Global warming is not happening

tn_2007-12-11T124805Z_01_NOOTR_RTRIDSP_2_OZATP-POPE-PEACE-20071211.jpg


Headline: 'Pope Condemns the Climate Change Prophets of Doom'
By Noel Sheppard | December 12, 2007 - 20:04 ET

As a global warming skeptic, when I saw the headline "The Pope Condemns the Climate Change Prophets of Doom," it goes without saying I was as pleased as a child on Christmas Day that had gotten everything he asked Santa for and then some.

My glee accelerated after reading the marvelous beginning of this Daily Mail article (paragraph break removed for space considerations):

Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology. The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering.

See why I was so thrilled?

Unfortunately, as I reviewed the text of the Pontiff's message, defeat was stripped from the jaws of victory upon realizing the Mail's author had divined intent that might have been absent from the Pope's words:

7. The family needs a home, a fit environment in which to develop its proper relationships. For the human family, this home is the earth, the environment that God the Creator has given us to inhabit with creativity and responsibility. We need to care for the environment: it has been entrusted to men and women to be protected and cultivated with responsible freedom, with the good of all as a constant guiding criterion. Human beings, obviously, are of supreme worth vis-ÃԚ­ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š -vis creation as a whole. Respecting the environment does not mean considering material or animal nature more important than man. Rather, it means not selfishly considering nature to be at the complete disposal of our own interests, for future generations also have the right to reap its benefits and to exhibit towards nature the same responsible freedom that we claim for ourselves. Nor must we overlook the poor, who are excluded in many cases from the goods of creation destined for all. Humanity today is rightly concerned about the ecological balance of tomorrow. It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances. If the protection of the environment involves costs, they should be justly distributed, taking due account of the different levels of development of various countries and the need for solidarity with future generations. Prudence does not mean failing to accept responsibilities and postponing decisions; it means being committed to making joint decisions after pondering responsibly the road to be taken, decisions aimed at strengthening that covenant between human beings and the environment, which should mirror the creative love of God, from whom we come and towards whom we are journeying.

8. In this regard, it is essential to "sense" that the earth is "our common home" and, in our stewardship and service to all, to choose the path of dialogue rather than the path of unilateral decisions. Further international agencies may need to be established in order to confront together the stewardship of this "home" of ours; more important, however, is the need for ever greater conviction about the need for responsible cooperation. The problems looming on the horizon are complex and time is short. In order to face this situation effectively, there is a need to act in harmony. One area where there is a particular need to intensify dialogue between nations is that of the stewardship of the earth's energy resources. The technologically advanced countries are facing two pressing needs in this regard: on the one hand, to reassess the high levels of consumption due to the present model of development, and on the other hand to invest sufficient resources in the search for alternative sources of energy and for greater energy efficiency. The emerging counties are hungry for energy, but at times this hunger is met in a way harmful to poor countries which, due to their insufficient infrastructures, including their technological infrastructures, are forced to undersell the energy resources they do possess. At times, their very political freedom is compromised by forms of protectorate or, in any case, by forms of conditioning which appear clearly humiliating.

See anything about "climate prophets of doom?" Not nearly the castigation of global warming alarmists and their assertions depicted by the Mail, was it?

Despite the tenor of the Mail's piece, there was actually something for folks on both sides of the manmade global warming debate in the Pope's address. In fact, as Robert Duncan of Spero News pointed out, the Pontiff's holiday message was certainly not just about climate change:

It's funny how a person can write something, and others read only the things that interest them...The truth is that while global warming was a major subject of the speech, the press seems to have missed that it was couched in a bigger message of Peace and the Human Family...Once again it appears the press only got half of the message -- and decided to go with the flavor of the day, global warming, and ignore the underlying message of family and responsibility.

Clearly. And, as it pertains to global warming, the press seemed to see only one side of the debate, most surprisingly not the alarmist one we've grown accustomed to. Here's how Reuters reported the Pontiff's message:

International decisions on the impact of environmental change should be made prudently, avoiding hasty conclusions, ideological pressures and unilateral stands, Pope Benedict said in a peace message on Tuesday.

