Climate Change

[xrayzebra]

Okay, all you "humans cause it all" global warmers, read
the following link.

I know it will be dismissed, but 90 percent is not all
science believes in the "consensus" opinion of the left
wingers.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

[ThomasGranger]

Who is saying that humans cause all global warming? And who is saying that all scientists are in absolute agreement on the causes of global warming? Nobody.

Take your straw man arguments somewhere else.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Where does all that leave the impact of greenhouse gases? Their effects are likely to be a good deal less than advertised, but nobody can really say until the implications of the new theory of climate change are more fully worked out.

So in the end no one is for sure? Thanks Ray.


Sincerely,

Captain Obvious


The globe is warming but the question remains does man accelerate the process?

[clambake]

Ray, go to the kitchen and stand in front of your open freezer. I'm certain that will remove any of your remaining doubt about global warming.

[xrayzebra]

Well one world leader agrees with me. Gore is an idiot.
Man does not cause global warming. Nature does. And
has on a regular basis over the centuries.


President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a 'Myth' - Questions Gore's Sanity
Mon Feb 12 2007 09:10:09 ET

Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis.

In an interview with "Hospodárské noviny", a Czech economics daily, Klaus answered a few questions:

Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?•

A: It's not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.• This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.•

Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinions...•

A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice.

• Q: But you're not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?•

A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite.• Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don't know how to do it and don't plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don't have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don't appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change.• Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.•

Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?•

A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it's obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.•

Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right ...•

A: ...I am right...•

Q: Isn't there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?•

A: It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.•

Q: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?•

A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't. I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It's clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa.• It's also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature - by eliminating private ownership and similar things - much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago.• That's why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you're unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say. Well, it makes a lot of sense, Prof Klaus. Other parts of the interview were dedicated to the Organization of European States (and Jo Leinen), the Czech civil cold war that has already ended, the radar for the U.S. missile defense, and his relations with the current Czech government. Show postings on this blog that contain the word Klaus.

[English translation from Harvard Professor Lubos Motl]

Developing...

(lifted from the Drudge report, this morning 2-12-07)

[clambake]

Ray, you need to read chapter 2 of the Vaclau Klaus book. It starts out this way....

"Standing in front of my open freezer, it occured to me that there is no global warming".

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Probably the first and the last time Xray will cite the Czech president.

[Fabbs]

Okay, all you "humans cause it all" global warmers, read
the following link.

I know it will be dismissed, but 90 percent is not all
science believes in the "consensus" opinion of the left
wingers.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

Hey sheep. Was the *study* done by one of these Exxon Mobil groups? :lol :downspin:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/exxon_chart.html

[Yonivore]

Where does all that leave the impact of greenhouse gases? Their effects are likely to be a good deal less than advertised, but nobody can really say until the implications of the new theory of climate change are more fully worked out.

So in the end no one is for sure? Thanks Ray.


Sincerely,

Captain Obvious


The globe is warming but the question remains does man accelerate the process?
I see, so you're willing to trash the global economy on a hunch? Hunch, by the way, is slang for "scientific consensus."

And, the article makes a good point about the 10% uncertainty being more significant than is being portrayed.

I think we'll find out, eventually, -- hopefully before we've spent trillions doing nothing -- it's the sun that warms up our planet and it's the sun that causes it to cool.

[Yonivore]

Hey sheep. Was the *study* done by one of these Exxon Mobil groups? :lol :downspin:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/exxon_chart.html
I don't know. Who's bankrolling Gore, et. al.?

[George Gervin's Afro]

I see, so you're willing to trash the global economy on a hunch? Hunch, by the way, is slang for "scientific consensus."

And, the article makes a good point about the 10% uncertainty being more significant than is being portrayed.

I think we'll find out, eventually, -- hopefully before we've spent trillions doing nothing -- it's the sun that warms up our planet and it's the sun that causes it to cool.

As opposed to ruining the atmosphere for future generations because your worried about today's economy?

[Fabbs]

I don't know. Who's bankrolling Gore, et. al.?
I don't know who is.
I do know who is not.

ExScam-Moburnile.

[Yonivore]

I don't know who is.
I do know who is not.

ExScam-Moburnile.
I'm sure it would surprise you to learn of the billions of dollars that are funnelled into environmental commerce, research grants, and special interest groups as a result of getting these doom and gloom predictions.

It exceeds Exxon-Mobil profits.

How many research grants dry up if Global Climate Change is a naturally occurring phenomenon over which we have no control?

Who's going to pay Al Gore to bloviate when he's wrong?

How are the environmental companies going to sell their MTBE's, Ethanol, etc...when it's proven they do little except raise the price of consumer goods?

Who's going to hire an environmental consultant to help figure out how to reduce their impact on the global climate once it's known that's an impossibility?

It all goes away.

The same principle is at work in fighting a simplified tax code.

