SternFanNetwork Archive > Other Talk > Politics & News

Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.

an inconvenient truth - Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics

banner

an inconvenient truth - Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics DUDE-HERE Quote: Originally posted by sjollypbj wait this is shocking? REPUBLICANS are ignorant of what is happening in the world? No way I can't believe that. Those KKK members are true patriots, they will never admit to the lie that is global warming. KKK member like Senior Senator democrap robert byrd.. who was the grand cyclops sjollypbj who said anything about democrats, they are just the same sjollypbj only idiot America can think in black and white :lol: Halcyon Quote: Originally posted by sjollypbj who said anything about democrats, they are just the same Dude-here can only point out democrats fallacies... and he continues to regurgitate the same democrat as if it is the only one. There are many democrats who are racist... and many Republicans.... but Dude-here is only interested in pointing out the same things over and over again, like a broken record. He never continues on with other things, he just replays over and over and over again. It's good to know who you are debating with, please keep in mind that DUDE-HERE is never going to provide any proof, he'll just tell you to go look it up while he spits out the same Democrat name. It's because he can't be bothered to look for more, he just regurgitates a name that someone else told him about. No original thoughts, just regurgitation. Ass Boil Quote: Originally posted by DUDE-HERE go look it up yourself ...mr non-partisan You made the claim, fucko. Now present your proof or admit you made it up like 99% of everything else you post. Jesus. What a fuckhead you are. acefree sigh. when will u guys realize dude-here is just fucking with u guys. he might even be a democrat, but he types anything possible to rile u up. when ppl have 'i hate ralph' threads, i join and say i love ralph and they freak. the guy isnt seriuos, hes not made 1 intelligent post yet. Ass Boil Quote: Originally posted by DUDE-HERE KKK member like Senior Senator democrap robert byrd.. who was the grand cyclops And Byrd has said many times that was the biggest mistake of his life. This is funny coming from someone as confused as you. You are obviously a fucking tard with no capacity to grasp even basic issues. You admitted you voted for Clinton TWICE, and now you are defending George W. Asshole's every move. The only explanation for that kind of political schizophrenia is severe mental retardation... Wake up, dipshit. hoochieking * Quote: Originally posted by hoochieking NCMike06, When you watch Superman do you root for Jor-el or the Krypton Rulers who laughed at him? And then when Krypton blows up do you blame it on the liberal Krypton Media or the gays? *yes I know I quoted myself. yes it is gay. Halcyon Quote: Originally posted by hoochieking * And then when Krypton blows up do you blame it on the liberal Krypton Media or the gays? *yes I know I quoted myself. yes it is gay. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: acefree Quote: Originally posted by hoochieking * And then when Krypton blows up do you blame it on the liberal Krypton Media or the gays? *yes I know I quoted myself. yes it is gay. i like this guy lol Ass Boil That avatar is the creepiest thing I have ever seen..... Someday they are going to find a bunch of bodies in Richard Christy's attic. Oofah Toofah hoochieking Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil That avatar is the creepiest thing I have ever seen..... Someday they are going to find a bunch of bodies in Richard Christy's attic. Oofah Toofah I think you have seen one AV that is creepier. And trust me there are a ton of dead bodies in his attic. Ass Boil Quote: Originally posted by hoochieking I think you have seen one AV that is creepier. And trust me there are a ton of dead bodies in his attic. HAHA! You are absolutely correct. BTW, you owe me a new cell phone. I just spit coffee on mine when I saw that picture.... I think I had mentally been numbed to it as Mike's AV. Seeing it in a different context made me realize how dopey Bush looks. hoochieking Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil HAHA! You are absolutely correct. Seeing it in a different context made me realize how dopey Bush looks. I know. That's what I just don't get about NCMIKE06 and all these other guys who love GWB. Just look at the guys face, it screams MORON! How do you in good conscience follow this guy? And he speaks like a buffoon, I just don't get it. Ass Boil Retards flock together...... sir1us Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06 And a wonderful peice of fiction it was... i guess we can be assured using the "Bush theory" that god will make and fix everything, fuckin dolt. sir1us Quote: Originally posted by hoochieking I think you have seen one AV that is creepier. And trust me there are a ton of dead bodies in his attic. look at that picture and look at him now, this whole "being president" thing has aged him a good 15 years, gee that can't be a good sign. NCMike06 Quote: Originally posted by acefree good post. u are correct. so why is mike argueing it dont exist? unless he thinks bush is so dumb to spend 29 B on imaginary things Maybe you should actually 'read' my posts before attributing positions to me that are not true. Here are the few agreed upon facts: The earth has warmed by .6 degrees C over the past 100 years...most of that warming occurred pre 1950. The 20 years following 1950, the earth was actually cooling causing the 1970's global cooling scare. The earth began to warm again but that trend seems to have stopped in 1998. What does NOT exist is any proof that man has any significant (or any) effect on the warming and cooling of the earth. Right now, it is all unproven speculation, driven by some who have no interest in the truth but who push a certain agenda. NCMike06 Quote: Originally posted by SeanWuzHere How is anyone going to lose a job if Al Gore is right? If anything, doing something positive about global warming will create MORE jobs. And keep in mind, if Al Gore is right, then none of us will have to worry about having jobs anymore because many of us will just be dead from the blazing heat we will experience absent the polar caps. And if the heat doesn't do it, then the cat 7 hurricanes surely will. After reading through some of your posts I am really confused. You don't seem to make any reasonable sense. I don't mean to be judgemental, but it seems like you lack common sense or don't really have a grip on reality or something. Take that as an attack if you like but really, you should really sit down and think about the political positions you take that affect billions of people. Just ask yourself something,.. when you support this neocon ideology,.. what's in it for you? How do you or your friends or family benefit from neo conservative, absolutist ideology? Can you be anymore overthetop with the rhetoric....?? 'we will just be dead from the blazing heat' ??? Are you serious??? Why must you use extreme examples and engage in fearmongering (ALGore style) ?? You talk about me not making sense, your rhetoric is in no way supported by science, facts or reason. Maybe you should ask yourself why you buy into alarmist propaganda. What makes you believe it so much when you can't support your position factually. THe global alarmist movement is more religion than anything else. Everything is 'believed' because it cannot be proven. Just like religion...you must have faith that its all true. Global alarmism is no different. Do you understand what the 'doing something about global warming' is? What that means to the alarmists is significantly reducing the CO2 emmissions of the US. ie...control of the economy. The only way to seriously do this is to cut manufacturing, transportation, and other vital aspects of our economy until we reach these CO2 amounts. What that does is cause thousands to lose jobs, prices to increase, and the cost of energy will also rise. All for what?? No one can even say or prove that the changes will have ANY effect on the global temperature, No on can prove that the predicted warming will occur, no one can prove that even if the earth does warm that it will lead to catastrophe, NOR can anyone prove man is causing the slight warming that we have seen. NCMike06 Quote: Originally posted by Halcyon According to Mike, it's not worth even trying to slow the process... we should just continue on with our heads in the sand and let our children's children's children's children deal with it... or something. Please prove that anything you propose will have any effect.?? Hell, you won't even define what you mean be 'environmentally concious' - as I have asked you about that statement you made numerous times. Why would we take drastic steps to solve a problem that: - we are not even sure exists (we are not sure that warming will lead to catastrophe) - not sure that anything we do would have any effect anyway - and have an incredibly little understanding of all the aspects that go into the global climate. Please explain the logic to me of throwing billions upon billions of dollars at an issue such as this?? I think our grandchildren will thank us for not being so rash with our decision. NCMike06 Quote: Originally posted by ru8up? "period of slight warming (less than other times)" this is a lie and you know it. Over the past 100 years the global temp has increased .6 degrees celcius...most of that pre 1950...so yes, SLIGHT warming....and the Mideavil Warming period (about 1000 years ago) saw higher global temps than today. Not to mention that the earth is billions of years old, and has had ice ages and warming periods throughout. Quote: Originally posted by ru8up? "the whole point about global warming is that we that are talking about it now will be fine, our children will be the ones that suffer our having our heads up our ass Based on what?? flawed models and rampant spectulation.....please. NCMike06 Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil And Byrd has said many times that was the biggest mistake of his life. Was that before or after he used the N-Word on Fox News Sunday???? Wake up, dipshit. NCMike06 Quote: Originally posted by hoochieking NCMike06, When you watch Superman do you root for Jor-el or the Krypton Rulers who laughed at him? Sorry, I don't have time to read comic books.....Are they the sum total of your reference list??..... seems that it might be the case. Can't say that I am surprised, however.. NCMike06 Quote: Originally posted by Halcyon I would be glad if it's true too.... it would serve two purposes: a) Money to a global warming fund might help advance the knowledge of global warming, it's causes, and possibly ways to help slow it down http://www.opinionjournal.com/edito...ml?id=110008626 Sorry, according to 8 of the worlds top economists...