To be sure, almost nine months after Australia's Cardinal George Pell called global warming alarmism "an induced dose of mild hysteria -- semi-religious if you like, but dangerously close to superstition," I would welcome similar statements from his boss.

However, regardless of how the Mail and Reuters presented the Pontiff's proclamation, I don't believe he has gone as far as Cardinal Pell. Do you?

While delegates from around the world are meeting in Bali to discuss climate change, what does this tell us about the direction of this debate that many have arrogantly stated is over?


Are media starting to tire of this subject? Have two consecutive years of exaggerated hurricane projections as well as the lack of a second Katrina soured the press on the concept that scientists can accurately predict climate's future?

Maybe more importantly, as it appears that nothing substantial will come out of Bali concerning mandatory carbon dioxide emissions cuts - after similar failures by the G-8 six months ago - is it possible the press are beginning to realize that when it comes to global warming, despite posturing to the contrary, the governments of the developed world aren't as alarmed by this issue as they sometimes appear?

Consider statements made by President Bush on May 31 just before June's G-8 summit:

Bringing progress and prosperity to struggling nations requires growing amounts of energy. It's hard to grow your economy if you don't have energy. Yet, producing that energy can create environmental challenges for the world. We need to harness the power of technology to help nations meet their growing energy needs while protecting the environment and addressing the challenge of global climate change.

In recent years, science has deepened our understanding of climate change and opened new possibilities for confronting it. The United States takes this issue seriously. The new initiative I am outlining today will contribute to the important dialogue that will take place in Germany next week. The United States will work with other nations to establish a new framework on greenhouse gas emissions for when the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.

So my proposal is this: By the end of next year, America and other nations will set a long-term global goal for reducing greenhouse gases. To help develop this goal, the United States will convene a series of meetings of nations that produce most greenhouse gas emissions, including nations with rapidly growing economies like India and China.

At the time, this was greeted with great enthusiasm by climate alarmists, and has since been used by such folks as demonstrating how strong the so-called consensus is concerning this issue. Yet, as previously mentioned, the G-8 punted in June, and did absolutely nothing to address climate change.

Now, six months later, the same results appear to be coming from Bali, and the world's press seem to be recognizing that politicians across the globe are willing to make speeches about this issue to appease environmentalists in their nations, but when the sun goes down, won't do anything that threatens their economies.

Although we shouldn't hold our collective breath for Brian, Charlie, or Katie to report this any time soon, maybe just knowing their brethren are starting to recognize that which has been obvious for years is quite enough.

After all, has any of us been good enough this year to deserve a Christmas present like the television news networks other than Fox admitting Nobel Laureate Al Gore is indeed no more than a snake oil salesman, and that the only thing warming the planet is the sun?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...ne-pope-condemns-climate-change-prophets-doom
 
Pacific Monkeys promo Green house hoax

When in doubt, just try a bit of arithmetic. According to the Green house gas hoax, the temperature goes up 5 degrees if the amount of CO2 doubles. Carbon dioxide is, in fact, plant food and therefore a rare gas. These people, with a learning disablilty, are suggesting that the temperature goes up 20 degrees C. when the the CO2 levels are at 4%. A rough calculation for F. degrees is to double and add 32 degrees. For Americans in Texas, 100 would change to 172 degrees.

When someone is around to ask questions, it becames man-made global warming. OK, can there be man-made global warming. Yes indeed, 10,000 to 20,000 megawats of nuclear power heats all the water going over Niagara falls 1 to 2 degrees. A nuclear power plant is an atomic bomb factory connected to a steam boiler. A steam boiler is a heat engine that follows the laws of the thermodynamics; that is, each watt of electricity has to produce around 4 to 5 watts of thermal pollution.

It used to be trendy to diss nuclear power. But not any more. We are expected to destroy our economy while Asia arms itself with nuclear warheads.

Homework assignment for mainstream media people:
1. Look up % of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
2. Try the above calculations.
3. Jump out the window. Since you can defy the laws of physics, there should be no such thing as gravity.
 