[Yonivore]

As opposed to ruining the atmosphere for future generations because your worried about today's economy?
Okay, are we talking about pollution or global climate change?

Last time I checked, the global climate changers (formerly known as global warmers) were worried about CO2. Not a pollutant.

Ruining the atmosphere is another story. I'm all for anti-pollution regulations.

[Fabbs]

I'm sure it would surprise you to learn of the billions of dollars that are funnelled into environmental commerce, research grants, and special interest groups as a result of getting these doom and gloom predictions.

It exceeds Exxon-Mobil profits.
I'm sure you can provide a believable link to this info?


How many research grants dry up if Global Climate Change is a naturally occurring phenomenon over which we have no control?
Greenhouse gasses not causing any of it. Gotch ya. And if you and the oil ass kissers are wrong? guess it wont matter, we'll be under water. :spin


Who's going to pay Al Gore to bloviate when he's wrong?
The same people that own the rigged voting machines? They have money to burn.


How are the environmental companies going to sell their MTBE's, Ethanol, etc...when it's proven they do little except raise the price of consumer goods? :downspin: Except that they are owned by the same Oil Pigs. Ethanol is a joke.


Who's going to hire an environmental consultant to help figure out how to reduce their impact on the global climate once it's known that's an impossibility? God.

[xrayzebra]

Hey sheep. Was the *study* done by one of these Exxon Mobil groups? :lol :downspin:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/exxon_chart.html


Oh, have I got this right. If it is not funded by the
government or a left wing environmental group it just doesn't
carry water. Is that correct? What an idiot you are!

[xrayzebra]

Oh my, these damn non-conformist, they just keep complicating
everything. What is a good "people cause global warming"
consensus person suppose to do?

Oh, well they still have Gore to look to for guidance, the real
expert.

Experts question theory on global warming

Anil Anand

New Delhi, February 11, 2007









Believe it or not. There are only about a dozen scientists working on 9,575 glaciers in India under the aegis of the Geological Society of India. Is the available data enough to believe that the glaciers are retreating due to global warming?

Some experts have questioned the alarmists theory on global warming leading to shrinkage of Himalayan glaciers. VK Raina, a leading glaciologist and former ADG of GSI is one among them.

He feels that the research on Indian glaciers is negligible. Nothing but the remote sensing data forms the basis of these alarmists observations and not on the spot research.

Raina told the Hindustan Times that out of 9,575 glaciers in India, till date, research has been conducted only on about 50. Nearly 200 years data has shown that nothing abnormal has occurred in any of these glaciers.

It is simple. The issue of glacial retreat is being sensationalised by a few individuals, the septuagenarian Raina claimed. Throwing a gauntlet to the alarmist, he said the issue should be debated threadbare before drawing a conclusion.

However, Dr RK Pachouri, Chairman, Inter-Governmental Panel of Climatic Change said it’s recently released fourth assessment report has recorded increased glacier retreat since the 1980s.

This he said was due to the fact that the carbon dioxide radioactive forcing has increased by 20 per cent particularly after 1995. And also that 11 of the last 12 years were among the warmest 12 years recorded so far.

Surprisingly, Raina, who has been associated with the research and data collection in over 25 glaciers in India and abroad, debunked the theory that Gangotri glacier is retreating alarmingly.

Maintaining that the glaciers are undergoing natural changes, witnessed periodically, he said recent studies in the Gangotri and Zanskar areas (Drung- Drung, Kagriz glaciers) have not shown any evidence of major retreat.

"Claims of global warming causing glacial melt in the Himalayas are based on wrong assumptions," Raina, a trained mountaineer and skiing expert said. He rued that not much is being done by the Government to create a bank of trained geologists for an in-depth study of glaciers.

The agencies such as the GSI are not getting fresh talent simply because of the measly salaries offered by the Government.

Consider this. During one of his visits to Antarctic, to his utter dismay, Raina discovered that the cook of a Japanese team was getting a bigger pay packet than him.

If he is to be believed, currently only about a dozen scientists are working on Indian glaciers. More alarming is the fact that some of them are above 50. How can one talk about the state of glaciers when not much research is being done on the ground, he wondered.

In fact, it is difficult to ascertain the exact state of Himalayan glaciers as these are very dusty as compared to the ones in Alaska and the Alps. The present presumptions are based on the cosmatic study of the glacier surfaces.

Nobody knows what is happening beneath the glaciers. What ever is being flaunted about the under surface activity of the glaciers, is merely presumptions, he claimed.

His views were echoed by Dr RK Ganjoo, Director, Regional Centre for Field Operations and Research on Himalayan Glaciology, who is supervising study of glaciers in Ladakh region including one in the Siachen area. He also maintained that nothing abnormal has been found in any of the Himalyan glaciers studied so far by him.

Still, he wondered on the Himalayan glaciers being compared with those in Alaska or Europe to lend credence to the melt theory. Indian glaciers are at 3,500-4,000 meter above the sea level whereas those in the Alps are at much lower levels. Certainly, the conditions under which the glaciers in Alaska are retreating, are not prevailing in the Indian sub-continent, he explained.