(included 4 who Nobel Laureate winners) spending money on global warming is a waste Quote: The numbers were just so compelling: $1 spent preventing HIV/AIDS would result in about $40 of social benefits, so the economists put it at the top of the list (followed by malnutrition, free trade and malaria). In contrast, $1 spent to abate global warming would result in only about two cents to 25 cents worth of good; so that project dropped to the bottom. Maybe you need to actually do a little research on the subject. It is strikingly clear that you know nothing more than what the headlines say, and what some talking point has told you. The very fact that you comment on this subject at all is a joke. Quote: Originally posted by Halcyon b) would prove that NCMike06 basically just repeats tired right-wing rhetoric and doesn't bother to check to see what his hero is saying this week! Bush's global warming position is irrelevant to mine. I would have to say that he is more in the global realist camp, than the alarmist camp. He ditched the Kyoto nonsense which was a wonderful thing, but my position has nothing to do with his. If the 29 billion figure is true, this was just another wasted 29 billion dollars that could have been used better elsewhere, or preferrably not spent at all. You seem so obsessed with the fact that I support Bush on the war on terror, and you feel the need to project that support to every area. Why not just worry about yourself and what you supposedly support. Its clear that you have idolized me and feel the need to inject me into almost every post you make. Why can you not stand on your own?? You obviously have such a limited grasp on the facts in everythread you post in, I would think that you might want to actually learn something before you open your mouth and embarrass yourself again. NCMike06 Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil Retards flock together...... I would say YOU are correct...here is my proof: Quote: Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil HAHA! You are absolutely correct. Seeing it in a different context made me realize how dopey Bush looks. [QUOTE]- hoochieking - I know. That's what I just don't get about NCMIKE06 and all these other guys who love GWB. Just look at the guys face, it screams MORON! How do you in good conscience follow this guy? And he speaks like a buffoon, I just don't get it. ru8up? Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06 Over the past 100 years the global temp has increased .6 degrees celcius...most of that pre 1950...so yes, SLIGHT warming....and the Mideavil Warming period (about 1000 years ago) saw higher global temps than today. Not to mention that the earth is billions of years old, and has had ice ages and warming periods throughout. Based on what?? flawed models and rampant spectulation.....please. "flawed models and rampant spectulation" that's what you get from oil industry funded science "the Mideavil Warming period (about 1000 years ago) saw higher global temps than today" that's a lie and you know it stop being a moronic sheep NCMike06 Quote: Originally posted by ru8up? "flawed models and rampant spectulation" that's what you get from oil industry funded science "the Mideavil Warming period (about 1000 years ago) saw higher global temps than today" that's a lie and you know it stop being a moronic sheep So pretty much all you have is...'its a lie and you know it' Don't feel bad, you are about average for the global alarmist crowd in terms of being able to prove what you say... Ass Boil Review of the year: Global warming Our worst fears are exceeded by reality By Steve Connor Published: 29 December 2006 It has been a hot year. The average temperature in Britain for 2006 was higher than at any time since records began in 1659. Globally, it looks set to be the sixth hottest year on record. The signs during the past 12 months have been all around us. Little winter snow in the Alpine ski resorts, continuing droughts in Africa, mountain glaciers melting faster than at any time in the past 5,000 years, disappearing Arctic sea ice, Greenland's ice sheet sliding into the sea. Oh, and a hosepipe ban in southern England. You could be forgiven for thinking that you've heard it all before. You may think it's time to turn the page and read something else. But you'd be wrong. 2006 will be remembered by climatologists as the year in which the potential scale of global warming came into focus. And the problem can be summarised in one word: feedback. During the past year, scientific findings emerged that made even the most doom-laden predictions about climate change seem a little on the optimistic side. And at the heart of the issue is the idea of climate feedbacks - when the effects of global warming begin to feed into the causes of global warming. Feedbacks can either make things better, or they can make things worse. The trouble is, everywhere scientists looked in 2006, they encountered feedbacks that will make things worse - a lot worse. Next year, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will publish its fourth assessment on the scale of the future problems facing humanity. Its last assessment, published in 2001, had little to say on the subject of climate feedbacks, partly because, at that time, they were such an unknown quantity. This year, scientists came to learn a little more about them, and they didn't like what they learnt. During the past two decades, the IPCC has tended to regard the Earth's climate as something that will change gradually and smoothly, as carbon dioxide and global temperatures continue their lock-step rise. But there is a growing consensus among many climate scientists that this may be giving a false sense of security. They fear that feedback reactions may begin to kick in and suddenly tip the climate beyond a critical threshold from which it cannot easily recover. Climate feedbacks could turn the Earth into a very different planet over a dramatically short period of time. It has happened in the past, scientists say, and it could easily happen in the future given the unprecedented scale of the environmental changes caused by man. There are two types of feedback that can play a role in the future direction of the Earth's climate. The first is a "negative" feedback, which is largely good for us, because it works against things getting worse. The classic example of a negative feedback is the fertilising effect of carbon dioxide. As concentrations rise, then so does the amount of carbon absorbed by the higher growth rate of plants. The result is a negative feedback that tends to check rising levels of carbon dioxide. A "positive" feedback makes things worse by adding to the existing problem. It brings about a vicious circle, in which a rise in carbon dioxide or global temperatures causes some change in the climate system which, in turn, leads to further rises in carbon dioxide or temperatures. A classic example of a positive feedback is the melting sea ice of the Arctic. As temperatures rise, the ice floating on the Arctic sea melts, exposing dark ocean where once there was white ice that reflected sunlight, and heat, back into space. The newly revealed dark ocean absorbs more sunlight and heats up, causing more ice to melt, and so reinforcing the positive-feedback cycle. But even this simple description belies the true complexity of life on Earth. In fact, there is a negative feedback at work as well with Arctic sea ice, which insulates the underlying ocean and keeps it warmer during the cold, dark northern winters. However, on balance, it is the positive feedback that dominates here, as it does in several other instances investigated by scientists in 2006. "The main concern is that the more we look, the more positive feedbacks we find," says Olivier Boucher, a climate scientist at the Met Office. "That's not the case when it comes to negative feedbacks. There seems to be far fewer of them." The sentiment is echoed by Chris Rapley, the director of the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge: "When we look at the list of all the feedbacks in the climate, the list of positive feedbacks is worryingly long - a lot longer than the negative feedbacks. To be honest, it's a wonder that the climate has remained so stable." Let's stick with Arctic sea ice a bit longer before looking at other issues that emerged 2006. In March, Nasa satellites monitored a 28-year record low for winter sea ice. Normally sea ice recovers during the long Arctic winter, but this was the second consecutive year that the ice failed to re-form fully to is previous winter extent. This meant there was less ice at the start of the northern summer, with the result that last September saw the second monthly minimum for summer sea ice - almost hitting the record minimum set in September 2005. During the past four or five years, there has been an acceleration in the rate at which sea ice is melting, a change that some scientists put down to a positive feedback. "Our hypothesis is that we've reached the tipping point," says Ron Lindsay of the University of Washington in Seattle. "For sea ice, the positive feedback is that increased summer melt means decreased winter growth and then even more melting the next summer, and so on." Professor Lindsay likens the positive feedback in the Arctic to a ball that has begun to roll down a slope, gathering momentum and speed as it goes. In order to reverse the direction of movement, the ball has to be pushed back up the slope. But how? "Perhaps a cooling period could reverse the situation," he says. "But with global warming, temperatures are only bound to rise." While we are in the northern hemisphere, take a look at another positive feedback that scientists investigated in 2006. This is connected to the frozen permafrost of Siberia and northern Canada, which lock up vast stores of carbon in the form of methane, a gas formed by the decomposition of organic matter. For more than 12,000 years, this methane - a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide - has been safely stored under the permanently frozen ground. But now the permafrost is melting and the gas is bubbling free into the atmosphere. Sergei Kirpotin, a botanist at Tomsk State University in Russia, has been studying the extent of the melting permafrost of Western Siberia, the site of the world's biggest frozen peat bog. During the past few years, he has watched lakes getting bigger and bigger as the solid permafrost underneath liquifies. Normally, patches on white lichen on high Siberian ground reflect the sun's rays and help to keep the ground underneath cold. But as the dark lakes expand, more heat is absorbed and more permafrost melts. "As we predicted in the early 1990s, there's a critical barrier," says Professor Kirpotin. "Once global warming pushes the melting process past that line, it begins to perpetuate itself." The once-frozen peat bogs of Siberia - bigger than