|
(OT) : Energy for a Strong America and a Healthy US Economy
On Jul 21, 11:01*am, Dave wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:41:29 -0400, dxAce wrote: * Interesting that no one's talking about that pile of Saddam's 'fictional' yellowcake that ended up in Canada. Yeah via D{e@o G@r(}a , that place that should not be mentioned. - A pile of ore is not a weapon. *It is not a gathering threat. Dave Two Words : "Dirty Bomb" ~ RHF US Removes Uranium from Iraq -and- Sets Back the Islam-O-Facist "Dirty Bomb" Project http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...022144f484dbcf Secret U.S. Mission Hauls Uranium from Iraq Last major Stockpile from Saddam's Nuclear Bomb efforts arrives in Canada http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/ Removal of 550 Metric Tons of "YellowCake" the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment and a prime source for a Yellow Cake "Dirty" Bomb. Note - A Metric Ton = 1,000 Kilograms ~ 2205 Pounds {USA} Al-Qaeda 'was making' Dirty Bomb - BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2711645.stm Al Qaeda pursued a "Dirty Bomb" http://www.washtimes.com/news/2003/o...-110337-4698r/ Al Qaeda Looking To Explode Dirty Bomb http://www.thepiratescove.us/2007/11...g-to-explode-d... Guantanamo Inmate Charged with Al-Qaeda "Dirty Bomb" Plot http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icas/article40... Fact Sheet on Dirty Bombs - US NRC http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-co...ts/dirty-bombs... "Dirty Bomb" ~ Radiological Dispersal Device (RDD) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb "The Dirty Bomb" -by NOVA [PBS] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/dirtybomb/ Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) About Dirty Bombs -by- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) http://www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation/dirtybombs.asp http://www.cfr.org/publication/9548/ How Dirty Bombs Work http://science.howstuffworks.com/dirty-bomb.htm The "Dirty Bomb" Scenario http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...182637,00.html Dirty Bomb Technology -by- BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon...irtybomb.shtml The FARC [Columbia] "Dirty Bomb" Plot -by- LA Times http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar...fg-dirtybomb28 No mention of the Hugo Chavez and FARC 'connection'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008...mbia.venezuela |
(OT) : Energy for a Strong America and a Healthy US Economy
D Peter Maus wrote:
Subject: Wild Pigs Of course none of this movement to totalitarianism has happened in the last seven and a half years. The Patriot act is merely for your own good. mike -- Due to the insane amount of spam and garbage, this filter blocks all postings with a Gmail, Google Mail, Google Groups or HOTMAIL address. It also filters everything from a .cn server. http://improve-usenet.org/ |
(OT) : Energy for a Strong America and a Healthy US Economy
m II wrote: D Peter Maus wrote: Subject: Wild Pigs Of course none of this movement to totalitarianism has happened in the last seven and a half years. The Patriot act is merely for your own good. Meanwhile, CanaDuh must have enacted the Dumbass Act! |
(OT) : Energy for a Strong America and a Healthy US Economy
D Peter Maus wrote:
Interesting that no one's talking about that pile of Saddam's 'fictional' yellowcake that ended up in Canada. UN Investigators were well aware of it's presence. The fictional part of that is completely due to State department bungling. Check out the sequence of events. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1115/p01s04-uspo.htm mike -- Due to the insane amount of spam and garbage, this filter blocks all postings with a Gmail, Google Mail, Google Groups or HOTMAIL address. It also filters everything from a .cn server. http://improve-usenet.org/ |
(OT) : Energy for a Strong America and a Healthy US Economy
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:56:17 +0000, D Peter Maus wrote:
Dave wrote: On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:46:51 +0000, D Peter Maus wrote: Denial is a marvelous thing. As is courage; as is skepticism in the face of mass hysteria; as is wisdom. So far, all I see from you is denial. A lot of what I see from you is baseless criticism and a complete unwillingness to back up anything you say with any kind of factual matter. |
(OT) : Energy for a Strong America and a Healthy US Economy
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:45:47 -0700, RHF wrote:
Dave Two Words : "Dirty Bomb" ~ RHF Al Qaeda pursued a "Dirty Bomb" The subject was Iraq, not Al Qaeda. A "dirty bomb" would contaminate a few acres, at best (worst). You have thrown your country away because you are afraid of a media created Boogeyman. |
(OT) : Energy for a Strong America and a Healthy US Economy
m II wrote: dxAcehole, America's Finest, wrote: Well, you're certainly CanaDuh's Finest Dumbass, boy! |
(OT) : Energy for a Strong America and a Healthy US Economy
m II wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote: Subject: Wild Pigs Of course none of this movement to totalitarianism has happened in the last seven and a half years. The Patriot act is merely for your own good. mike You keep forgetting how many times Bill Clinton tried to pass the Patriot Act. And how many times the Republican Congress blocked him. Or that Projects Echelon and Carnivore were built during his administration. |
(OT) : Energy for a Strong America and a Healthy US Economy
D Peter Maus wrote:
You keep forgetting how many times Bill Clinton tried to pass the Patriot Act. And how many times the Republican Congress blocked him. Or that Projects Echelon and Carnivore were built during his administration. It would appear government in general is out of control. They tend to forget THEY are the servants, not the people who sent them there. mike -- Due to the insane amount of spam and garbage, this filter blocks all postings with a Gmail, Google Mail, Google Groups or HOTMAIL address. It also filters everything from a .cn server. http://improve-usenet.org/ |
(OT) : Energy for a Strong America and a Healthy US Economy