Another leading geologist MN Koul of Jammu University, who is actively engaged in studying glacier dynamics in J&K and Himachal holds similar views. Referring to his research on Kol glacier ( Paddar, J&K) and Naradu (HP), he said both the glaciers have not changed much in the past two decades.

Email Anil Anand: [email protected]

Printed From

[xrayzebra]

You got to laugh about this one.

HOUSE HEARING ON 'WARMING OF THE PLANET' CANCELED AFTER ICE STORM
HEARING NOTICE
Tue Feb 13 2007 19:31:25 ET

The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 14, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building has been postponed due to inclement weather. The hearing is entitled “Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?”

The hearing will be rescheduled to a date and time to be announced later.

DC WEATHER REPORT:

Wednesday: Freezing rain in the morning. Total ice accumulation between one half to three quarters of an inch. Brisk with highs in the mid 30s. North winds 10 to 15 mph...increasing to northwest 20 to 25 mph in the afternoon. Chance of precipitation near 100 percent.

Wednesday Night: Partly cloudy. Lows around 18. Northwest winds around 20 mph.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Now if everyone would just increase their "carbon print" they
could have had these hearings.

And yeah, I closed the icebox door.

[jochhejaam]

A: It's not my idea. Global warming is a false myth
To elaborate, a false myth is far more mythical than any other type of myth.

[Yonivore]

To elaborate, a false myth is far more mythical than any other type of myth.
Are you sure calling a "false myth" doesn't have the effect of making it a truth? Kind of like a double negative?

[jochhejaam]

Are you sure calling a "false myth" doesn't have the effect of making it a truth? Kind of like a double negative?
Yoni, as usual, you are correct. <----arousing the ire of the resident neo libs

[xrayzebra]

Okay, now last night I contributed to the Global Warming according to the following article, along with five other members of my family. Had some nice steaks from the the old BBQ. How long before the
"experts" in Washington, Congressmen that is, ban the raising of
cattle.


csmonitor.com - The Christian Science Monitor Online
from the February 20, 2007 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0220/p03s01-ussc.html

Humans' beef with livestock: a warmer planet
American meat eaters are responsible for 1.5 more tons of carbon dioxide per person than vegetarians every year.

By Brad Knickerbocker | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

As Congress begins to tackle the causes and cures of global warming, the action focuses on gas-guzzling vehicles and coal-fired power plants, not on lowly bovines.

Yet livestock are a major emitter of greenhouse gases that cause climate change. And as meat becomes a growing mainstay of human diet around the world, changing what we eat may prove as hard as changing what we drive.

It's not just the well-known and frequently joked-about flatulence and manure of grass-chewing cattle that's the problem, according to a recent report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Land-use changes, especially deforestation to expand pastures and to create arable land for feed crops, is a big part. So is the use of energy to produce fertilizers, to run the slaughterhouses and meat-processing plants, and to pump water.

"Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today's most serious environmental problems," Henning Steinfeld, senior author of the report, said when the FAO findings were released in November.

Livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions as measured in carbon dioxide equivalent, reports the FAO. This includes 9 percent of all CO2 emissions, 37 percent of methane, and 65 percent of nitrous oxide. Altogether, that's more than the emissions caused by transportation.

The latter two gases are particularly troubling – even though they represent far smaller concentrations in atmosphere than CO2, which remains the main global warming culprit. But methane has 23 times the global warming potential (GWP) of CO2 and nitrous oxide has 296 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide.

Methane could become a greater problem if the permafrost in northern latitudes thaws with increasing temperatures, releasing the gas now trapped below decaying vegetation. What's more certain is that emissions of these gases can spike as humans consume more livestock products.

As prosperity increased around the world in recent decades, the number of people eating meat (and the amount one eats every year) has risen steadily. Between 1970 and 2002, annual per capita meat consumption in developing countries rose from 11 kilograms (24 lbs.) to 29 kilograms (64 lbs.), according to the FAO. (In developed countries, the comparable figures were 65 kilos and 80 kilos.) As population increased, total meat consumption in the developing world grew nearly five-fold over that period.

Beyond that, annual global meat production is projected to more than double from 229 million tons at the beginning of the decade to 465 million tons in 2050. This makes livestock the fastest growing sector of global agriculture.

Animal-rights activists and those advocating vegetarianism have been quick to pick up on the implications of the FAO report.

"Arguably the best way to reduce global warming in our lifetimes is to reduce or eliminate our consumption of animal products," writes Noam Mohr in a report for EarthSave International.

Changing one's diet can lower greenhouse gas emissions quicker than shifts away from fossil fuel burning technologies, Mr. Mohr writes, because the turnover rate for farm animals is shorter than that for cars and power plants.