France and Germany combined - began to "boil" furiously in the summer of 2006 as methane bubbled to the surface. Exactly how much is being released into the atmosphere is unknown, although some estimates put it as high as 100,000 tons a day - which means a warming effect greater than America's man-made emissions of carbon dioxide. But Katey Walter of the University of Alaska believes even this could be seriously underestimated. In a study published in Nature in September, Walter and her colleagues calculated that the level of methane emissions from Siberia could be anywhere between 10 per cent and 63 per cent higher than anyone had hitherto suspected. "We have shown that the North Siberian lakes are a significantly larger source of atmospheric methane than previously recognised," she says. So the message is clear: frozen peat bogs that turn into heat-absorbing lakes release methane, which means a stronger greenhouse effect and higher temperatures, leading to more permafrost melting. The cycle was clearly documented in 2006 but just how strong this positive feedback turns out to be has yet to be fully determined. Another study in 2006 looked at perhaps the most important climate feedback there is. Yet it went unreported - so listen up. The Earth has been a very accommodating planet. During the past 200 years, it has absorbed more than half of all man-made emissions of carbon dioxide through natural carbon "sinks", mostly in the ocean but also on land. The rest of the emissions have been left in the air to aggravate the Earth's natural greenhouse effect, so raising global average temperatures. But what if something were to interfere with these very useful carbon "sinks"? Can we forever rely on them to remain sinks, or could they turn into dangerous sources of atmospheric carbon? A huge international team of climatologists asked these questions in a little-known study published in the July issue of the Journal of Climate. The conclusion makes depressing reading. The scientists investigated what would happen if they tinkered with 11 of the world's biggest computer models of the complex climate-carbon cycle. They wanted to simulate what would happen to the carbon sinks on the land and the ocean for each model as the world gets warmer. All the models agreed that as the world heated up, the ability of the land and the oceans to keep on absorbing carbon as efficiently as they have in the past 200 years gets appreciably worse. In other words, we cannot rely on planet Earth to be so accommodating in terms of mopping up half of our carbon pollution. But could something even worse happen? Could these carbon sinks turn into carbon sources? The answer is yes. Many models suggest that the terrestrial biosphere could become a net carbon producer by the mid 21st century. Signs are that it is already happening in some parts of the world. Guy Kirk of the National Soil Resources Institute at Cranfield University found that the soil of Britain is releasing more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than a quarter of a century ago because increasing temperatures are speeding up the rate of organic decay. "It's a feedback loop," says Professor Kirk. "The warmer it gets, the faster it is happening." In fact, he estimates that since 1978, Britain's soil has released on average an extra 13 million tons of carbon dioxide a year, which is more than the 12.7 million tons a year Britain saved by cleaning up its industrial emissions. The outlook does not look any better out at sea. The important carbon sinks of the ocean are also suffering from feedback. As more carbon dioxide dissolves in seawater to form carbonic acid, the acidity of the ocean increases - the rate is 100 times faster than at any time for millions of years. There is a physical feedback - it is just harder for more carbon dioxide to dissolve in acid water - as well as a biological feedback. Tiny organisms called coccolithophores use dissolved carbon to make their shells, but acidic seas make this more difficult. This blocks an important biological pump that pushes carbon to a long-term store on the seabed - which is what happens when billions of tiny shells sink to the depths as coccolithophores die. Yet another ocean feedback was monitored in 2006, this time involving phytoplankton, the tiny microscopic plants of the sea that form the basis of the entire marine food chain. Nasa satellites showed earlier this month that phytoplankton - which absorb carbon dioxide - are finding it harder to live in the more stratified layers of the warmer ocean, which restrict the mixing of vital nutrients. Since 2000, when the sea surface temperatures began to rise more noticeably, the photosynthetic productivity of phytoplankton have decreased in some ocean regions by 30 per cent. "As climate warms, phytoplankton production goes down, but this also means that carbon dioxide uptake by ocean plants will decrease," says Michael Behrenfeld of Oregon State University. "That would allow carbon dioxide to accumulate more rapidly in the atmosphere, making the problem worse." Some climate scientists believe that the risk of dangerous feedbacks tipping the Earth's climate system beyond a threshold is so great that there should be wider recognition of what they term "abrupt changes". The point is, they say, it has happened repeatedly in the past. It happened 55 million years ago when a trillion tons of methane were suddenly and mysteriously released from frozen stores on the seabed, causing global temperatures to soar 10C, and a mass extinction of species. It happened 14,500 years ago when ice sheets catastrophically collapsed into the ocean causing sea levels to rise by 20 metres in just 400 years. And it happened 6,500 years ago when the Sahara was suddenly turned from lush vegetation to dry desert. Scientists say that what is happening now to the planet in terms of carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures is just as abrupt as anything that has occurred in the past. "What we are doing now to the Earth is unprecedented," says Professor Rapley of the British Antarctic Survey, "so we cannot rule out the possibility that we are doing something that will create a strong positive feedback, which will push the Earth into a domain where things will happen that have never happened before." It is a sobering thought as 2006 draws to a close, and one that must be in the minds of all the IPCC scientists preparing next year's Fourth Assessment Report on climate change. A VISION OF THE FUTURE The single most momentous environmental image of 2006 was a holiday snap. Of sorts. It showed typical European package tourists on a nice sandy beach in Tenerife. Until a few minutes before the picture was taken, on August 3 on Tejita beach in Granadilla, it had been a day of utter normality for these tourists. Then something very different erupted on to the scene. From the sea came a boat. Out of it fell pitiful figures - exhausted, terrified, dehydrated, starving. They were African migrants who, out of desperation, had risked the long voyage from the African coast to the Canaries; for the Canaries are part of Europe, a place of hope and opportunity. What did the tourists do? They did the decent thing. They rushed to the aid of fellow men and women. But will they offer such a welcome when the boat people are not just a boatload, but a whole country- or region-load? For that is coming. As climate change takes hold this century, agriculture may fail in some of the poorest and most densely populated parts of the world. Sir Crispin Tickell, Britain's former Ambassador to the UN, who is one of the most far-sighted of environmental commentators, pointed out as long ago as 1990 that global warming is likely to create environmental refugees in the hundreds of millions. We have paid little attention to his warning. But if you look at the picture taken on Tejita beach, you can see something even more dramatic than the fact that the ordinary European holidaymaker has a lifestyle most Africans can only dream of. You can see the future, starting to happen. Michael McCarthy http://news.independent.co.uk/envir...icle2110651.ece Timmy Bla bla bla. The earth is forever changeing. That doesnt mean MAN is the cause of everything. We have a very limited history of weather when we make comparisions. We may be blind to long range cycles due to our lack of information. hoochieking Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06 Sorry, I don't have time to read comic books.....Are they the sum total of your reference list??..... seems that it might be the case. Can't say that I am surprised, however.. Nice reading comprehension skills there NCMIKE but I was talking about the movie. So you have never seen the movie Superman? Is that what you are telling us? I will answer your well rounded question though: No comic books are not the sum total of my reference list. I also dabble in the occasional graphic novel. So there. Ass Boil Quote: Originally posted by Timmy Bla bla bla. The earth is forever changeing. That doesnt mean MAN is the cause of everything. We have a very limited history of weather when we make comparisions. We may be blind to long range cycles due to our lack of information. Yes, genius. And we have affected the earth's ability to compensate for the natural changes.... Temperature changes that used to take place over thousands of years are now taking place over decades. It takes about an ounce of common sense to realize this. Let me know when you have half of that and we can talk. NCMike06 Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil Yes, genius. And we have affected the earth's ability to compensate for the natural changes.... Temperature changes that used to take place over thousands of years are now taking place over decades. It takes about an ounce of common sense to realize this. Let me know when you have half of that and we can talk. Except that we went from the Mideavil warming period to the Little Ice age in a few hundred years. The past 100 years, we went from warming, to cooling to warming again, to neither. Yeah, but we understand it ALL..and can make major policy decisions... :rolleyes: NCMike06 Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil Review of the year: Global warming Our worst fears are exceeded by reality By Steve Connor Published: 29 December 2006 It has been a hot year. The average temperature in Britain for 2006 was higher than at any time since records began in 1659. Globally, it looks set to be the sixth hottest year on record. The signs during the past 12 months have been all around us. Little winter snow in the Alpine ski resorts, continuing droughts in Africa, mountain glaciers melting faster than at any time in the past 5,000 years, disappearing Arctic sea ice, Greenland's ice sheet sliding into the sea. Oh, and a hosepipe ban in southern England. You could be forgiven for thinking that you've heard it all before. You may think it's time to turn the page and read something else. But you'd be wrong. 