Dave wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:56:17 +0000, D Peter Maus wrote: Dave wrote: On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:46:51 +0000, D Peter Maus wrote: Denial is a marvelous thing. As is courage; as is skepticism in the face of mass hysteria; as is wisdom. So far, all I see from you is denial. A lot of what I see from you is baseless criticism and a complete unwillingness to back up anything you say with any kind of factual matter. The fact that I don't post links that you yourself could find using the same search engines as I is only an indication that I choose not to do your work for you. If you were interested in the whole truth, you'd look them up yourself. Just as I do. Or to put that another way...in the words of a certain Internet founder: "How do you say '**** You' on the internet?" "Cite your source." I read as much, if not more, than you do. From a variety of sources. Left, as well as Right. And what I find most interesting, is that the left demands citations, sources, and peer reviewed publications for everything that the Right presents....and then proceeds to dismiss, not the material, but the source, as uninformed, irrelevant, fascist,...pick your adjective. The Left, however, when presenting it's material cites few sources, and then states that their own sources are unimpeachable, and that to question them is to question the very existence of Truth itself. As if the Left and only the Left has the exclusive privilege of access to the Truth. Global Warming is a hoax disputed by more peer reviewed scientists every day. "The Science is settled. The debate is over." --Al Gore. No less than Nancy Pelosi suggested a bill cutting off all funding for scientists not signing on to the global warming agenda. That educators not signing on to the global warming agenda have their tenure revoked, and for lower level educators, their very certification to teach revoked. Meteorologists not signing on to the global warming agenda were to be removed from their positions, and/or removed from the air at once. This is not just a disagreement in philosophy, this is a United States Congressperson specifically calling for the censoring of opposition, by the Government. Have you HEARD of the First Amendment? "People can't just walk around saying what they want. There need to be limits on Free Speech. And in an Al Gore presidency, there will be." --Al Gore, in an interview filmed by Alexandra Pelosi during the 2000 campaign. Dan Rather, a well known Liberal Democrat, in a piece smearing G. W. Bush for his service record--an issue which has been cleared up by Lt Bush's commanding officer--asserted that his story was in fact accurate, even though the documents presented were forgeries. Only the sources on the Left may be considered valid. Even if proven forgeries. All others may be dismissed with prejudice. You know what they call that, don't you? David? You do know, don't you? |
(OT) : Energy for a Strong America and a Healthy US Economy
D Peter Maus wrote: Dave wrote: On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:56:17 +0000, D Peter Maus wrote: Dave wrote: On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:46:51 +0000, D Peter Maus wrote: Denial is a marvelous thing. As is courage; as is skepticism in the face of mass hysteria; as is wisdom. So far, all I see from you is denial. A lot of what I see from you is baseless criticism and a complete unwillingness to back up anything you say with any kind of factual matter. The fact that I don't post links that you yourself could find using the same search engines as I is only an indication that I choose not to do your work for you. If you were interested in the whole truth, you'd look them up yourself. Just as I do. Or to put that another way...in the words of a certain Internet founder: "How do you say '**** You' on the internet?" "Cite your source." I read as much, if not more, than you do. From a variety of sources. Left, as well as Right. And what I find most interesting, is that the left demands citations, sources, and peer reviewed publications for everything that the Right presents....and then proceeds to dismiss, not the material, but the source, as uninformed, irrelevant, fascist,...pick your adjective. The Left, however, when presenting it's material cites few sources, and then states that their own sources are unimpeachable, and that to question them is to question the very existence of Truth itself. As if the Left and only the Left has the exclusive privilege of access to the Truth. Global Warming is a hoax disputed by more peer reviewed scientists every day. "The Science is settled. The debate is over." --Al Gore. No less than Nancy Pelosi suggested a bill cutting off all funding for scientists not signing on to the global warming agenda. That educators not signing on to the global warming agenda have their tenure revoked, and for lower level educators, their very certification to teach revoked. Meteorologists not signing on to the global warming agenda were to be removed from their positions, and/or removed from the air at once. This is not just a disagreement in philosophy, this is a United States Congressperson specifically calling for the censoring of opposition, by the Government. Have you HEARD of the First Amendment? "People can't just walk around saying what they want. There need to be limits on Free Speech. And in an Al Gore presidency, there will be." --Al Gore, in an interview filmed by Alexandra Pelosi during the 2000 campaign. Dan Rather, a well known Liberal Democrat, in a piece smearing G. W. Bush for his service record--an issue which has been cleared up by Lt Bush's commanding officer--asserted that his story was in fact accurate, even though the documents presented were forgeries. Only the sources on the Left may be considered valid. Even if proven forgeries. All others may be dismissed with prejudice. You know what they call that, don't you? David? You do know, don't you? Unfortunately, David don't know Jack! |
(OT) : Energy for a Strong America and a Healthy US Economy
On Jul 21, 3:39*pm, Dave wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:56:17 +0000, D Peter Maus wrote: Dave wrote: On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:46:51 +0000, D Peter Maus wrote: * *Denial is a marvelous thing. As is courage; *as is skepticism in the face of mass hysteria; *as is wisdom. * * * * So far, all I see from you is denial. - A lot of what I see from you is baseless criticism - and a complete unwillingness to back up anything - you say with any kind of factual matter. Ok Ok let me read it again 'factual matter' now that is clearer. But Dang Dave for a moment I thought that you had written 'fecal matter' - considering the source ~ RHF |
(OT) : Energy for a Strong America and a Healthy US Economy
RHF wrote: On Jul 21, 3:39 pm, Dave wrote: On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:56:17 +0000, D Peter Maus wrote: Dave wrote: On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:46:51 +0000, D Peter Maus wrote: Denial is a marvelous thing. As is courage; as is skepticism in the face of mass hysteria; as is wisdom. So far, all I see from you is denial. - A lot of what I see from you is baseless criticism - and a complete unwillingness to back up anything - you say with any kind of factual matter. Ok Ok let me read it again 'factual matter' now that is clearer. But Dang Dave for a moment I thought that you had written 'fecal matter' - considering the source ~ RHF RHF, I gotta laugh because my first reaction was the same as yours regarding the 'fecal matter'. . |
(OT) : Energy for a Strong America and a Healthy US Economy
dxAcehole, America's Finest, wrote:
