, with the result that erosion rates would have greatly increased.

So how much warming took place? A sharp change in the ratio of the isotopes of oxygen permits us to reply with some precision: 6C. Benton does not make the obvious point, but another author, the climate change specialist Mark Lynas, does. Six degrees is the upper estimate produced by the UN's scientific body, the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC), for global warming by 2100. A conference of some of the world's leading atmospheric scientists in Berlin last month concluded that the IPCC's model may have underestimated the problem: the upper limit, they now suggest, should range between 7 and 10 degrees. Neither model takes into account the possibility of a partial melting of the methane hydrate still present in vast quantities around the fringes of the polar seas.

Suddenly, the events of a quarter of a billion years ago begin to look very topical indeed. One of the possible endings of the human story has already been told. Our principal political effort must now be to ensure that it does not become set in stone.

· George Monbiot's book 'The Age of Consent: a Manifesto for a New World Order' is published by Flamingo. His website is www.monbiot.com.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

###
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,144 Posts
Europe has seen quite some floodings. The Rhine and the Elbe had more floods in than recorded in history. China is in the news every year because of damages of floods. Global warming is one of the factors involve. I don´t think that it´s just a myth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
91 Posts
I doubt it's a myth as well. There may be some question as to how much is caused by industry and how much is natural, but it's difficult to refute the overall trend. Even the White House notes the trend, but refutes the man made contribution.

How 'bout this quote from June 19, New York Times:

"Among the deletions were conclusions about the likely human contribution to warming from a 2001 report on climate by the National Research Council that the White House had commissioned and that President Bush had endorsed in speeches that year. White House officials also deleted a reference to a 1999 study showing that global temperatures had risen sharply in the previous decade compared with the last 1,000 years. In its place, administration officials added a reference to a new study, partly financed by the American Petroleum Institute, questioning that conclusion."

So he disregarded conclusions that were made by a organization that the White House had commissioned, because it disagreed with what he believed to be true. I can't see why anyone is surprised he ignored the CIA's conclusions regarding uranium.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,854 Posts
If there's no such thing as global warming, how come the acceleration of the global temperature has skyrocketed since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution?

Damn oil.

Damn Bush Adminstration.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top