2006 will be remembered by climatologists as the year in which the potential scale of global warming came into focus. And the problem can be summarised in one word: feedback. During the past year, scientific findings emerged that made even the most doom-laden predictions about climate change seem a little on the optimistic side. And at the heart of the issue is the idea of climate feedbacks - when the effects of global warming begin to feed into the causes of global warming. Feedbacks can either make things better, or they can make things worse. The trouble is, everywhere scientists looked in 2006, they encountered feedbacks that will make things worse - a lot worse. Next year, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will publish its fourth assessment on the scale of the future problems facing humanity. Its last assessment, published in 2001, had little to say on the subject of climate feedbacks, partly because, at that time, they were such an unknown quantity. This year, scientists came to learn a little more about them, and they didn't like what they learnt. During the past two decades, the IPCC has tended to regard the Earth's climate as something that will change gradually and smoothly, as carbon dioxide and global temperatures continue their lock-step rise. But there is a growing consensus among many climate scientists that this may be giving a false sense of security. They fear that feedback reactions may begin to kick in and suddenly tip the climate beyond a critical threshold from which it cannot easily recover. Climate feedbacks could turn the Earth into a very different planet over a dramatically short period of time. It has happened in the past, scientists say, and it could easily happen in the future given the unprecedented scale of the environmental changes caused by man. There are two types of feedback that can play a role in the future direction of the Earth's climate. The first is a "negative" feedback, which is largely good for us, because it works against things getting worse. The classic example of a negative feedback is the fertilising effect of carbon dioxide. As concentrations rise, then so does the amount of carbon absorbed by the higher growth rate of plants. The result is a negative feedback that tends to check rising levels of carbon dioxide. A "positive" feedback makes things worse by adding to the existing problem. It brings about a vicious circle, in which a rise in carbon dioxide or global temperatures causes some change in the climate system which, in turn, leads to further rises in carbon dioxide or temperatures. A classic example of a positive feedback is the melting sea ice of the Arctic. As temperatures rise, the ice floating on the Arctic sea melts, exposing dark ocean where once there was white ice that reflected sunlight, and heat, back into space. The newly revealed dark ocean absorbs more sunlight and heats up, causing more ice to melt, and so reinforcing the positive-feedback cycle. But even this simple description belies the true complexity of life on Earth. In fact, there is a negative feedback at work as well with Arctic sea ice, which insulates the underlying ocean and keeps it warmer during the cold, dark northern winters. However, on balance, it is the positive feedback that dominates here, as it does in several other instances investigated by scientists in 2006. "The main concern is that the more we look, the more positive feedbacks we find," says Olivier Boucher, a climate scientist at the Met Office. "That's not the case when it comes to negative feedbacks. There seems to be far fewer of them." The sentiment is echoed by Chris Rapley, the director of the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge: "When we look at the list of all the feedbacks in the climate, the list of positive feedbacks is worryingly long - a lot longer than the negative feedbacks. To be honest, it's a wonder that the climate has remained so stable." Let's stick with Arctic sea ice a bit longer before looking at other issues that emerged 2006. In March, Nasa satellites monitored a 28-year record low for winter sea ice. Normally sea ice recovers during the long Arctic winter, but this was the second consecutive year that the ice failed to re-form fully to is previous winter extent. This meant there was less ice at the start of the northern summer, with the result that last September saw the second monthly minimum for summer sea ice - almost hitting the record minimum set in September 2005. During the past four or five years, there has been an acceleration in the rate at which sea ice is melting, a change that some scientists put down to a positive feedback. "Our hypothesis is that we've reached the tipping point," says Ron Lindsay of the University of Washington in Seattle. "For sea ice, the positive feedback is that increased summer melt means decreased winter growth and then even more melting the next summer, and so on." Professor Lindsay likens the positive feedback in the Arctic to a ball that has begun to roll down a slope, gathering momentum and speed as it goes. In order to reverse the direction of movement, the ball has to be pushed back up the slope. But how? "Perhaps a cooling period could reverse the situation," he says. "But with global warming, temperatures are only bound to rise." While we are in the northern hemisphere, take a look at another positive feedback that scientists investigated in 2006. This is connected to the frozen permafrost of Siberia and northern Canada, which lock up vast stores of carbon in the form of methane, a gas formed by the decomposition of organic matter. For more than 12,000 years, this methane - a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide - has been safely stored under the permanently frozen ground. But now the permafrost is melting and the gas is bubbling free into the atmosphere. Sergei Kirpotin, a botanist at Tomsk State University in Russia, has been studying the extent of the melting permafrost of Western Siberia, the site of the world's biggest frozen peat bog. During the past few years, he has watched lakes getting bigger and bigger as the solid permafrost underneath liquifies. Normally, patches on white lichen on high Siberian ground reflect the sun's rays and help to keep the ground underneath cold. But as the dark lakes expand, more heat is absorbed and more permafrost melts. "As we predicted in the early 1990s, there's a critical barrier," says Professor Kirpotin. "Once global warming pushes the melting process past that line, it begins to perpetuate itself." The once-frozen peat bogs of Siberia - bigger than France and Germany combined - began to "boil" furiously in the summer of 2006 as methane bubbled to the surface. Exactly how much is being released into the atmosphere is unknown, although some estimates put it as high as 100,000 tons a day - which means a warming effect greater than America's man-made emissions of carbon dioxide. But Katey Walter of the University of Alaska believes even this could be seriously underestimated. In a study published in Nature in September, Walter and her colleagues calculated that the level of methane emissions from Siberia could be anywhere between 10 per cent and 63 per cent higher than anyone had hitherto suspected. "We have shown that the North Siberian lakes are a significantly larger source of atmospheric methane than previously recognised," she says. So the message is clear: frozen peat bogs that turn into heat-absorbing lakes release methane, which means a stronger greenhouse effect and higher temperatures, leading to more permafrost melting. The cycle was clearly documented in 2006 but just how strong this positive feedback turns out to be has yet to be fully determined. Another study in 2006 looked at perhaps the most important climate feedback there is. Yet it went unreported - so listen up. The Earth has been a very accommodating planet. During the past 200 years, it has absorbed more than half of all man-made emissions of carbon dioxide through natural carbon "sinks", mostly in the ocean but also on land. The rest of the emissions have been left in the air to aggravate the Earth's natural greenhouse effect, so raising global average temperatures. But what if something were to interfere with these very useful carbon "sinks"? Can we forever rely on them to remain sinks, or could they turn into dangerous sources of atmospheric carbon? A huge international team of climatologists asked these questions in a little-known study published in the July issue of the Journal of Climate. The conclusion makes depressing reading. The scientists investigated what would happen if they tinkered with 11 of the world's biggest computer models of the complex climate-carbon cycle. They wanted to simulate what would happen to the carbon sinks on the land and the ocean for each model as the world gets warmer. All the models agreed that as the world heated up, the ability of the land and the oceans to keep on absorbing carbon as efficiently as they have in the past 200 years gets appreciably worse. In other words, we cannot rely on planet Earth to be so accommodating in terms of mopping up half of our carbon pollution. But could something even worse happen? Could these carbon sinks turn into carbon sources? The answer is yes. Many models suggest that the terrestrial biosphere could become a net carbon producer by the mid 21st century. Signs are that it is already happening in some parts of the world. Guy Kirk of the National Soil Resources Institute at Cranfield University found that the soil of Britain is releasing more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than a quarter of a century ago because increasing temperatures are speeding up the rate of organic decay. "It's a feedback loop," says Professor Kirk. "The warmer it gets, the faster it is happening." In fact, he estimates that since 1978, Britain's soil has released on average an extra 13 million tons of carbon dioxide a year, which is more than the 12.7 million tons a year Britain saved by cleaning up its industrial emissions. The outlook does not look any better out at sea. The important carbon sinks of the ocean are also suffering from feedback. As more carbon dioxide dissolves in seawater to form carbonic acid, the acidity of the ocean increases - the rate is 100 times faster than at any time for millions of years. There is a physical feedback - it is just harder for more carbon dioxide to dissolve in acid water - as well as a biological feedback. Tiny organisms called coccolithophores use dissolved carbon to make their shells, but acidic seas make this more difficult. This blocks an important biological pump that pushes carbon to a long-term store on the seabed - which is what happens when billions of tiny shells sink to the depths as coccolithophores die. Yet another ocean feedback was monitored in 2006, this time involving phytoplankton, the tiny microscopic