RHF, I gotta laugh because my first reaction was the same as yours regarding the 'fecal matter'. It's MALE fecal matter. Aroused yet? mike -- Due to the insane amount of spam and garbage, this filter blocks all postings with a Gmail, Google Mail, Google Groups or HOTMAIL address. It also filters everything from a .cn server. http://improve-usenet.org/ |
(OT) : Energy for a Strong America and a Healthy US Economy
m II wrote: dxAcehole, America's Finest, wrote: RHF, I gotta laugh because my first reaction was the same as yours regarding the 'fecal matter'. It's MALE fecal matter. Aroused yet? No, but I'm certain that you are, dumbass! |
(OT) : Energy for a Strong America and a Healthy US Economy
|
(OT) : Energy for a Strong America and a Healthy US Economy
dxAce wrote:
m II wrote: dxAcehole, America's Finest, wrote: RHF, I gotta laugh because my first reaction was the same as yours regarding the 'fecal matter'. It's MALE fecal matter. Aroused yet? No, but I'm certain that you are, dumbass! Speaking of your homosexual tendencies, may I present a blast from your sordid past? dxAce's invitations for some 'Mutual Respect': ======================================= Jerking off not enough for you, boy? Do you spit or swallow? Very tasty! Actually, I know quite a few homosexuals. I interact on at least a weekly basis with them, and surprisingly enough, they themselves utter the words 'damn faggots' with those who tend to step out of line. Is that the gay place to be? Were you the blower or the blowee? Believe it, it's like a dream to be with you again... If you'd like to call me, I'm here to help you until 0330 GMT at: 616 335-9762 dxAce Michigan USA Ya right, suck my dick... I know it may be hard, but as you withdraw, it will shrink away.. =============================== -- Due to the insane amount of spam and garbage, this filter blocks all postings with a Gmail, Google Mail, Google Groups or HOTMAIL address. It also filters everything from a .cn server. http://improve-usenet.org/ |
(OT) : Energy for a Strong America and a Healthy US Economy
In article cV%gk.723$nu6.621@edtnps83, m II wrote:
dxAce wrote: It's what they've always done. Pretty darn amazing. I can't wait to find out what the next 'crisis' will be. Well, Weapons of Mass Destruction has been already used. They even lied to the UN about it. I'm sure they'll think of something. People will believe ANYTHING. Yeah, the last one was shipped to Canada. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
(OT) : Energy for a Strong America and a Healthy US Economy
In article ,
D Peter Maus wrote: m II wrote: dxAce wrote: It's what they've always done. Pretty darn amazing. I can't wait to find out what the next 'crisis' will be. Well, Weapons of Mass Destruction has been already used. They even lied to the UN about it. I'm sure they'll think of something. People will believe ANYTHING. Interesting that no one's talking about that pile of Saddam's 'fictional' yellowcake that ended up in Canada. I find that very interesting. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
(OT) : Energy for a Strong America and a Healthy US Economy
In article ,
Dave wrote: On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:41:29 -0400, dxAce wrote: Interesting that no one's talking about that pile of Saddam's 'fictional' yellowcake that ended up in Canada. Yeah via D{e@o G@r(}a , that place that should not be mentioned. A pile of ore is not a weapon. It is not a gathering threat. http://www.dg.navy.mil/web/ http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ego-garcia.htm Really? What about the illness it caused in Iraq? -- Telamon Ventura, California |
(OT) : Energy for a Strong America and a Healthy US Economy
In article ,
Dave wrote: On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:45:47 -0700, RHF wrote: Dave Two Words : "Dirty Bomb" ~ RHF Al Qaeda pursued a "Dirty Bomb" The subject was Iraq, not Al Qaeda. A "dirty bomb" would contaminate a few acres, at best (worst). You have thrown your country away because you are afraid of a media created Boogeyman. Let's put some the your next bowl of crap you smoke then. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
(OT) : Energy for a Strong America and a Healthy US Economy
In article Jt8hk.848$nu6.245@edtnps83, m II wrote:
dxAcehole, America's Finest, wrote: However, a pile of crap (such as yourself) is an idiot! SNIP How well is your HAZMAT suit fitting? You have a lot of yellow cake to move. Better get busy. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
(OT) : Energy for a Strong America and a Healthy US Economy
In article ,
Dave wrote: On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:46:51 +0000, D Peter Maus wrote: Denial is a marvelous thing. As is courage; as is skepticism in the face of mass hysteria; as is wisdom. You know nothing of courage just delusions. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
(OT) : Energy for a Strong America and a Healthy US Economy
m II wrote: dxAce wrote: m II wrote: dxAcehole, America's Finest, wrote: RHF, I gotta laugh because my first reaction was the same as yours regarding the 'fecal matter'. It's MALE fecal matter. Aroused yet? No, but I'm certain that you are, dumbass! Speaking of your homosexual tendencies, may I present a blast from your sordid past? dxAce's invitations for some 'Mutual Respect': ======================================= Jerking off not enough for you, boy? Do you spit or swallow? Very tasty! Actually, I know quite a few homosexuals. Ya know, I knew one years ago, and at the time he was kinda suspect. Unfortunately, a good number of years ago, he and another of his cronies killed two individuals whom were apparently involved in some kind of 'love triangle'. The interesting thing is that one of the guys was a Canadian citizen (one who was killed) who volunteered during the Vietnam War as a medic with (I think) the US Army. Fortunately, he, and the other guy, were convicted in the past few weeks, after a 'cold case investigation' had been re-opened, and apparently sentenced to spend the rest of their lives in prison. |
(OT) : Energy for a Strong America and a Healthy US Economy
Telamon wrote:
A pile of ore is not a weapon. It is not a gathering threat. http://www.dg.navy.mil/web/ http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ego-garcia.htm Really? What about the illness it caused in Iraq? You certainly weren't worried about the tons of depleted uranium left behind for the next few thousand years. What a hypocrite. God blessed thy depleted uranium http://www.uruknet.biz/pic.php?f=du-baby20.jpeg http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/95178_du12.shtml mike -- Due to the insane amount of spam and garbage, this filter blocks all postings with a Gmail, Google Mail, Google Groups or HOTMAIL address. It also filters everything from a .cn server. http://improve-usenet.org/ |
(OT) : Islam-O-Facist "Dirty Bomb" Terrorist Projects Continue . . .