"Even if cheap, zero-emission fuel sources were available today, they would take many years to build and slowly replace the massive infrastructure our economy depends upon today," he writes. "Similarly, unlike carbon dioxide which can remain in the air for more than a century, methane cycles out of the atmosphere in just eight years, so that lower methane emissions quickly translate to cooling of the earth."

Researchers at the University of Chicago compared the global warming impact of meat eaters with that of vegetarians and found that the average American diet – including all food processing steps – results in the annual production of an extra 1.5 tons of CO2-equivalent (in the form of all greenhouse gases) compared to a no-meat diet. Researchers Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin concluded that dietary changes could make more difference than trading in a standard sedan for a more efficient hybrid car, which reduces annual CO2 emissions by roughly one ton a year.

"It doesn't have to be all the way to the extreme end of vegan," says Dr. Eshel, whose family raised beef cattle in Israel. "If you simply cut down from two burgers a week to one, you've already made a substantial difference."

• Staff writer Peter Spotts contributed to this report.
Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

* Home |
* About Us/Help |
* Feedback |
* Subscribe |
* Archive |
* Print Edition |
* Site Map |
* Special Projects |
* Corrections


www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2007 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.

[Nbadan]

Greenhouse gases hit new high By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent
Fri Feb 16, 12:16 PM ET


OSLO (Reuters) - Greenhouse gases widely blamed for causing global warming have jumped to record highs in the atmosphere, apparently stoked by rising emissions from Asian industry, a researcher said on Friday.

"Levels are at a new high," said Kim Holmen, research director of the Norwegian Polar Institute which oversees the Zeppelin measuring station on the Arctic archipelago of Svalbard about 1,200 km (750 miles) from the North Pole.

He told Reuters that concentrations of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas emitted largely by burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars, had risen to 390 parts per million (ppm) from 388 a year ago.

Levels have hit peaks almost every year in recent decades, bolstering theories of warming, and are far above 270 ppm before the Industrial Revolution of the 18th century. Climate scientists say the heat-trapping gas is blanketing the planet.

Holmen said the increase of 2 ppm from 2006 reflected an accelerating rise in recent years. "When I was young, scientists were talking about 1 ppm rise" every year, he said. "Since 2000 it has been a very rapid rate."

"The large increases in release rates are definitely in the Asian economies," led by China, he said. China is opening coal-fired power plants at the rate of almost one a week.

Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070216/ts_nm/globalwarming_carbon_dc)

[101A]

Okay, now last night I contributed to the Global Warming according to the following article, along with five other members of my family. Had some nice steaks from the the old BBQ. How long before the
"experts" in Washington, Congressmen that is, ban the raising of
cattle.


csmonitor.com - The Christian Science Monitor Online
from the February 20, 2007 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0220/p03s01-ussc.html

Humans' beef with livestock: a warmer planet
American meat eaters are responsible for 1.5 more tons of carbon dioxide per person than vegetarians every year.

By Brad Knickerbocker | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

As Congress begins to tackle the causes and cures of global warming, the action focuses on gas-guzzling vehicles and coal-fired power plants, not on lowly bovines.

Yet livestock are a major emitter of greenhouse gases that cause climate change. And as meat becomes a growing mainstay of human diet around the world, changing what we eat may prove as hard as changing what we drive.

It's not just the well-known and frequently joked-about flatulence and manure of grass-chewing cattle that's the problem, according to a recent report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Land-use changes, especially deforestation to expand pastures and to create arable land for feed crops, is a big part. So is the use of energy to produce fertilizers, to run the slaughterhouses and meat-processing plants, and to pump water.

"Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today's most serious environmental problems," Henning Steinfeld, senior author of the report, said when the FAO findings were released in November.

Livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions as measured in carbon dioxide equivalent, reports the FAO. This includes 9 percent of all CO2 emissions, 37 percent of methane, and 65 percent of nitrous oxide. Altogether, that's more than the emissions caused by transportation.

The latter two gases are particularly troubling – even though they represent far smaller concentrations in atmosphere than CO2, which remains the main global warming culprit. But methane has 23 times the global warming potential (GWP) of CO2 and nitrous oxide has 296 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide.

Methane could become a greater problem if the permafrost in northern latitudes thaws with increasing temperatures, releasing the gas now trapped below decaying vegetation. What's more certain is that emissions of these gases can spike as humans consume more livestock products.

As prosperity increased around the world in recent decades, the number of people eating meat (and the amount one eats every year) has risen steadily. Between 1970 and 2002, annual per capita meat consumption in developing countries rose from 11 kilograms (24 lbs.) to 29 kilograms (64 lbs.), according to the FAO. (In developed countries, the comparable figures were 65 kilos and 80 kilos.) As population increased, total meat consumption in the developing world grew nearly five-fold over that period.

Beyond that, annual global meat production is projected to more than double from 229 million tons at the beginning of the decade to 465 million tons in 2050. This makes livestock the fastest growing sector of global agriculture.