plants of the sea that form the basis of the entire marine food chain. Nasa satellites showed earlier this month that phytoplankton - which absorb carbon dioxide - are finding it harder to live in the more stratified layers of the warmer ocean, which restrict the mixing of vital nutrients. Since 2000, when the sea surface temperatures began to rise more noticeably, the photosynthetic productivity of phytoplankton have decreased in some ocean regions by 30 per cent. "As climate warms, phytoplankton production goes down, but this also means that carbon dioxide uptake by ocean plants will decrease," says Michael Behrenfeld of Oregon State University. "That would allow carbon dioxide to accumulate more rapidly in the atmosphere, making the problem worse." Some climate scientists believe that the risk of dangerous feedbacks tipping the Earth's climate system beyond a threshold is so great that there should be wider recognition of what they term "abrupt changes". The point is, they say, it has happened repeatedly in the past. It happened 55 million years ago when a trillion tons of methane were suddenly and mysteriously released from frozen stores on the seabed, causing global temperatures to soar 10C, and a mass extinction of species. It happened 14,500 years ago when ice sheets catastrophically collapsed into the ocean causing sea levels to rise by 20 metres in just 400 years. And it happened 6,500 years ago when the Sahara was suddenly turned from lush vegetation to dry desert. Scientists say that what is happening now to the planet in terms of carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures is just as abrupt as anything that has occurred in the past. "What we are doing now to the Earth is unprecedented," says Professor Rapley of the British Antarctic Survey, "so we cannot rule out the possibility that we are doing something that will create a strong positive feedback, which will push the Earth into a domain where things will happen that have never happened before." It is a sobering thought as 2006 draws to a close, and one that must be in the minds of all the IPCC scientists preparing next year's Fourth Assessment Report on climate change. A VISION OF THE FUTURE The single most momentous environmental image of 2006 was a holiday snap. Of sorts. It showed typical European package tourists on a nice sandy beach in Tenerife. Until a few minutes before the picture was taken, on August 3 on Tejita beach in Granadilla, it had been a day of utter normality for these tourists. Then something very different erupted on to the scene. From the sea came a boat. Out of it fell pitiful figures - exhausted, terrified, dehydrated, starving. They were African migrants who, out of desperation, had risked the long voyage from the African coast to the Canaries; for the Canaries are part of Europe, a place of hope and opportunity. What did the tourists do? They did the decent thing. They rushed to the aid of fellow men and women. But will they offer such a welcome when the boat people are not just a boatload, but a whole country- or region-load? For that is coming. As climate change takes hold this century, agriculture may fail in some of the poorest and most densely populated parts of the world. Sir Crispin Tickell, Britain's former Ambassador to the UN, who is one of the most far-sighted of environmental commentators, pointed out as long ago as 1990 that global warming is likely to create environmental refugees in the hundreds of millions. We have paid little attention to his warning. But if you look at the picture taken on Tejita beach, you can see something even more dramatic than the fact that the ordinary European holidaymaker has a lifestyle most Africans can only dream of. You can see the future, starting to happen. Michael McCarthy http://news.independent.co.uk/envir...icle2110651.ece Thank you for your contribution... 43 Cent Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06 Why not ask your hero ALGore what caused periods of warming which were greater than todays slight warming, and period of significant cooling, all which occurred before the industrial age, before the evil SUV, before the evil capitalist pig ever opened a factory?? Then ask him how does he know that those factors are not in play today, and how he arrived at that answer. Please ask him to be detailed. When you get an answer, please report back. You might want to also ask how if we can't get the hurricane prediction for this year even close to correct, how exactly does he know how much the rise in global tem will be in the next 100 years. Remember…detail. Ohh, and go through that link I posted….you might learn some truth based on FACTS. you make valid points. most people see a doc and decide they know the truth. that's just not fair. the truth is bush is an asshole. Ass Boil Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06 Thank you for your contribution... Good job disproving the facts in the article.... <--Mikey harley-davidson I'm really starting to think mike likes pigeon shit....LOL... :D ru8up? Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06 So pretty much all you have is...'its a lie and you know it' Don't feel bad, you are about average for the global alarmist crowd in terms of being able to prove what you say... i think it's very important to point out as much as possible that you are a lying sheep NCMike06 Quote: Originally posted by ru8up? i think it's very important to point out as much as possible that you are a lying sheep You mean when you SAY I am lying without any proof, any backup, any argument, and any justification. Pretty much, you have nothing but ignorance on your side. NCMike06 Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil Good job disproving the facts in the article.... Umm genius, it was disproven many times...AND most recently in the post that began this thread: http://www.sternfannetwork.com/foru...threadid=200843 I know that for you, actually reading to what you respond to is equivilant to pulling your fingernails out....but give it a shot. Instead, you, in typical hater mode, attacked the author/website with your hatespeech from the left wing attack sites. ...so sad ... so typical of you. Quote: Quote: 2006 may well go down as the year of climate hype and hysteria, if not outright fraud. In this year we've seen a glorified slideshow of scene shots and misleading graphs drive absurd hypothetical-case hand-wringing and, much worse, a distinct trend toward confusing model output with real world data. An outstanding example of this confusion comes from GRACE data, butchered by models of no known veracity, actually reversing the sign of measurements of ice mass balance (along with significant regions of open ocean!) being used to claim empirical data showing increasing ice mass is wrong. This year has also seen announcement of pending downward revision of satellite-derived atmospheric temperatures due to orbital drift of some satellites leading to artificial warming in the record. A rough view of the difference one drifting satellite can make is available in this comparison where UAH have omitted the primary offender while RSS have not. Either way this is not the expected signature of enhanced greenhouse warming -- note particularly (using the "hottest" satellite dataset) that there is some Arctic warming but not Antarctic warming (where most enhanced greenhouse warming should manifest itself), which tells us we are observing changes in the phase of the Arctic Oscillation rather than the dreaded and largely imaginary "global warming." Also this year we have seen publication of more data from increased ocean monitoring projects showing sudden and unanticipated cooling, bizarrely referred to as a "speed bump" in warming -- have no illusions, a net loss of heat from the oceans is a cooling. Sadly this did not really rate any media attention and there was no retraction of the now-invalidated claim that this same dataset provided empirical support for Hansen's dead-wrong modeling exercise. On the plus side of the ledger there are serious moves afoot to find out what makes clouds work, what influences their development and destruction and how this influences climate -- a very small start on a critical piece of the puzzle. How the sun fits into the whole dynamic is drawing more attention, this remains a largely neglected field. Additionally, we are seeing a precious few mentions that estimates of 0.6 K warming since the latter 19th Century are only estimates and we do not know Earth's mean surface temperature with any greater precision than the total extent of estimated warming. Next week we'll post the first year of our global mean temperature data harvested from METAR records. Earth's "correct" temperature (the temperature frequently cited that Earth "should" be) is generally listed as around 14.0 °C, making the "warmed state" (base plus AGW) 14.6 °C and it will be interesting to see what a well-dispersed network or airports, automated weather stations and oil rigs return for a global average -- particularly as some datasets claim '06 to be a record-breaker. Watch this space, as they say. Slowly, almost imperceptibly, we are seeing moves to investigate what really drives global climate, this will take considerable time but is a worthwhile endeavor, and some recognition that atmospheric carbon dioxide constitutes no emergency. This will also take time to undo the misinformation campaign with which activists and a complicit or simply ignorant media have bombarded a relatively gullible population. Hopefully 2006 represents the shrieking crescendo of the absurd global warming scare and we can now turn our attention to matters of real importance. NCMike06 Quote: Originally posted by harley-davidson I'm really starting to think mike likes pigeon shit....LOL... :D Did ya bring the new year in with a snort, and a clean needle?? I am certainly hoping you did...the new year would be off to a bad start without being able to read more of your drug induced stupidity. Ass Boil Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06 Umm genius, it was disproven many times...AND most recently in the post that began this thread: http://www.sternfannetwork.com/foru...threadid=200843 I know that for you, actually reading to what you respond to is equivilant to pulling your fingernails out....but give it a shot. Instead, you, in typical hater mode, attacked the author/website with your hatespeech from the left wing attack sites. ...so sad ... so typical of you. Bwwaaahahahahahahahahaha! The "junkscience" guy again? Riiiiiiiight. I guess you missed the rest of that thread where Milloy was exposed as a lying hack, huh? I know you love to choose sources that are just as big of scumbags as you, but maybe you need a reminder: JunkScience.com JunkScience.com is a website maintained by Steven J. Milloy, an adjunct scholar the Cato Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute - right wing think tanks with long histories