On Jul 21, 3:45*pm, Dave wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:45:47 -0700, RHF wrote: Dave Two Words : "Dirty Bomb" ~ RHF Al Qaeda pursued a "Dirty Bomb" - The subject was Iraq, not Al Qaeda. Simply Matching "The Source" -with- "The Doer" US Removes Uranium from Iraq -and- Sets Back the Islam-O-Facist "Dirty Bomb" Project http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...022144f484dbcf -*A "dirty bomb" would contaminate a few acres, - at best (worst). Dave you are simply dismissing reality. A Dirty Bomb like most Bombs can be small enough to 'contaminate' an Office - the little terror -or- BIG enough to Cover a City's Down Town Area. Making that City's Down Town Area "Contaminate" and a No-Man's Land for Years or Decades. THE BIG TERROR ! A Small Plane {Crop-Duster} at 5K Feet with the right Chemical Dispersal Equipment could Spiral Out from City Hall and Around and Around Down Town Raining Hell from Above. SPREADING THE TERROR ! For that matter the same Small Plane could cruise along at 100 Feet over Bumper-to-Bumper Crowded Freeway at 5 PM on a Hot Summer Day and Rain Down Radioactive Contamination on both directions of Commuter Traffic for 5 Miles or more. TRANSMUTING THE TERROR ! from a single City's Down Town Areas to an Metro's Whole Population via Single-Point Urban & Suburban Migratory Dispersion. - You have thrown your country away because you - are afraid of a media created Boogeyman. Dave - You Are The Boogeyman of Disbelief Playing the Part of an Ostrich. The Terrorists Are Here . . . http://www.realanimalfacts.com/wp-co...trich_head.jpg (OT) : Islam-O-Facist "Dirty Bomb" Terrorist Projects Continue . . . |
(OT) : Energy for a Strong America and a Healthy US Economy
Telamon wrote:
In article , Dave wrote: On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:41:29 -0400, dxAce wrote: Interesting that no one's talking about that pile of Saddam's 'fictional' yellowcake that ended up in Canada. Yeah via D{e@o G@r(}a , that place that should not be mentioned. A pile of ore is not a weapon. It is not a gathering threat. http://www.dg.navy.mil/web/ http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ego-garcia.htm Really? What about the illness it caused in Iraq? Ten thousand Gulf war vets dead. DU played a big role. ========================================== However, the Iraqis are not the only targets. DU is not selective, and Coalition forces are under its spell as well. Veterans have been reporting various illnesses, which Pentagon and the govt try to supress. From the first link: In August 2004, the VA reported that over 518,739 Persian Gulf veterans were on medical disability since 1991. If my memory serves me right, since the first Gulf war, about 10k young Gulf veterans died. http://romunov.blogsome.com/2006/10/ ========================================= -- Due to the insane amount of spam and garbage, this filter blocks all postings with a Gmail, Google Mail, Google Groups or HOTMAIL address. It also filters everything from a .cn server. http://improve-usenet.org/ |
Warning: You are abiout to be hustled by your president
|
(OT) : Energy for a Strong America and a Healthy US Economy
m II wrote: Telamon wrote: In article , Dave wrote: On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:41:29 -0400, dxAce wrote: Interesting that no one's talking about that pile of Saddam's 'fictional' yellowcake that ended up in Canada. Yeah via D{e@o G@r(}a , that place that should not be mentioned. A pile of ore is not a weapon. It is not a gathering threat. http://www.dg.navy.mil/web/ http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ego-garcia.htm Really? What about the illness it caused in Iraq? Ten thousand Gulf war vets dead. DU played a big role. ========================================== However, the Iraqis are not the only targets. DU is not selective, and Coalition forces are under its spell as well. Veterans have been reporting various illnesses, which Pentagon and the govt try to supress. From the first link: In August 2004, the VA reported that over 518,739 Persian Gulf veterans were on medical disability since 1991. If my memory serves me right, since the first Gulf war, about 10k young Gulf veterans died. How many Canucks damn near died on that rusty submarine that Ottawa decided to buy...? |
(OT) : Energy for a Strong America and a Healthy US Economy
In article 5Lbhk.876$nu6.778@edtnps83, m II wrote:
Telamon wrote: A pile of ore is not a weapon. It is not a gathering threat. http://www.dg.navy.mil/web/ http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ego-garcia.htm Really? What about the illness it caused in Iraq? You certainly weren't worried about the tons of depleted uranium left behind for the next few thousand years. What a hypocrite. SNIP Excuse me, I was planing to bury it in your backyard all along. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
(OT) : Energy for a Strong America and a Healthy US Economy
In article DObhk.877$nu6.761@edtnps83, m II wrote:
Telamon wrote: In article , Dave wrote: On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:41:29 -0400, dxAce wrote: Interesting that no one's talking about that pile of Saddam's 'fictional' yellowcake that ended up in Canada. Yeah via D{e@o G@r(}a , that place that should not be mentioned. A pile of ore is not a weapon. It is not a gathering threat. http://www.dg.navy.mil/web/ http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ego-garcia.htm Really? What about the illness it caused in Iraq? Ten thousand Gulf war vets dead. DU played a big role. SNIP The yellow cake is far worse so you had better get that HAZMAT suit on. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
(OT) : Energy for a Strong America and a Healthy US Economy
Telamon wrote: In article DObhk.877$nu6.761@edtnps83, m II wrote: Telamon wrote: In article , Dave wrote: On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:41:29 -0400, dxAce wrote: Interesting that no one's talking about that pile of Saddam's 'fictional' yellowcake that ended up in Canada. Yeah via D{e@o G@r(}a , that place that should not be mentioned. A pile of ore is not a weapon. It is not a gathering threat. http://www.dg.navy.mil/web/ http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ego-garcia.htm Really? What about the illness it caused in Iraq? Ten thousand Gulf war vets dead. DU played a big role. SNIP The yellow cake is far worse so you had better get that HAZMAT suit on. Crap, he can't even handle his shine box, let alone figure out how to put a HAZMAT suit on. |
(OT) : Energy for a Strong America and a Healthy US Economy
Telamon wrote:
You certainly weren't worried about the tons of depleted uranium left behind for the next few thousand years. What a hypocrite. Excuse me, I was planing to bury it in your backyard all along. Think of this at Dinner time, ok? ====================================== http://www.uruknet.info/uruknet-images/290706du2.jpg ====================================== Video of American Doctor and DU: ====================================== "What we know from first hand experience and what happened to those of us in Gulf War I and when we did our research for the US Army - the first thing that hits you is respiratory problems, then you have the rashes, then you start having permanent lung damage within a few months because of radiation and chemical toxicity, then you have neurological problems, then you have gastrointestinal problems." http://www.uruknet.info/?s1=1&p=25167&s2=29 ======================================== mike -- Due to the insane amount of spam and garbage, this filter blocks all postings with a Gmail, Google Mail, Google Groups or HOTMAIL address. It also filters everything from a .cn server. http://improve-usenet.org/ |