Animal-rights activists and those advocating vegetarianism have been quick to pick up on the implications of the FAO report.

"Arguably the best way to reduce global warming in our lifetimes is to reduce or eliminate our consumption of animal products," writes Noam Mohr in a report for EarthSave International.

Changing one's diet can lower greenhouse gas emissions quicker than shifts away from fossil fuel burning technologies, Mr. Mohr writes, because the turnover rate for farm animals is shorter than that for cars and power plants.

"Even if cheap, zero-emission fuel sources were available today, they would take many years to build and slowly replace the massive infrastructure our economy depends upon today," he writes. "Similarly, unlike carbon dioxide which can remain in the air for more than a century, methane cycles out of the atmosphere in just eight years, so that lower methane emissions quickly translate to cooling of the earth."

Researchers at the University of Chicago compared the global warming impact of meat eaters with that of vegetarians and found that the average American diet – including all food processing steps – results in the annual production of an extra 1.5 tons of CO2-equivalent (in the form of all greenhouse gases) compared to a no-meat diet. Researchers Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin concluded that dietary changes could make more difference than trading in a standard sedan for a more efficient hybrid car, which reduces annual CO2 emissions by roughly one ton a year.

"It doesn't have to be all the way to the extreme end of vegan," says Dr. Eshel, whose family raised beef cattle in Israel. "If you simply cut down from two burgers a week to one, you've already made a substantial difference."

• Staff writer Peter Spotts contributed to this report.
Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

* Home |
* About Us/Help |
* Feedback |
* Subscribe |
* Archive |
* Print Edition |
* Site Map |
* Special Projects |
* Corrections


www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2007 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.

So the vegetarians and greenies have found common ground and are in bed together? Who would have guessed? Next week: Babies, it turns out, generate FAR more greenhouse gas than previously believed. Mandatory abortions are the only solution.

[Guru of Nothing]

Probably the first and the last time Xray will cite the Czech president.

It reminds me of the 30 soldiers Poland sent to Iraq back in 2003.

[Extra Stout]

The extra greenhouse gas impacts of certain behaviors:

Abstinence: 0.5 ton/yr
Heterosexuality: 0.8 ton/yr
Raising children: 1.3 ton/yr (per child)
Practicing Christianity: 1.9 ton/yr
Listening to country music: 2.1 ton/yr
Espousing capitalism: 2.3 ton/yr
Voting Republican: 9.7 ton/yr

[xrayzebra]

Oh, the poor French. Now they have "killer hornets". And it more
than likely is Bush fault or the United States fault at the very least. Damn global warming. Must be all those fajitas we eat
in Texas

Hornets hit France and could reach Britain

By Peter Allen in Paris
Last Updated: 2:40am GMT 21/02/2007

Swarms of giant hornets renowned for their vicious stings and skill at massacring honeybees have settled in France.

And there are now so many of the insects that entomologists fear it will just be a matter of time before they cross to Britain.

A hornet, Asian hornet spreads to France
A hornets nest

Global warming has largely been blamed for the survival and spread of the Asian Hornet, Vespa velutina, which is thought to have arrived in France from the Far East in a consignment of Chinese pottery in late 2004.

Thousands of football-shaped hornet nests are now dotted all over the forests of Aquitaine, the south-western region of France hugely popular with British tourists.

"Their spread across French territory has been like lightning," said Jean Haxaire, the entomologist who originally identified the new arrival.

He said he had recently seen 85 nests in the 40-odd miles which separate the towns of Marmande and Podensac, in the Lot et Garonne department where the hornets were first spotted.
advertisement

The hornets can grow to up to 1.8in and, with a wingspan of 3in, are renowned for inflicting a bite which has been compared to a hot nail entering the body.

A handful can destroy a nest of 30,000 bees in just a couple of hours — a major concern among the beekeeping industry.

"The problems are not necessarily public health ones, but ecological ones. These hornets can cause immense damage to beehives," said Mr Haxaire. The hornets are renowned for feeding their young with the larvae of other social insects, including bees, whose nests they break into and ransack. The French beekeeping industry has already been decimated by pesticides and long, hot summers.

Honey production from the 1.3 million hives run by 80,000 beekeepers has been decreasing annually — down by 60 per cent in south-western France during the past decade.

A spokesman for the French National Been Surveillance Unit said the bee death rate during winter was now up to six in ten.

As a result France has to import some 25,000 tons of honey annually.

"The arrival of these hornets has made the situation considerably worse," the spokesman added. "The future of our entire industry is at stake."

Yesterday, there was concern that it may not take long before the Asian hornet makes its way to Britain.

"There's no doubt that these hornets are heading north and will probably find their way to Britain at some point," said Stuart Hine, manager of the Insect Information Service at London's Natural History Museum.

"Climate change certainly means they can cope with European summers. However, they would still have difficulty coping with our winter frosts."