Re: Pacific Monkeys promo Green house hoax

If the amount of carbon dioxide were to double, the surface area of a plant increases by 418 cm, rather than 281 cm after 40 days. Note that surface area goes up by the second power, while volume goes up to the third power. In other words as carbon dioxide levels double, the growth of the plant doubles where everything else is held constant. 340 ppm means .34 of 1% atmospheric CO2.
Days: Leaf Area (cm2): 340 ppm CO2: Leaf Area (cm2): 680 ppm CO2
5 28 28
10 115 120
15 363 466
20 700 885
25 598 889
30 492 765
35 388 595
40 281 418
http://education.arm.gov/teacherslounge/lessons/plantgrowth.stm
 
U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"

Complete U.S. Senate Report Now Available: (LINK)
Complete Report w/out Intro: (LINK)

INTRODUCTION:

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.


The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.



Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust."� (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK)


This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters"� report is poised to redefine the debate.


Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.



“Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,"� Paldor wrote. [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK ]



Scientists from Around the World Dissent



This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC’s view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, New Zealand and France, nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were “futile."� (LINK)



Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a “consensus"� of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. “I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority."�


This new committee report, a first of its kind, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri implied that there were only “about a dozen" skeptical scientists left in the world. (LINK) Former Vice President Gore has claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change are akin to “flat Earth society members"� and similar in number to those who “believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona."� (LINK) & (LINK)


The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; oceanography; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.



Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; University of Columbia; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.


The voices of many of these hundreds of scientists serve as a direct challenge to the often media-hyped “consensus"� that the debate is “settled."�



A May 2007 Senate report detailed scientists who had recently converted from believers in man-made global warming to skepticism. [See May 15, 2007 report: Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics: Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research – (LINK) ]


The report counters the claims made by the promoters of man-made global warming fears that the number of skeptical scientists is dwindling.

Read on: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
 
Re: Pacific Monkeys promo Green house hoax

INHOFE TO BLAST GLOBAL WARMING MEDIA COVERAGE IN SPEECH TODAY
Senate Floor Statement by
U.S. Sen. James M. Inhofe(R-Okla)
http://inhofe.senate.gov/pressreleases/globalwarming.htm

September 25, 2006


I am going to speak today about the most media-hyped environmental issue of all time, global warming. I have spoken more about global warming than any other politician in Washington today. My speech will be a bit different from the previous seven floor speeches, as I focus not only on the science, but on the media's coverage of climate change.

Global Warming -- just that term evokes many members in this chamber, the media, Hollywood elites and our pop culture to nod their heads and fret about an impending climate disaster. As the senator who has spent more time educating about the actual facts about global warming, I want to address some of the recent media coverage of global warming and Hollywood's involvement in the issue. And of course I will also discuss former Vice President Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth."

Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930's the media pedaled a coming ice age.

From the late 1920's until the 1960's they warned of global warming. From the 1950's until the 1970's they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate's fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.

Recently, advocates of alarmism have grown increasingly desperate to try to convince the public that global warming is the greatest moral issue of our generation. Just last week, the vice president of London's Royal Society sent a chilling letter to the media encouraging them to stifle the voices of scientists skeptical of climate alarmism. During the past year, the American people have been served up an unprecedented parade of environmental alarmism by the media and entertainment industry, which link every possible weather event to global warming. The year 2006 saw many major organs of the media dismiss any pretense of balance and objectivity on climate change coverage and instead crossed squarely into global warming advocacy.

SUMMARY OF LATEST DEVELOPMENTS OF MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING HOCKEY STICK

First, I would like to summarize some of the recent developments in the controversy over whether or not humans have created a climate catastrophe. One of the key aspects that the United Nations, environmental groups and the media have promoted as the "smoking gun" of proof of catastrophic global warming is the so-called 'hockey stick' temperature graph by climate scientist Michael Mann and his colleagues.

This graph purported to show that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century presumably due to human activity. Mann, who also co-publishes a global warming propaganda blog reportedly set up with the help of an environmental group, had his "Hockey Stick" come under severe scrutiny.