of denying environmental problems at the behest of the corporations which fund them. Milloy is also a columnist for FoxNews.com. Milloy defines "junk science" as "bad science used by lawsuit-happy trial lawyers, the 'food police,' environmental Chicken Littles, power-drunk regulators, and unethical-to-dishonest scientists to fuel specious lawsuits, wacky social and political agendas, and the quest for personal fame and fortune." He regularly attacks environmentalists and scientists who support environmentalism, claiming that dioxin, pesticides in foods, environmental lead, asbestos, secondhand tobacco smoke and global warming are all "scares" and "scams." Milloy's attacks are often notable for their vicious tone, which appears calculated to lower rather than elevate scientific discourse. That tone is noticeable, for example, in his extended attack on Our Stolen Future, the book about endocrine-disrupting chemicals by Theo Colborn, Dianne Dumanoski and Peter Myers. Milloy's on-line parody, titled "Our Swollen Future," includes a cartoon depiction of Colborn hauling a wheelbarrow of money to the bank [1] (her implied motive for writing the book), and refers to Dianne Dumanoski as "Dianne Dumb-as-an-oxski." [2] Prior to launching the JunkScience.com, Milloy worked for Jim Tozzi's Multinational Business Services, the Philip Morris tobacco company's primary lobbyist in Washington with respect to the issue of secondhand cigarette smoke. He subsequently went to work for The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), a Philip Morris front group created by the PR firm of APCO Worldwide. [3] Although Milloy frequently represent himself as an expert on scientific matters, he is not a scientist himself. He holds a bachelor's degree in Natural Sciences, a law degree and a master's degree in biostatistics. He has never published original research in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Moreover, he has made scientific claims himself that have no basis in actual research. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, for example, he claimed that greater use of asbestos insulation in the World Trade Towers would have delayed their collapse "by up to four hours." In reality, there is no scientific basis for claiming that asbestos would have delayed their collapse by even a second, let alone four hours.[4]. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...JunkScience.com Ass Boil How Big Tobacco Helped Create "the Junkman" Topics: tobacco | science | public relations | environment by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber In the biographical sketch that accompanies "The Fear Profiteers" (see cover story of this issue), Steven Milloy describes himself as the publisher of the Junk Science Home Page and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. "Milloy appears frequently on radio and television; has testified on risk assessment and Superfund before the U.S. Congress; and has lectured before numerous organizations," it adds, noting that he has also "written articles that have appeared in the New York Post, USA Today, Washington Times, The Chicago Sun-Times, and the Investors' Business Daily." These facts are all accurate as far they go, but they say nothing about how Milloy came to be a prominent debunker of "junk science." This omission is undoubtedly by design, because it would certainly be embarrassing to admit that a self-proclaimed scientific reformer got his start as a behind-the-scenes lobbyist for the tobacco industry, which has arguably done more to corrupt science than any other industry in history. Early in his career, Milloy worked for a company called Multinational Business Services, a Washington lobby shop that Philip Morris described as its "primary contact" on the issue of secondhand cigarette smoke in the early 1990s. Later, he became executive director of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), an organization that was covertly created by Philip Morris for the express purpose of generating scientific controversy regarding the link between secondhand smoke and cancer. The Whitecoat Project One of the forerunners of TASSC at Philip Morris was a 1988 "Proposal for the Whitecoat Project," named after the white laboratory coats that scientists sometimes wear. The project had four goals: "Resist and roll back smoking restrictions. Restore smoker confidence. Reverse scientific and popular misconception that ETS is harmful. Restore social acceptability of smoking." To achieve these goals, the plan was to first "generate a body of scientific and technical knowledge" through research "undertaken by whitecoats, contract laboratories and commercial organizations"; then "disseminate and exploit such knowledge through specific communication programs." Covington & Burling, PM's law firm, would function as the executive arm of the Whitecoat Project, acting as a "legal buffer . . . the interface with the operating units (whitecoats, laboratories, etc.)." The effort to create a scientific defense for secondhand smoke was only one component in the tobacco industry's multi-million-dollar PR campaign. To defeat cigarette excise taxes, a Philip Morris strategy document outlined plans for "Co-op efforts with third party tax organizations"--libertarian anti-taxation think tanks, such as Americans for Tax Reform, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Citizens for Tax Justice and the Tax Foundation. Other third party allies included the National Journalism Center, the Heartland Institute, the Claremont Institute, and National Empowerment Television, a conservative TV network. In one memo to Philip Morris CEO Michael A. Miles, vice president Craig L. Fuller noted that he was "working with many third party allies to develop position papers, op-eds and letters to the editor detailing how tobacco is already one of the most heavily regulated products in the marketplace, and derailing arguments against proposed bans on tobacco advertising." Through the PR firm of Burson-Marsteller, Philip Morris also created the "National Smoker's Alliance," a supposedly independent organization of individual smokers which claimed that bans on smoking in public places infringed on basic American freedoms. The NSA was a "grassroots" version of the third party technique, designed to create the impression of a citizen groundswell against smoking restrictions. Burson-Marsteller spent millions of dollars of tobacco industry money to get the NSA up and running--buying full-page newspaper ads, hiring paid canvassers and telemarketers, setting up a toll-free 800 number, and publishing newsletters and other folksy "grassroots" materials to mobilize the puffing masses. The NSA's stated mission was to "empower" smokers to reclaim their rights--although, behind closed doors, industry executives fretted that they didn't want this rhetoric to go too far. They were well aware of opinion polls showing that 70 percent of all adult smokers wish they could kick the habit. "The issue of 'empowerment of smokers' was viewed as somewhat dangerous," stated a tobacco strategy document. "We don't want to 'empower' them to the point that they'll quit." Due to the publicity associated with Burson-Marsteller's role in setting up the NSA, Philip Morris executives felt that it was best to select some other PR firm to handle the launch of TASSC. They settled on APCO Associates, a subsidiary of the international advertising and PR firm of GCI/Grey Associates, which agreed to "organize coalition efforts to provide information with respect to the ETS issues to the media and to public officials" in exchange for a monthly retainer of $37,500 plus expenses. The purpose of TASSC, as described in a memo from APCO's Tom Hockaday and Neal Cohen, was to "link the tobacco issue with other more 'politically correct' products"--in other words, to make the case that efforts to regulate tobacco were based on the same "junk science" as efforts to regulate food additives, automobile emissions and other industrial products that had not yet achieved tobacco's pariah status. "The credibility of EPA is defeatable, but not on the basis of ETS alone," stated a Philip Morris strategy document. "It must be part of a larger mosaic that concentrates all of the EPA's enemies against it at one time." Originally dubbed the "Restoring Integrity to Science Coalition," the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition was later renamed to resemble the venerable American Association for the Advancement of Science. After APCO's planners realized that the resulting acronym was not terribly flattering--ASSC, or worse, the ASS Coalition--they began putting a capitalized article "the" at the beginning of the name, and TASSC was born, a "national coalition intended to educate the media, public officials and the public about the dangers of 'junk science.' " In September 1993, APCO President Margery Kraus sent a memo to Philip Morris Communications Director Vic Han. "We look forward to the successful launching of TASSC this fall," she stated. "We believe the groundwork we conduct to complete the launch will enable TASSC to expand and assist Philip Morris in its efforts with issues in targeted states in 1994." APCO's work would focus on expanding TASSC's membership, finding outside money to help conceal the role of Philip Morris as its primary funder, compiling a litany of "additional examples of unsound science," and "coordinating and directing outreach to the scientific and academic communities." APCO would also direct and manage former New Mexico governor Garrey Carruthers, who had been hired as TASSC's spokesman. "This includes developing and maintaining his schedule, prioritizing his time and energies, and briefing Carruthers and other appropriate TASSC representatives," Kraus wrote, outlining a "comprehensive media relations strategy" designed to "maximize the use of TASSC and its members into Philip Morris's issues in targeted states. . . . This includes using TASSC as a tool in targeted legislative battles." Planned activities included publishing a monthly newsletter, frequent news releases, drafting "boilerplate" speeches and op-ed pieces to be used by TASSC representatives, and placing articles in various trade publications to help recruit members from the agriculture, chemical, biotechnology and food additive industries. In addition to APCO's monthly fee, $5,000 per month was budgeted "to compensate Garrey Carruthers." Considerable effort was expended to conceal the fact that TASSC was created and funded by Philip Morris. APCO recommended that TASSC first be introduced to the public through a "decentralized launch outside the large markets of Washington, DC and New York" in order to "avoid cynical reporters from major media." "Increasingly today, one can find examples of junk science that compromise the integrity of the field of science and, at the same time, create a scare environment where unnecessary regulations on