While some 40 people a year die from hornet stings — mainly because of allergic reactions — Claire Villement, of France's Natural History Museum, said there was no need for a "national panic about killer wasps".

Mrs Villement said: "The legend that three bites from a hornet can kill you are totally false. People can still enjoy their picnics in the countryside."

Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited and must not be reproduced in any medium without licence. For the full copyright statement see Copyright

[Sec24Row7]

GLOBAL warming will take a toll on children's health, according to a new report showing hospital admissions for fever soar as days get hotter.

The new study found that temperature rises had a significant impact on the number of pre-schoolers presenting to emergency departments for fever and gastroenteritis.


The two-year study at a major children's hospital showed that for every five-degree rise in temperature two more children under six years old were admitted with fever to that hospital.

The University of Sydney research is the first to make a solid link between climate changes and childhood illness.

"And now global warming is becoming more apparent, it is highly likely an increasing number of young children will be turning up at hospital departments with these kinds of common illnesses," said researcher Lawrence Lam, a paediatrics specialist.

"It really demonstrates the urgent need for a more thorough investigation into how exactly climate change will affect health in childhood."

Dr Lam said the results, collated from The Children's Hospital at Westmead admissions, back up beliefs that children are less able to regulate their bodies against climate change than adults.

The brain's thermal regulation mechanism is not as well developed in children, making them more susceptible to "overheating" and at risk of developing illness, he said.

"They're particularly at risk of extreme changes, much more than other people."

The study, published in the International Journal of Environmental Health Research, analysed several different climate factors, including UV index, rainfall and humidity, collected from the Bureau of Meteorology in 2001 and 2002.

Temperatures were the only negative risk factor, with findings linking heat to both fever and gastro disease but not to respiratory conditions.

Surprisingly, rates of gastroenteritis were lower on days with a high UV factor probably, says Dr Lam, because the rays "sterilised" the ground, killing more germs and reducing risk.

He said it was still unclear whether the heat directly triggered the illnesses or whether other heat-related problems, like pollution, were responsible.

A longer-term study was needed add strength to the findings, Dr Lam said.

[Extra Stout]

GLOBAL warming will take a toll on children's health, according to a new report showing hospital admissions for fever soar as days get hotter.

The new study found that temperature rises had a significant impact on the number of pre-schoolers presenting to emergency departments for fever and gastroenteritis.


The two-year study at a major children's hospital showed that for every five-degree rise in temperature two more children under six years old were admitted with fever to that hospital.

The University of Sydney research is the first to make a solid link between climate changes and childhood illness.

"And now global warming is becoming more apparent, it is highly likely an increasing number of young children will be turning up at hospital departments with these kinds of common illnesses," said researcher Lawrence Lam, a paediatrics specialist.

"It really demonstrates the urgent need for a more thorough investigation into how exactly climate change will affect health in childhood."

Dr Lam said the results, collated from The Children's Hospital at Westmead admissions, back up beliefs that children are less able to regulate their bodies against climate change than adults.

The brain's thermal regulation mechanism is not as well developed in children, making them more susceptible to "overheating" and at risk of developing illness, he said.

"They're particularly at risk of extreme changes, much more than other people."

The study, published in the International Journal of Environmental Health Research, analysed several different climate factors, including UV index, rainfall and humidity, collected from the Bureau of Meteorology in 2001 and 2002.

Temperatures were the only negative risk factor, with findings linking heat to both fever and gastro disease but not to respiratory conditions.

Surprisingly, rates of gastroenteritis were lower on days with a high UV factor probably, says Dr Lam, because the rays "sterilised" the ground, killing more germs and reducing risk.

He said it was still unclear whether the heat directly triggered the illnesses or whether other heat-related problems, like pollution, were responsible.

A longer-term study was needed add strength to the findings, Dr Lam said.
That article reeks of pseudoscience.

[boutons_]

Source: Stanford University
Date: February 22, 2007

Harmful Environmental Effects Of Livestock Production On The Planet 'Increasingly Serious,' Says Panel

Science Daily — The harmful environmental effects of livestock production are becoming increasingly serious at all levels--local, regional, national and global--and urgently need to be addressed, according to researchers from Stanford University, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and other organizations. The researchers, representing five countries, presented their findings on Feb. 19 at the annual meeting of the American Association of the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in San Francisco during a symposium entitled, "Livestock in a Changing Landscape: Drivers, Consequences and Responses."

Large-scale livestock operations provide most of the meat and meat products consumed around the world--consumption that is growing at a record pace and is projected to double by 2050, said symposium organizer Harold A. Mooney, professor of biological sciences at Stanford. "We are seeing tremendous environmental problems with these operations, from land degradation and air and water pollution to loss of biodiversity," he said, noting that the developing world is especially vulnerable to the effects of these operations.