(OT) : Energy for a Strong America and a Healthy US Economy
m II wrote: Telamon wrote: You certainly weren't worried about the tons of depleted uranium left behind for the next few thousand years. What a hypocrite. Excuse me, I was planing to bury it in your backyard all along. Think of this at Dinner time, ok? Dinner time? Only fools like you eat poutine with used condoms as a garnish, boy! |
(OT) : Energy for a Strong America and a Healthy US Economy
In article Y2chk.886$nu6.448@edtnps83, m II wrote:
Telamon wrote: You certainly weren't worried about the tons of depleted uranium left behind for the next few thousand years. What a hypocrite. Excuse me, I was planing to bury it in your backyard all along. Think of this at Dinner time, ok? SNIP I'm not going to look at it because coming from you I'm sure it's something disgusting. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
(OT) : Energy for a Strong America and a Healthy US Economy
Telamon wrote:
Think of this at Dinner time, ok? SNIP I'm not going to look at it because coming from you I'm sure it's something disgusting. Yes it is. The US army did it. With your money. http://www.uruknet.info/uruknet-images/290706du2.jpg Don't you want to make sure you're getting your money's worth? mike -- Due to the insane amount of spam and garbage, this filter blocks all postings with a Gmail, Google Mail, Google Groups or HOTMAIL address. It also filters everything from a .cn server. http://improve-usenet.org/ |
(OT) : Energy for a Strong America and a Healthy US Economy
m II wrote: Telamon wrote: Think of this at Dinner time, ok? SNIP I'm not going to look at it because coming from you I'm sure it's something disgusting. Yes it is. The US army did it. With your money. Then you oughta be happy! We did it with OUR money. Not Ottawa's money, and surely not some shine box toter's money! |
(OT) : Energy for a Strong America and a Healthy US Economy
On Jul 21, 2:27*am, D Peter Maus wrote:
wrote: Can't go on using oil for more than another 10 to 20 years due to the global warming emergency proven by science, dumbass. * *Nothing has been proven. There is considerable debate within the scientific community about the validity of the claims made by the global warming movement. To underscore the point, NOAA released figures this past quarter that indicate global temperatures have dropped by .6 of a degree in the last 12 months. * *As for greenhouse gasses...well, let's look at that. Carbon dioxide is only .04% of atmospheric content. Every living creature on the planet emits CO2. Even plants, in the absence of sunlight. *In the presence of sunlight, they consume CO2 at a voracious rate. * *Water, on the other hand, is the primary greehouse gas, with a known impact on atmospheric temperature through cloud formation. And yet....no one has even hinted at it's regulation. * *A previous poster is correct....global warming is a socialist movement. *It's goals are precisely the same as the alarmists who set their crosshairs on the oil industry when Rockefeller was building the Standard Oil monopoly. There is no longer any serious debate. Scientific bodies which AGREE that human activity drives global warming: THIRTY FIVE Scientific bodies which describe human caused global warming as a "consensus": FIVE Scientific bodies which DISPUTE human activity driving global warming: ZERO (none, nada, zilch, ZERO) QUOTE: Statements by dissenting organizations With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.[46] NONE. NADA. ZERO. Stop lying about the science. It's case closed. Scientific bodies CONCURRING with human causation of global warming: Scientific consensus A question which frequently arises in popular discussion of climate change is whether there is a scientific consensus. Several scientific organizations have explicitly used the term "consensus" in their statements: * American Association for the Advancement of Science: "The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement."[19] * US National Academy of Science: "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies’ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science..."[48] * Joint Science Academies' statement, 2005: "We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[49] * Joint Science Academies' statement, 2001: "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus."[50] * American Meteorological Society: "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus. ...IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a large international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research. ... They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the various statements and conclusions."[51] * Network of African Science Academies: “A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change.” [52] Statements by concurring organizations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 Main article: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change In February 2007, the IPCC released a summary of the forthcoming Fourth Assessment Report. According to this summary, the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability. Global warming in this case is indicated by an increase of 0.75 degrees in average global temperatures over the last 100 years.[2] The New York Times reports on the report: The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, is very likely caused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries, ... . The phrase very likely translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame.[3] The report said that an increase in hurricane and tropical cyclone strength since 1970 more likely than not can be attributed to man-made global warming. The scientists said global warming's connection varies with storms in different parts of the world, but that the storms that strike the Americas are global warming-influenced.[4] The Associated Press summarizes the position on sea level rise: On sea levels, the report projects rises of 7-23 inches by the end of the century. That could be augmented by an additional 4-8 inches if recent surprising polar ice sheet melt continues.[5] InterAcademy Council As the representative of the world’s scientific and engineering academies,[6][7] the InterAcademy Council (IAC) issued a report in 2007 entitled Lighting the Way: Toward a Sustainable Energy Future. Current patterns of energy resources and energy usage are proving detrimental to the long-term welfare of humanity. The integrity of essential natural systems is already at risk from climate change caused by the atmospheric emissions of greenhouse gases.[8] Concerted efforts should be mounted for improving energy efficiency and reducing the carbon intensity of the world economy.[9] Joint science academies' statement 2008 In preparation for the 34th G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration reiterating the position of the 2005 joint science academies’ statement, and reaffirming “that climate change is happening and that anthropogenic warming is influencing many physical and biological systems.” Among other actions, the declaration urges all nations to “(t)ake appropriate economic and policy measures to accelerate transition to a low carbon society and to encourage and effect changes in individual and national behaviour.”