The "hockey stick" was completely and thoroughly broken once and for all in 2006. Several years ago, two Canadian researchers tore apart the statistical foundation for the hockey stick. In 2006, both the National Academy of Sciences and an independent researcher further refuted the foundation of the "hockey stick." http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257697

The National Academy of Sciences report reaffirmed the existence of the Medieval Warm Period from about 900 AD to 1300 AD and the Little Ice Age from about 1500 to 1850. Both of these periods occurred long before the invention of the SUV or human industrial activity could have possibly impacted the Earth's climate. In fact, scientists believe the Earth was warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings grew crops in Greenland.

Climate alarmists have been attempting to erase the inconvenient Medieval Warm Period from the Earth's climate history for at least a decade. David Deming, an assistant professor at the University of Oklahoma's College of Geosciences, can testify first hand about this effort.

Dr. Deming was welcomed into the close-knit group of global warming believers after he published a paper in 1995 that noted some warming in the 20th century. Deming says he was subsequently contacted by a prominent global warming alarmist and told point blank "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period." When the "Hockey Stick" first appeared in 1998, it did just that.

END OF LITTLE ICE AGE MEANS WARMING

The media have missed the big pieces of the puzzle when it comes to the Earth's temperatures and mankind's carbon dioxide (C02) emissions. It is very simplistic to feign horror and say the one degree Fahrenheit temperature increase during the 20th century means we are all doomed. First of all, the one degree Fahrenheit rise coincided with the greatest advancement of living standards, life expectancy, food production and human health in the history of our planet. So it is hard to argue that the global warming we experienced in the 20th century was somehow negative or part of a catastrophic trend.

Second, what the climate alarmists and their advocates in the media have continued to ignore is the fact that the Little Ice Age, which resulted in harsh winters which froze New York Harbor and caused untold deaths, ended about 1850. So trying to prove man-made global warming by comparing the well-known fact that today's temperatures are warmer than during the Little Ice Age is akin to comparing summer to winter to show a catastrophic temperature trend.

In addition, something that the media almost never addresses are the holes in the theory that C02 has been the driving force in global warming. Alarmists fail to adequately explain why temperatures began warming at the end of the Little Ice Age in about 1850, long before man-made CO2 emissions could have impacted the climate. Then about 1940, just as man-made CO2 emissions rose sharply, the temperatures began a decline that lasted until the 1970's, prompting the media and many scientists to fear a coming ice age. Let me repeat, temperatures got colder after C02 emissions exploded. If C02 is the driving force of global climate change, why do so many in the media ignore the many skeptical scientists who cite these rather obvious inconvenient truths?

SIXTY SCIENTISTS

My skeptical views on man-made catastrophic global warming have only strengthened as new science comes in. There have been recent findings in peer-reviewed literature over the last few years showing that the Antarctic is getting colder and the ice is growing and a new study in Geophysical Research Letters found that the sun was responsible for 50% of 20th century warming.

Recently, many scientists, including a leading member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, predicted long-term global cooling may be on the horizon due to a projected decrease in the sun's output.

A letter sent to the Canadian Prime Minister on April 6 of this year by 60 prominent scientists who question the basis for climate alarmism, clearly explains the current state of scientific knowledge on global warming.

The 60 scientists wrote: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605

"If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary." The letter also noted:

"'Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes occur all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural 'noise.'"

COMPUTER MODELS THREATEN EARTH

One of the ways alarmists have pounded this mantra of "consensus" on global warming into our pop culture is through the use of computer models which project future calamity. But the science is simply not there to place so much faith in scary computer model scenarios which extrapolate the current and projected buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and conclude that the planet faces certain doom.

Dr. Vincent Gray, a research scientist and a 2001 reviewer with the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has noted,

"The effects of aerosols, and their uncertainties, are such as to nullify completely the reliability of any of the climate models."

Earlier this year, the director of the International Arctic Research Center in Fairbanks Alaska, testified to Congress that highly publicized climate models showing a disappearing Arctic were nothing more than "science fiction."

In fact, after years of hearing about the computer generated scary scenarios about the future of our planet, I now believe that the greatest climate threat we face may be coming from alarmist computer models.

This threat is originating from the software installed on the hard drives of the publicity seeking climate modelers.

It is long past the time for us to separate climate change fact from hysteria.