industry in general, and on the consumer products industry in particular, are rammed through without respect to rhyme, reason, effect or cause." --Michael A. Miles, former CEO of the Philip Morris tobacco company In smaller markets, APCO reasoned, there would be "less reviewing/challenging of TASSC messages." Also, a decentralized launch would "limit potential for counterattack. The opponents of TASSC tend to concentrate their efforts in top markets while skipping the secondary markets. This approach sends TASSC's message initially into these more receptive markets--and enables us to build upon early successes." The plan included a barnstorming media tour by Garrey Carruthers of these secondary markets. "APCO will arrange on-the-ground visits with three to four reporters in each city. These interviews, using TASSC's trained spokespeople, third-party allies (e.g., authors of books on unsound science), members of the TASSC Science Board, and/or Governor Carruthers, will be scheduled for a one to two day media tour in each city." To set up the interviews, APCO used a list of sympathetic reporters provided by John Boltz, a manager of media affairs at Philip Morris. "We thought it best to remove any possible link to PM, thus Boltz is not making the calls," noted Philip Morris public affairs director Jack Lenzi. "With regard to media inquiries to PM about TASSC, I am putting together some Q and A. We will not deny being a corporate member/sponsor, will not specify dollars, and will refer them to the TASSC '800-' number, being manned by David Sheon (APCO)." Other plans, developed later, included creation of a TASSC internet page that could be used to "broadly distribute published studies/papers favorable to smoking/ETS debate" and "release PM authored papers . . . on ETS science and bad science/bad public policy." Carruthers began his media tour in December, with stopovers in cities including San Diego, Dallas and Denver. News releases sent out in advance of each stop described TASSC as a "grassroots-based, not-for-profit watchdog group of scientists and representatives from universities, independent organizations and industry, that advocates the use of sound science in the public policy arena." As examples of unsound science, it pointed to the asbestos abatement guidelines, the "dioxin scare" in Times Beach, Missouri, and "unprecedented regulations to limit radon levels in drinking water." In Texas, local TASSC recruits involved in the launch included Dr. Margaret Maxey and Floy Lilley, both of the University of Texas. "The Clean Air Act is a perfect example of laboratory science being superficially applied to reality," Lilley said. Carruthers took the opportunity to inveigh against politicized uses of science by the Environmental Protection Agency "to make science 'fit' with the political leanings of special interests." EPA's studies, he complained, "are frequently carried out without the benefit of peer review or quality assurance." In Denver, Carruthers told a local radio station that the public has been "shafted by shoddy science, and it has cost consumers and government a good deal of money." When asked who was financing TASSC, Carruthers sidestepped the question. "We don't want to be caught being a crusader for a single industry," he said. "We're not out here defending the chemical industry; we're not out here defending the automobile industry, or the petroleum industry, or the tobacco industry; we're here just to ensure that sound science is used." Virtually every news release made some reference to the so-called "Alar scare," in which consumers mobilized to stop apple growers from using the pesticide Alar. The U.S. EPA has classified Alar as a "probable carcinogen," and subsequent reports from the World Health Organization and the U.S. Public Health Service had concurred with that judgment. Pro-industry groups continue to defend the chemical, however, as does former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop. In its news releases, TASSC made a point of invoking Koop's name whenever possible. In an "advertorial" titled "Science: A Tool, Not a Weapon," TASSC noted that "respected experts, including then-Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, said the scientific evidence showed no likelihood of harm from Alar. . . . This is not an isolated case of bad science being used by policymakers," it added. "It's happened regarding asbestos, dioxin and toxic waste. . . . It's happening in the debate over environmental tobacco smoke, or second-hand smoke. The studies done so far on the topic do not demonstrate evidence that second-hand smoke causes cancer, even though that is the popular wisdom." To the casual reader, it would almost appear as if Dr. Koop were a defender of environmental tobacco smoke, rather than one of its most prominent public critics. EuroTASSC In 1994, Philip Morris budgeted $880,000 in funding for TASSC. In consultation with APCO and Burson-Marsteller, the company began planning to set up a second, European organization, tentatively named "Scientists for Sound Public Policy" (later renamed the European Science and Environment Forum). Like TASSC, the European organization would attempt to smuggle tobacco advocacy into a larger bundle of "sound science" issues, including the "ban on growth hormone for livestock; ban on [genetically-engineered bovine growth hormone] to improve milk production; pesticide restrictions; ban on indoor smoking; restrictions on use of chlorine; ban on certain pharmaceutical products; restrictions on the use of biotechnology." The public and policymakers needed to be "educated," Burson-Marsteller explained, because "political decision-makers are vulnerable to activists' emotional appeals and press campaigns. . . . The precautionary principle is now the accepted guideline. Even if a hypothesis is not 100 percent scientifically proven, action should be taken, e.g. global warming." Companies that B-M thought could be recruited to support the European endeavor would include makers of "consumer products (food, beverages, tobacco), packaging industry, agrichemical industry, chemical industry, pharmaceutical industry, biotech industry, electric power industry, telecommunications." A turf war broke out between Burson-Marsteller and APCO over the question of which PR firm should handle the European campaign. Jim Lindheim of Burson-Marsteller laid claim to the account by stressing his firm's already-proven expertise at defending tobacco science in Europe. "We have the network, much of which is already sensitized to PM's special needs," he stated. "We have a lot of experience in every country working with scientists. . . . We've got a large client base with 'scientific problems' whom we can tap for sponsorship." APCO's Margery Kraus responded by reminding Philip Morris regulatory affairs director Matthew Winokur that Burson-Marsteller's long history of tobacco industry work was public knowledge and therefore might taint the endeavor. "Given the sensitivities of other TASSC activities and a previous decision not to have TASSC work directly with Burson, due to these sensitivities in other TASSC work, I did not feel comfortable having Steig or anyone else from Burson assume primary responsibility for working with TASSC scientists," Kraus stated. As for experience handling "scientific problems," she pointed to her parent company's work for "the following industries impacted by science and environmental policy decisions: chemical, pharmaceutical, nuclear, waste management and motor industries, power generation, biotech products, packaging and detergents, and paint. They have advised clients on a number of issues, including: agricultural manufacturing, animal testing, chlorine, dioxins, toxic waste, ozone/CFCs, power generation, coastal pollution, lead in gasoline, polyurethanes, lubricants." TASSC was designed to appear outwardly like a broad coalition of scientists from multiple disciplines. The other industries and interests--biotech, chemical, toxic waste, coastal pollution, lubricants--served as protective camouflage, concealing the tobacco money that was at the heart of the endeavor. TASSC signed up support from corporate executives at Santa Fe Pacific Gold Corporation, Procter & Gamble, the Louisiana Chemical Association, the National Pest Control Association, General Motors, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Exxon, W.R. Grace & Co., Amoco, Occidental Petroleum, 3M, Chevron and Dow Chemical. Many of its numerous news releases attacking "junk science" made no mention of tobacco whatsoever. It objected to government guidelines for asbestos abatement; said the "dioxin scare" in Times Beach, Missouri was a tempest in a teapot; scoffed at the need for an EPA Superfund cleanup in Aspen, Colorado; dismissed reports of health effects related to use of the Norplant contraceptive; denounced the Clean Water Act; and orchestrated a letter-writing campaign to oppose any government action aimed at limiting industrial activities linked to global warming. Trash Talk With the Junkman In February 1994, APCO vice president Neal Cohen made the mistake of boasting candidly about some of the sneaky tactics his company uses to set up front groups. His remarks were made at a conference of the Public Affairs Council (PAC), an exclusive association of top-ranking lobbyists and PR people. New York Times political reporter Jane Fritsch later used his remarks as the basis for a March 1996 article titled "Sometimes Lobbyists Strive to Keep Public in the Dark." Shortly after APCO suffered this embarrassment, the responsibility for managing TASSC was quietly transferred to the EOP Group, a well-connected, Washington-based lobby firm whose clients have included the American Crop Protection Association (the chief trade association of the pesticide industry), the American Petroleum Institute, AT&T, the Business Roundtable, the Chlorine Chemistry Council, Dow Chemical Company, Edison Electric Institute (nuclear power), Fort Howard Corp. (a paper manufacturer), International Food Additives Council, Monsanto Co., National Mining Association, and the Nuclear Energy Institute. In March 1997, EOP lobbyist Steven Milloy, described in a TASSC news release as "a nationally known expert and author on environmental risk and regulatory policy issues," became TASSC's executive director. "Steven brings not only a deep and strong academic and professional background to TASSC, but he brings an equally deep, strong and passionate commitment to the principle of using sound science in making public policy decisions," said Garrey Carruthers. "The issue of junk science has become the topic of network news specials, major articles in newspapers, and a key topic in Congress and legislatures around the country. I look forward to working with Steven to continue to drive home the need for sound science in public policy making." Although the news release referred to Milloy's work "over the last six years" on "environmental and regulatory policy issues," it did not mention that he had worked specifically for the tobacco industry. During 1992 Milloy worked for James Tozzi at Multinational Business Services. Tozzi, a former career bureaucrat at the U.S. Office of Management and Budget who had spearheaded the Reagan-era OMB campaign to gut environmental regulations, is described in internal Philip Morris documents as the company's "primary contact on the EPA/ETS risk assessment during the second half of 1992." During that period, it noted, "Tozzi has been invaluable in executing our Washington efforts including generating technical briefing papers, numerous letters to agencies and media interviews," a service for which Philip Morris paid an estimated $300,000 in consulting fees. Philip Morris also paid Tozzi's company another $880,000 to establish a "nonprofit" think-tank called the Institute for Regulatory Policy (IRP). On behalf of Philip Morris, the IRP put together "three different coalitions which support sound science--Coalition for Executive Order, Coalition for Moratorium on Risk Assessments, and Coalition of Cities and States on Environmental Mandates. . . . IRP could work with us as well as APCO in a coordinated manner," PM's Boland and Borelli had noted in February 1993. After leaving Tozzi's service, Milloy became president of his own organization called the "Regulatory Impact Analysis Project, Inc.," where he wrote a couple of reports arguing that "most environmental risks are so small or indistinguishable that their existence cannot be proven." Shortly thereafter, he launched the "Junk Science Home Page." Calling himself "the Junkman," he offered daily attacks on environmentalists, public health and food safety regulators, anti-nuclear and animal rights activists, and a wide range of other targets that he accused of using unsound science to advance various political agendas. Milloy was also active in defense of the tobacco industry, particularly in regard to the issue of environmental tobacco smoke. He dismissed the EPA's 1993 report linking secondhand smoke to cancer as "a joke," and when the British Medical Journal published its own study with similar results in 1997, he scoffed that "it remains a joke today." After one researcher published a study linking secondhand smoke to cancer, Milloy wrote that she "must have pictures of journal editors in compromising positions with farm animals. How else can you explain her studies seeing the light of day?" In August 1997, the New York Times reported that Milloy was one of the paid speakers at a Miami briefing for foreign reporters sponsored by the British-American Tobacco Company, whose Brown & Williamson unit makes popular cigarettes like Kool, Carlton and Lucky Strike. At the briefing, which was off-limits to U.S. journalists, the company flew in dozens of reporters from countries including Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Peru and paid for their hotel rooms and expensive meals while the reporters sat through presentations that ridiculed "lawsuit-driven societies like the United States" for using "unsound science" to raise questions about "infinitesimal, if not hypothetical, risks" related to inhaling a "whiff" of tobacco smoke. The Legacy In 1999, University of Pennsylvania professor Edward S. Herman surveyed 258 articles in mainstream newspapers that used the term "junk science" during the years 1996 through 1998. Only 8 percent of the articles used the term in reference to corporate-manipulated science. By contrast, 62 percent used the term "junk science" in reference to scientific arguments used by environmentalists, other corporate critics, or personal-injury lawyers engaged in suing corporations. "What's starting to happen is that this term, 'junk science,' is being thrown around all the time," says Lucinda Finley, a law professor from the State University of New York at Buffalo who specializes in product liability and women's health. "People are calling scientists who disagree with them purveyors of 'junk.' But what we're really talking about is a very normal process of scientific disagreement and give-and-take. Calling someone a 'junk scientist' is just a way of shutting them up." Like other corporate-funded front groups, the organizations that flack for sound science are sometimes fly-by-night organizations. Called into existence for a particular cause or legislative lobby campaign, they often dry up and blow away once the campaign is over. The tendency of groups to appear and disappear creates another form of camouflage, making it difficult for journalists and everyday citizens to sort out the bewildering proliferation of names and acronyms. This was indeed what happened with The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, which was quietly retired in late 1998. Its legacy, however, continues. Dozens, if not hundreds, of industry-funded organizations and conservative think tanks continue to wave the sound science banner. Milloy's Junk Science Home Page remains active, claiming sponsorship from "Citizens for the Integrity of Science," about which no further information is publicly available. The tone of the Junk Science Home Page appears calculated to lower rather than elevate scientific discourse. That tone is particularly notable in its extended attack on Our Stolen Future, the book about endocrine-disrupting chemicals by Theo Colborn, Dianne Dumanoski and Peter Myers. Milloy's on-line parody, titled "Our Swollen Future," includes a cartoon depiction of Colborn hauling a wheelbarrow of money to the bank (her implied motive for writing the book), and refers to Dianne Dumanoski as "Dianne Dumb-as-an-oxski." Casual visitors to Milloy's Junk Science Home Page might be tempted to dismiss him as merely an obnoxious adolescent with a website. They would be surprised to discover that he is a well-connected fixture in conservative Washington policy circles. He currently holds the title of "adjunct scholar" at the libertarian Cato Institute, which was rated the fourth most influential think tank in Washington, DC in a 1999 survey of congressional staffers and journalists. Milloy is also highly visible on the internet. In addition to publishing the Junk Science Home Page and a website for the No More Scares campaign, Milloy also operates a "Consumer Distorts" website devoted to attacking Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, which Milloy accuses of socialism, sensationalism, and "scaring consumers away from products." http://prwatch.org/prwissues/2000Q3/junkman.html Ass Boil Steve Milloy, shill Posted by Tim Lambert under Milloy Apart from the one or two posts about John Lott I’ve also posted about ozone depletion denial, creationism and astroturf. All these topics, as well as Lott, come together in the person of Steve Milloy. Milloy runs a website junkscience.com that purports to debunk “junk science”. Unsuspecting visitors might think that Milloy’s site is devoted to criticizing shoddy science, but they would be wrong. If you look at what he “debunks” you will find that the real criterion for deciding what is “junk science” is not the quality of the work, but the political agenda that it might support. Studies that support a right-wing agenda are endorsed, while studies that don’t are harshly criticized. John Quiggin noticed the same thing, while Milloy almost admits it in his definition of junk science: “Junk science” is bad science used to further a special agenda, such as personal injury lawyers extorting deep-pocket businesses; the “food police,” environmental Chicken Littles and gun-control extremists advocating wacky social programs; overzealous regulators expanding bureaucratic power/budgets; cut-throat businesses attacking competitors; unethical businesses making bogus product claims; slick politicians; and wannabe scientists seeking fame and fortune. He no longer uses this definition (too much of a give away?) but archive.org has preserved a copy. Armed with this knowledge we can predict the junkscience.com verdict of any scientific result without having to even look at how the study was carried out. Here are some examples: The ozone hole? Completely natural: The same seasonal (and localised) depletion was actually discovered in the 1950s and recognised as an interesting natural phenomenon (interest then was centred on the massive increase in ozone levels over the south pole in late spring, early summer as the massive high concentrations from the adjacent temperate regions penetrate the weakening polar vortex). In the misanthropic ’80s it was given significant publicity and a character change - this time it was big, bad and (you guessed it) man-made while the parallel build up of ozone outside the polar vortex no longer rated a mention. Stratospheric ozone levels are volatile and seasonal, whether there has been any unusual change in ozone levels over the period is moot. There is only one certainty and that is that perceptions changed purely because the great ozone ‘hole’ got a new publicist. Oh really? Look at this graph, which shows ozone levels in October at Halley Station in Antarctica. (from this page). Pretty obviously there was no hole in the 1950s. Anyone writing about ozone depletion who is unaware of this fact has to be actively avoiding learning the facts about ozone depletion. The Theory of Evolution? A plot to promote atheism. (OK, Milloy didn’t write that article, but it was endorsed as the “Commentary of the Day”). Laws that require safe storage of guns? A study by Cummings et al used a pooled time series design similar to Lott’s “More Guns, Less Crime” to study the effect of laws that make gun owners criminally liable if someone is injured because a child gains unsupervised access to a gun. They found that the laws were associated with a 23% reduction in unintentional shooting deaths of children. Here’s what Milloy writes about Cummings study: This was an ecologic epidemiology study, meaning the conclusion is based on very “macro” comparisons of groups of people. The study involved no data about individuals, just groups. Traditionally, these studies are only useful for forming hypotheses for further testing, not irrefutable facts. In particular, no data was collected on compliance with these laws and the relationship of compliance to the decrease in injuries. There may have been fewer unintentional firearm-related injuries in states with safe storage laws, but this study assumed compliance with the laws and assumed that compliance is responsible for the decrease in injuries. A big assumption considering the result. The reported 23% decrease in injuries is a pretty weak result-probably beyond the capability of the ecologic type of study to reliably detect. Even in the better types of epidemiology studies (i.e., cohort and case-control), rate increases of less than 100% (and rate decreases of less than 50%) are very suspect. So how much stock can be put in a weak result based on inadequate data?