[10] The thirteen signatories were the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Joint science academies’ statement 2007 In preparation for the 2007 G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration referencing the position of the 2005 joint science academies' statement, and acknowledging the confirmation of their previous conclusion by recent research. Following the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the declaration states: It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken. The thirteen signatories were the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Joint science academies’ statement 2005 In 2005 the national science academies of the G8 nations, plus Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action[11], and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus. The eleven signatories were the science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Joint science academies’ statement 2001 In 2001, following the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, sixteen national science academies issued a joint statement explicitly acknowledging the IPCC position as representing the scientific consensus on climate change science. The sixteen science academies that issued the statement were those of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.[12] International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences In October 2007, the International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences (CAETS) issued a Statement on Environment and Sustainable Growth[13] As reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), most of the observed global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human-produced emission of greenhouse gases and this warming will continue unabated if present anthropogenic emissions continue or, worse, expand without control. CAETS, therefore, endorses the many recent calls to decrease and control greenhouse gas emissions to an acceptable level as quickly as possible. European Academy of Sciences and Arts In March of 2007, the European Academy of Sciences and Arts issued a formal declaration in which they stated, “Human activity is most likely responsible for climate warming. Most of the climatic warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Documented long- term climate changes include changes in Arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones. The above development potentially has dramatic consequences for mankind’s future. “[14] Network of African Science Academies In 2007, the Network of African Science Academies submitted a joint “statement on sustainability, energy efficiency, and climate change” to the leaders meeting at the G8 Summit in Heiligendamm, Germany. “A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change.” “The IPCC should be congratulated for the contribution it has made to public understanding of the nexus that exists between energy, climate and sustainability.”[15] The thirteen signatories were the science academies of Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, as well as the African Academy of Sciences. National Research Council (US) In 2001, the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Research Council published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions [16]. This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the scientific community: The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century... The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue.[17] European Science Foundation The European Science Foundation has issued a Position Paper on climate change in which they concur, "There is now convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases have become a major agent of climate change. These greenhouse gases affect the global climate by retaining heat in the troposphere, thus raising the average temperature of the planet and altering global atmospheric circulation and precipitation patterns." The paper concluded, "While on-going national and international actions to curtail and reduce greenhouse gas emissions are essential, the levels of greenhouse gases currently in the atmosphere, and their impact, are likely to persist for several decades. On-going and increased efforts to mitigate climate change through reduction in greenhouse gases are therefore crucial."[18] American Association for the Advancement of Science In December of 2006, the American Association for the Advancement of Science adopted an official statement on climate change in which they stated, "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society....The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now."[19] Federation of American Scientists In their Energy and Environment Overview, the Federation of American Scientists state, “There is no serious doubt that human activity is altering the earth's climate in potentially catastrophic ways. Even skeptics are forced to admit that the risk is real and that prudence demands action if only as an insurance policy, the only serious debate is about how best to respond." [20] World Meteorological Organization In its Statement at the Twelfth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) confirms the need to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” The WMO concurs that “scientific assessments have increasingly reaffirmed that human activities are indeed changing the composition of the atmosphere, in particular through the burning of fossil fuels for energy production and transportation.” The WMO concurs that “the present atmospheric concentration of CO2 was never exceeded over the past 420,000 years;” and that the IPCC “assessments provide the most authoritative, up-to-date scientific advice.” [21] American Meteorological Society The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2003 said: There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems.[22] Royal Meteorological Society (UK) In February 2007, after the release of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, the Royal Meteorological Society issued an endorsement of the report. In addition to referring to the IPCC as “world’s best climate scientists”, they stated that climate change is happening as “the result of emissions since industrialization and we have already set in motion the next 50 years of global warming – what we do from now on will determine how worse it will get.” [23] Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society has issued a Statement on Climate Change, wherein they conclude, “Global climate change and global warming are real and observable…It is highly likely that those human activities that have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have been largely responsible for the observed warming since 1950. The warming associated with increases in greenhouse gases originating from human activity is called the enhanced greenhouse effect. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by more than 30% since the start of the industrial age and is higher now than at any time in at least the past 650,000 years. This increase is a direct result of burning fossil fuels, broad-scale deforestation and other human activity.”[24] Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society "CMOS endorses the process of periodic climate science assessment carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and supports the conclusion, in its Third Assessment Report, which states that the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate."[25] Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences In November 2005, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences (CFCAS) issued a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada stating that "We concur with the climate science assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001 ... We endorse the conclusions of the IPCC assessment that 'There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities'. ... There is increasingly unambiguous evidence of changing climate in Canada and around the world. There will be increasing impacts of climate change on Canada’s natural ecosystems and on our socio-economic activities. Advances in climate science since the 2001 IPCC Assessment have provided more evidence supporting the need for action and development of a strategy for adaptation to projected changes."[26] International Union for Quaternary Research The statement on climate change issued by the International Union for Quaternary Research reiterates the conclusions of the IPCC, and urges all nations to take prompt action in line with the UNFCCC principles. “Human activities are now causing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses - including carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide - to rise well above pre-industrial levels….Increases in greenhouse gasses are causing temperatures to rise…The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action….Minimizing the amount of this carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere presents a huge challenge but must be a global priority.” [27] American Quaternary Association The American Quaternary Association (AMQUA) has stated, “Few credible Scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise of global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution,” citing “the growing body of evidence that warming of the atmosphere, especially over the past 50 years, is directly impacted by human activity.” [28] Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London The Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London stated, "We find that the evidence for human-induced climate change is now persuasive, and the need for direct action compelling."[29] International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics In July of 2007, the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG) adopted a resolution entitled “The Urgency of Addressing Climate Change”. In it, the IUGG concurs with the “comprehensive and widely accepted and endorsed scientific assessments carried out by the International Panel on Climate Change and regional and national bodies, which have firmly established, on the basis of scientific evidence, that human activities are the primary cause of recent climate change.” They state further that the “continuing reliance on combustion of fossil fuels as the world’s primary source of energy will lead to much higher atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses, which will, in turn, cause significant increases in surface temperature, sea level, ocean acidification, and their related consequences to the environment and society.” [30] International Union of Geological Sciences In their Climate Change prospectus for the International Year of Planet Earth project, the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) stated, “The idea that there is a strong human imprint on recent climate change is now compelling, with forest clearing, building and man-made gas emissions all having a strong influence on Earth’s warming.”[31] We know that human activity has resulted in changes to atmospheric chemistry and land cover, and caused serious decline in biodiversity. [32] European Geosciences Union In July 2005, the European Geosciences Union (EGU) issued a position statement in support of the joint science academies’ statement on global response to climate change. Additionally, the EGU concurred that the IPCC “represents the state-of-the-art of climate science supported by the major science academies around the world and by the vast majority of science researchers and investigators as documented by the peer-reviewed scientific literature.” [33] Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences The Canadian Federation Of Earth Sciences has issued a position paper on global climate change in which they state, “ Canada's Earth scientists also recognize that humans are adding greenhouse gases (GHGs) to our atmosphere at an ever increasing rate. The level of CO2 in our atmosphere is now greater than at any time in the past 500,000 years; there will be consequences for our global climate and natural systems as a result….These could include: increased frequency and severity of drought, coastal erosion, sea level change, permafrost degradation, impact of reduced glacier cover on water resources, groundwater quality and quantity, and occurrence of climate-related natural hazards such as flooding, dust storms and landslides.”[34] Geological Society of America "The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active, effective, long-term planning."[35] American Geophysical Union The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement [36] adopted by the society in 2003 and revised in 2007 affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer: The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate. American Astronomical Society The American Astronomical Society has endorsed the AGU statement:[37] In endorsing the "Human Impacts on Climate" statement [issued by the American Geophysical Union], the AAS recognizes the collective expertise of the AGU in scientific subfields central to assessing and understanding global change, and acknowledges the strength of agreement among our AGU colleagues that the global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that change. American Institute of Physics The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics endorsed the AGU statement on human-induced climate change:[38] The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics has endorsed a position statement on climate change adopted by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Council in December 2003. American Physical Society In November of 2007, the American Physical Society (APS) adopted an official statement on climate change: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes. "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."[39] American Chemical Society The American Chemical Society stated: Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing rapidly in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases and absorbing aerosol particles (IPCC, 2007). There is very little room for doubt that observed climate trends are due to human activities. The threats are serious and action is urgently needed to mitigate the risks of climate change. The reality of global warming, its current serious and potentially disastrous impacts on Earth system properties, and the key role emissions from human activities play in driving these phenomena have been recognized by earlier versions of this ACS policy statement (ACS, 2004), by other major scientific societies, including the American Geophysical Union (AGU, 2003), the American Meteorological Society (AMS, 2007) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, 2007), and by the U. S. National Academies and ten other leading national academies of science (NA, 2005). This statement reviews key global climate change impacts and recommends actions required to mitigate or adapt to currently anticipated consequences. [40] Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia) "Engineers Australia believes that Australia must act swiftly and proactively in line with global expectations to address climate change as an economic, social and environmental risk... We believe that addressing the costs of atmospheric emissions will lead to increasing our competitive advantage by minimising risks and creating new economic opportunities. Engineers Australia believes the Australian Government should ratify the Kyoto Protocol."