KYOTO: ECONOMIC PAIN FOR NO CLIMATE GAIN

One final point on the science of climate change: I am approached by many in the media and others who ask, "What if you are wrong to doubt the dire global warming predictions? Will you be able to live with yourself for opposing the Kyoto Protocol?"

My answer is blunt. The history of the modern environmental movement is chock full of predictions of doom that never came true. We have all heard the dire predictions about the threat of overpopulation, resource scarcity, mass starvation, and the projected death of our oceans. None of these predictions came true, yet it never stopped the doomsayers from continuing to predict a dire environmental future.

The more the eco-doomsayers' predictions fail, the more the eco-doomsayers predict. These failed predictions are just one reason I respect the serious scientists out there today debunking the latest scaremongering on climate change. Scientists like MIT's Richard Lindzen, former Colorado State climatologist Roger Pielke, Sr., the University of Alabama's Roy Spencer and John Christy, Virginia State Climatologist Patrick Michaels, Colorado State University's William Gray, atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer, Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Oregon State climatologist George Taylor and astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas, to name a few.

But more importantly, it is the global warming alarmists who should be asked the question -- "What if they are correct about man-made catastrophic global warming?" -- because they have come up with no meaningful solution to their supposed climate crisis in the two decades that they have been hyping this issue.

If the alarmists truly believe that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are dooming the planet, then they must face up to the fact that symbolism does not solve a supposed climate crisis.

The alarmists freely concede that the Kyoto Protocol, even if fully ratified and complied with, would not have any meaningful impact on global temperatures. And keep in mind that Kyoto is not even close to being complied with by many of the nations that ratified it, including 13 of the EU-15 nations that are not going to meet their emission reduction promises.

Many of the nations that ratified Kyoto are now realizing what I have been saying all along:

The Kyoto Protocol is a lot of economic pain for no climate gain.


MEDIA COVERAGE OF CLIMATE CHANGE:

Many in the media, as I noted earlier, have taken it upon themselves to drop all pretense of balance on global warming and instead become committed advocates for the issue.

Here is a quote from Newsweek magazine:

"There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production- with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth."

A headline in the New York Times reads: "Climate Changes Endanger World's Food Output."

Here is a quote from Time Magazine:

"As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval."

All of this sounds very ominous. That is, until you realize that the three quotes I just read were from articles in 1975 editions of Newsweek Magazine and The New York Times, and Time Magazine in 1974. http://time-proxy.yaga.com/time/archive/printout/0,23657,944914,00.html

They weren't referring to global warming; they were warning of a coming ice age.

Let me repeat, all three of those quotes were published in the 1970's and warned of a coming ice age.

In addition to global cooling fears, Time Magazine has also reported on global warming. Here is an example:

"[Those] who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weathermen have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer."

Before you think that this is just another example of the media promoting Vice President Gore's movie, you need to know that the quote I just read you from Time Magazine was not a recent quote; it was from January 2, 1939.

Yes, in 1939. Nine years before Vice President Gore was born and over three decades before Time Magazine began hyping a coming ice age and almost five decades before they returned to hyping global warming.

Time Magazine in 1951 pointed to receding permafrost in Russia as proof that the planet was warming.

In 1952, the New York Times noted that the "trump card" of global warming "has been the melting glaciers."

BUT MEDIA COULD NOT DECIDE BETWEEN WARMING OR COOLING SCARES

There are many more examples of the media and scientists flip-flopping between warming and cooling scares.

Here is a quote form the New York Times reporting on fears of an approaching ice age.

"Geologists Think the World May be Frozen Up Again."

That sentence appeared over 100 years ago in the February 24, 1895 edition of the New York Times. Let me repeat. 1895, not 1995.

A front page article in the October 7, 1912 New York Times, just a few months after the Titanic struck an iceberg and sank, declared that a prominent professor "Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age." The very same day in 1912, the Los Angeles Times ran an article warning that the "Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold."

An August 10, 1923 Washington Post article declared: "Ice Age Coming Here."

By the 1930's, the media took a break from reporting on the coming ice age and instead switched gears to promoting global warming:

"America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise" stated an article in the New York Times on March 27, 1933.