Intensive and extensive systems

Symposium co-organizer Henning Steinfeld of the FAO Livestock Environment and Development initiative emphasized that intensive and extensive forms of production are beset with a range of different problems. In "intensive systems," animals are contained and feed is brought to them. "Extensive systems" generally refer to grazing animals that live off the land.

"Extensive livestock production plays a critical role in land degradation, climate change, water and biodiversity loss," Steinfeld said. For example, grazing occupies 26 percent of the Earth's terrestrial surface, and feed-crop production requires about a third of all arable land, he said. Expansion of livestock grazing land is also a leading cause of deforestation, especially in Latin America, he added. In the Amazon basin alone, about 70 percent of previously forested land is used as pasture, while feed crops cover a large part of the remainder.

"We are seeing land once farmed locally being transformed to cropland for industrialized feed production, with grasslands and tropical forests being destroyed in these land use changes, with resources feeding livestock rather than the humans who previously depended on those lands," added Mooney, who co-chaired the scientific advisory panel for the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.

Climate change

According to the FAO, when emissions from land use are factored in, the livestock sector accounts for 9 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions derived from human-related activities, as well as 37 percent of methane emissions--primarily gas from the digestive system of cattle and other domesticated ruminants--and 65 percent of nitrous oxide gases, mostly from manure.

The problems surrounding livestock production cannot be considered in isolation, nor are they limited to the environmental impact, Mooney said, noting that economic, social, health and environmental perspectives "will be critical to solving some of these problems. We hope to develop a greater understanding of these complex issues so that we may encourage policies and practices to reduce the adverse effects of livestock production, while ensuring that humans are fed and natural resources are preserved, today and in the future."

The AAAS symposium was moderated by Walter Falcon, a senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford. Other scheduled panelists included Pierre Gerber of the FAO; Danielle Nierenberg of the Worldwatch Institute; Bingsheng Ke of the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture; Muhammad Ibrahim of the Center for Research and Higher Education in Costa Rica; and Cheikh Ly of the International Trypanotolerance Center in Gambia.

Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Stanford University.

[xrayzebra]

Source: Stanford University
Date: February 22, 2007

Harmful Environmental Effects Of Livestock Production On The Planet 'Increasingly Serious,' Says Panel

Science Daily — The harmful environmental effects of livestock production are becoming increasingly serious at all levels--local, regional, national and global--and urgently need to be addressed, according to researchers from Stanford University, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and other organizations. The researchers, representing five countries, presented their findings on Feb. 19 at the annual meeting of the American Association of the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in San Francisco during a symposium entitled, "Livestock in a Changing Landscape: Drivers, Consequences and Responses."

Large-scale livestock operations provide most of the meat and meat products consumed around the world--consumption that is growing at a record pace and is projected to double by 2050, said symposium organizer Harold A. Mooney, professor of biological sciences at Stanford. "We are seeing tremendous environmental problems with these operations, from land degradation and air and water pollution to loss of biodiversity," he said, noting that the developing world is especially vulnerable to the effects of these operations.

Intensive and extensive systems

Symposium co-organizer Henning Steinfeld of the FAO Livestock Environment and Development initiative emphasized that intensive and extensive forms of production are beset with a range of different problems. In "intensive systems," animals are contained and feed is brought to them. "Extensive systems" generally refer to grazing animals that live off the land.

"Extensive livestock production plays a critical role in land degradation, climate change, water and biodiversity loss," Steinfeld said. For example, grazing occupies 26 percent of the Earth's terrestrial surface, and feed-crop production requires about a third of all arable land, he said. Expansion of livestock grazing land is also a leading cause of deforestation, especially in Latin America, he added. In the Amazon basin alone, about 70 percent of previously forested land is used as pasture, while feed crops cover a large part of the remainder.

"We are seeing land once farmed locally being transformed to cropland for industrialized feed production, with grasslands and tropical forests being destroyed in these land use changes, with resources feeding livestock rather than the humans who previously depended on those lands," added Mooney, who co-chaired the scientific advisory panel for the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.

Climate change

According to the FAO, when emissions from land use are factored in, the livestock sector accounts for 9 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions derived from human-related activities, as well as 37 percent of methane emissions--primarily gas from the digestive system of cattle and other domesticated ruminants--and 65 percent of nitrous oxide gases, mostly from manure.

The problems surrounding livestock production cannot be considered in isolation, nor are they limited to the environmental impact, Mooney said, noting that economic, social, health and environmental perspectives "will be critical to solving some of these problems. We hope to develop a greater understanding of these complex issues so that we may encourage policies and practices to reduce the adverse effects of livestock production, while ensuring that humans are fed and natural resources are preserved, today and in the future."

The AAAS symposium was moderated by Walter Falcon, a senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford. Other scheduled panelists included Pierre Gerber of the FAO; Danielle Nierenberg of the Worldwatch Institute; Bingsheng Ke of the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture; Muhammad Ibrahim of the Center for Research and Higher Education in Costa Rica; and Cheikh Ly of the International Trypanotolerance Center in Gambia.

Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Stanford University.

If you would take me off ignore you would have already
known this a couple of days ago. See my post number
22 this thread. :toast

[xrayzebra]

And then you have this about global warming. How bout your
cat? And Grandmother..........and well read on.


China, India Smile as West Overpays for Climate: Andy Mukherjee

By Andy Mukherjee

Feb. 21 (Bloomberg) -- Governments in rich nations are spending billions of dollars to buy a clearer conscience over climate change. Are they getting their money's worth?

Enlightened individuals, those who stay awake at nights wondering what they can do to prevent the polar caps from melting, at least have a growing menu of choices.

Sydney-based Easy Being Green says it will mitigate your cat's flatulent contribution to global warming for A$8 ($6). The same company could also make your granny ``carbon-neutral'' at A$10 a year, according to a report in the Australian newspaper last weekend.

Then there's Carbon Planet Pty, another company cited in the article. If you are hopping on a short-haul flight between Sydney and Canberra, and feeling bad about the damage you are doing to the ecosystem, you can buy credits worth A$23, for which the Adelaide-based company will guarantee to keep 1 ton of carbon dioxide out of the air for 100 years.

By comparison, the governments that have undertaken to cut greenhouse emissions under the United Nations' Kyoto Convention on Climate Change have chosen a tougher -- and more expensive -- route to guilt reduction.

Michael Wara, formerly of Stanford University's Program in Energy and Sustainable Development and now a lawyer at Holland & Knight LLP in San Francisco, made that point in a much-publicized article in the science journal Nature this month.

Countries that must purchase emission credits to atone for their higher-than-mandated production of carbon dioxide are paying a tiny group of chemical manufacturers in China and India massive sums to reduce industrial gases and methane, which are rather inexpensive to capture and destroy, Wara says.

China and India

The improvement that can be obtained by spending just $31 million on incinerators could cost developed nations as much as 750 million euros ($986 million) through the elaborate trading mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol, and even then only two-thirds of the problem would go away, Wara estimates.

China and India are getting a prize for producing lots of hydrofluorocarbon-23, one of the six greenhouse gases under the Kyoto Protocol. One ton of it is considered the equivalent of 11,700 tons of carbon dioxide.

Six Chinese companies have consented to be paid to destroy this toxic byproduct of a gas used as a common refrigerant and a Teflon feedstock. Their total commitment is more than 43 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per annum. India, with two registered projects, is second with about 7 million tons. Thus, barely eight chemical plants in China and India control about 44 percent of the existing annual supply of emission credits.

That's a very high level of concentration, considering there are 506 projects in more than 40 nations that are currently registered under the Kyoto Protocol's trading system, known as the Clean Development Mechanism.

Kyoto Protocol

The total greenhouse reductions taking place through the trading system are expected to exceed the combined annual emissions of Canada, France, Spain and Switzerland.

All of this is making politicians optimistic.

A caucus of lawmakers from developed and developing countries agreed in Washington last week on the need to replace the Kyoto Protocol after it expires in 2012. There is a good chance the U.S., which hasn't accepted a binding commitment so far, may also change its mind.

U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair told the British Broadcasting Corp. that the Group of Eight industrialized nations has a real chance to have the outline of a new agreement in June.

A new accord will be good news if it leads to the planting of trees, commissioning of wind farms or other projects that directly make a difference to carbon-dioxide levels. That's where the developed world's money ought to go.

Reforestation, Energy Savings

So far, just one reforestation project -- in China's Pearl River basin -- has come under the ambit of emissions trading. It would cut the equivalent of 26,000 tons of carbon dioxide annually. A hotel in the eastern Indian city of Kolkata has sold to the U.K. government an even more humble 3,000 units of carbon dioxide savings, derived from the replacement of electric heaters by solar-powered ones. We need thousands of such projects.

Otherwise, emission trading would continue to represent a disproportionately high subsidy from the developed to the developing world to clean up industrial byproducts. These are so harmful that they ought to be captured by chemical companies without any incentives being given to them.

Perverse Incentive

These gases have ceased to be a problem in rich nations where companies such as DuPont Co. do a good job of destroying them at their own expense, Wara says.

Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd., the first company from India to join the Clean Development Mechanism, reported earlier this month that it had tripled its revenue in the quarter ended Dec. 31 from a year earlier.

Shareholders have earned 662 percent on the stock since March 2005, when Japan, the Netherlands, Italy and the U.K. agreed to pay the company to destroy hydrofluorocarbon-23.

Italy may pay 12.8 billion euros over the next four years to buy emission credits, the newspaper Finanza & Mercati reported last week. That's about the equivalent of the annual gross domestic product of Iceland.

That kind of money may be a beginning, though it's very doubtful that we will be breathing a lot easier because of it.

(Andy Mukherjee is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Andy Mukherjee in Singapore at [email protected] .
Last Updated: February 20, 2007 15:34 EST