[41] Federal Climate Change Science Program (US) On May 2, 2006, the Federal Climate Change Science Program commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002 released the first of 21 assessments. Though it did not state what percentage of climate change might be anthropogenic, the assessment concluded: Studies ... show clear evidence of human influences on the climate system (due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, and stratospheric ozone). ... The observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone, nor by the effects of short-lived atmospheric constituents (such as aerosols and tropospheric ozone) alone.[42] American Statistical Association On November 30, 2007, the American Statistical Association Board of Directors adopted a statement on climate change: The ASA endorses the IPCC conclusions. ... Over the course of four assessment reports, a small number of statisticians have served as authors or reviewers. Although this involvement is encouraging, it does not represent the full range of statistical expertise available. ASA recommends that more statisticians should become part of the IPCC process. Such participation would be mutually beneficial to the assessment of climate change and its impacts and also to the statistical community.[43] Noncommittal statements American Association of State Climatologists The 2001 statement from the American Association of State Climatologists noted the difficulties with predicting impacts due to climate change, while acknowledging that human activities are having an effect on climate: Climate prediction is difficult because it involves complex, nonlinear interactions among all components of the earth’s environmental system. (...) The AASC recognizes that human activities have an influence on the climate system. Such activities, however, are not limited to greenhouse gas forcing and include changing land use and sulfate emissions, which further complicates the issue of climate prediction. Furthermore, climate predictions have not demonstrated skill in projecting future variability and changes in such important climate conditions as growing season, drought, flood-producing rainfall, heat waves, tropical cyclones and winter storms. These are the type of events that have a more significant impact on society than annual average global temperature trends. Policy responses to climate variability and change should be flexible and sensible – The difficulty of prediction and the impossibility of verification of predictions decades into the future are important factors that allow for competing views of the long-term climate future. Therefore, the AASC recommends that policies related to long-term climate not be based on particular predictions, but instead should focus on policy alternatives that make sense for a wide range of plausible climatic conditions regardless of future climate... Finally, ongoing political debate about global energy policy should not stand in the way of common sense action to reduce societal and environmental vulnerabilities to climate variability and change. Considerable potential exists to improve policies related to climate.[44] American Association of Petroleum Geologists The American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) Position Statement on climate change states that "the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases ... Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models."[45] Prior to the adoption of this statement, the AAPG was the only major scientific organization that rejected the finding of significant human influence on recent climate, according to a statement by the Council of the American Quaternary Association.[46] Explaining the plan for a revision, AAPG president Lee Billingsly wrote in March 2007 that "Members have threatened to not renew their memberships ... if AAPG does not alter its position on global climate change ... . And I have been told of members who already have resigned in previous years because of our current global climate change position. ... The current policy statement is not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members."[47] Statements by dissenting organizations With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.[46] |
(OT) : Energy for a Strong America and a Healthy US Economy
On Jul 21, 4:55*am, dxAce wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote: wrote: Can't go on using oil for more than another 10 to 20 years due to the global warming emergency proven by science, dumbass. * *Nothing has been proven. There is considerable debate within the scientific community about the validity of the claims made by the global warming movement. To underscore the point, NOAA released figures this past quarter that indicate global temperatures have dropped by .6 of a degree in the last 12 months. * *As for greenhouse gasses...well, let's look at that. Carbon dioxide is only .04% of atmospheric content. Every living creature on the planet emits CO2. Even plants, in the absence of sunlight. *In the presence of sunlight, they consume CO2 at a voracious rate. * *Water, on the other hand, is the primary greehouse gas, with a known impact on atmospheric temperature through cloud formation. And yet....no one has even hinted at it's regulation. * *A previous poster is correct....global warming is a socialist movement. *It's goals are precisely the same as the alarmists who set their crosshairs on the oil industry when Rockefeller was building the Standard Oil monopoly. Michael Savage had a fellow on in the past week who outlined what the socialists have done over the years to instill fear in the people. If I recall, there may me a link on his site to the info, though I've not looked at it. The guest made a point about what the left will do when the 'global warming' craze subsides and that will be to manufacture another crisis and on and on it will go. Savage is a nutcase. The science is case closed. You are wrong. |
(OT) : Energy for a Strong America and a Healthy US Economy
On Jul 21, 11:46*am, D Peter Maus wrote:
Dave wrote: On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:41:29 -0400, dxAce wrote: * Interesting that no one's talking about that pile of Saddam's 'fictional' yellowcake that ended up in Canada. Yeah via D{e@o G@r(}a , that place that should not be mentioned. A pile of ore is not a weapon. *It is not a gathering threat. http://www.dg.navy.mil/web/ http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ego-garcia.htm * *Denial is a marvelous thing. Like your ridiculous claims on global warming science, which are entirely false? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:11 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com