The media of yesteryear was also not above injecting large amounts of fear and alarmism into their climate articles.

An August 9, 1923 front page article in the Chicago Tribune declared:

"Scientist Says Arctic Ice Will Wipe Out Canada."

The article quoted a Yale University professor who predicted that large parts of Europe and Asia would be "wiped out" and Switzerland would be "entirely obliterated."

A December 29, 1974 New York Times article on global cooling reported that climatologists believed "the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade."

The article also warned that unless government officials reacted to the coming catastrophe, "mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence" would result. In 1975, the New York Times reported that "A major cooling [was] widely considered to be inevitable."

These past predictions of doom have a familiar ring, don't they? They sound strikingly similar to our modern media promotion of former Vice president's brand of climate alarmism.

After more than a century of alternating between global cooling and warming, one would think that this media history would serve a cautionary tale for today's voices in the media and scientific community who are promoting yet another round of eco-doom.

Much of the 100-year media history on climate change that I have documented here today can be found in a publication titled "Fire and Ice" from the Business and Media Institute. http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice_timeswarns.asp

MEDIA COVERAGE IN 2006

Which raises the question: Has this embarrassing 100-year documented legacy of coverage on what turned out to be trendy climate science theories made the media more skeptical of today's sensational promoters of global warming? You be the judge.

On February 19th of this year, CBS News's "60 Minutes" produced a segment on the North Pole. The segment was a completely one-sided report, alleging rapid and unprecedented melting at the polar cap. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/16/60minutes/main1323169.shtml It even featured correspondent Scott Pelley claiming that the ice in Greenland was melting so fast, that he barely got off an ice-berg before it collapsed into the water.

"60 Minutes" failed to inform its viewers that a 2005 study by a scientist named Ola Johannessen and his colleagues showing that the interior of Greenland is gaining ice and mass and that according to scientists, the Arctic was warmer in the 1930's than today.

On March 19th of this year "60 Minutes" profiled NASA scientist and alarmist James Hansen, who was once again making allegations of being censored by the Bush administration. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml In this segment, objectivity and balance were again tossed aside in favor of a one-sided glowing profile of Hansen.

The "60 Minutes" segment made no mention of Hansen's partisan ties to former Democrat Vice President Al Gore or Hansen's receiving of a grant of a quarter of a million dollars from the left-wing Heinz Foundation run by Teresa Heinz Kerry. There was also no mention of Hansen's subsequent endorsement of her husband John Kerry for President in 2004.

Many in the media dwell on any industry support given to so-called climate skeptics, but the same media completely fail to note Hansen's huge grant from the left-wing Heinz Foundation.

The foundation's money originated from the Heinz family ketchup fortune. So it appears that the media makes a distinction between oil money and ketchup money.

"60 Minutes" also did not inform viewers that Hansen appeared to concede in a 2003 issue of Natural Science that the use of "extreme scenarios" to dramatize climate change "may have been appropriate at one time" to drive the public's attention to the issue. http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh6.html

Why would "60 Minutes" ignore the basic tenets of journalism, which call for objectivity and balance in sourcing, and do such one-sided segments?

The answer was provided by correspondent Scott Pelley. Pelley told the CBS News website that he justified excluding scientists skeptical of global warming alarmism from his segments because he considers skeptics to be the equivalent of "Holocaust deniers." http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/03/22/publiceye/entry1431768.shtml

This year also saw a New York Times reporter write a children's book entitled" The North Pole Was Here." The author of the book, New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin, wrote that it may someday be "easier to sail to than stand on" the North Pole in summer. So here we have a very prominent environmental reporter for the New York Times who is promoting aspects of global warming alarmism in a book aimed at children.

TIME MAGAZINE HYPES ALARMISM

In April of this year, Time Magazine devoted an issue to global warming alarmism titled "Be Worried, Be Very Worried." http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20060403,00.html This is the same Time Magazine which first warned of a coming ice age in 1920's before switching to warning about global warming in the 1930's before switching yet again to promoting the 1970's coming ice age scare.

The April 3, 2006 global warming special report of Time Magazine was a prime example of the media's shortcomings, as the magazine cited partisan left-wing environmental groups with a vested financial interest in hyping alarmism.

Headlines blared:

"More and More Land is Being Devastated by Drought"

"Earth at the Tipping Point"

"The Climate is Crashing,"

Time Magazine did not make the slightest attempt to balance its reporting with any views with scientists skeptical of this alleged climate apocalypse.

I don't have journalism training, but I dare say calling a bunch of environmental groups with an obvious fund-raising agenda and asking them to make wild speculations on how bad global warming might become, is nothing more than advocacy for their left-wing causes. It is a violation of basic journalistic standards.

To his credit, New York Times reporter Revkin saw fit to criticize Time Magazine for its embarrassing coverage of climate science. http://orient.bowdoin.edu/orient/article.php?date=2006-04-28â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š§ion=1&id=7 So in the end, Time's cover story title of "Be Worried, Be Very Worried," appears to have been apt. The American people should be worried --- very worried -- of such shoddy journalism.

AL GORE INCONVIENIENT TRUTH

In May, our nation was exposed to perhaps one of the slickest science propaganda films of all time: former Vice President Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth." In addition to having the backing of Paramount Pictures to market this film, Gore had the full backing of the media, and leading the cheerleading charge was none other than the Associated Press.

On June 27, the Associated Press ran an article by Seth Borenstein that boldly declared "Scientists give two thumbs up to Gore's movie." The article quoted only five scientists praising Gore's science, despite AP's having contacted over 100 scientists. http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2006-06-27-inconvenient-truth-reviews_x.htm

The fact that over 80% of the scientists contacted by the AP had not even seen the movie or that many scientists have harshly criticized the science presented by Gore did not dissuade the news outlet one bit from its mission to promote Gore's brand of climate alarmism. http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257909

I am almost at a loss as to how to begin to address the series of errors, misleading science and unfounded speculation that appear in the former Vice President's film

Here is what Richard Lindzen, a meteorologist from MIT has written about "An Inconvenient Truth."

"A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse." http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

What follows is a very brief summary of the science that the former Vice President promotes in either a wrong or misleading way:


He promoted the now debunked "hockey stick" temperature chart in an attempt to prove man's overwhelming impact on the climate
He attempted to minimize the significance of Medieval Warm period and the Little Ice Age
He insisted on a link between increased hurricane activity and global warming that most scientists believe does not exist.
He asserted that today's Arctic is experiencing unprecedented warmth while ignoring that temperatures in the 1930's were as warm or warmer
He claimed the Antarctic was warming and losing ice but failed to note, that is only true of a small region and the vast bulk has been cooling and gaining ice.
He hyped unfounded fears that Greenland's ice is in danger of disappearing
He erroneously claimed that ice cap on Mt. Kilimanjaro is disappearing due to global warming, even while the region cools and researchers blame the ice loss on local land-use practices
He made assertions of massive future sea level rise that is way out side of any supposed scientific "consensus" and is not supported in even the most alarmist literature.
He incorrectly implied that a Peruvian glacier's retreat is due to global warming, while ignoring the fact that the region has been cooling since the 1930s and other glaciers in South America are advancing
He blamed global warming for water loss in Africa's Lake Chad, despite NASA scientists concluding that local population and grazing factors are the more likely culprits
He inaccurately claimed polar bears are drowning in significant numbers due to melting ice when in fact they are thriving
He completely failed to inform viewers that the 48 scientists who accused President Bush of distorting science were part of a political advocacy group set up to support Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004 Now that was just a brief sampling of some of the errors presented in "An Inconvenient Truth." Imagine how long the list would have been if I had actually seen the movie -- there would not be enough time to deliver this speech today.
TOM BROKAW

Following the promotion of "An Inconvenient Truth," the press did not miss a beat in their role as advocates for global warming fears.

ABC News put forth its best effort to secure its standing as an advocate for climate alarmism when the network put out a call for people to submit their anecdotal global warming horror stories in June for use in a future news segment. http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2094224&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

In July, the Discovery Channel presented a documentary on global warming narrated by former NBC anchor Tom Brokaw. The program presented only those views of scientists promoting the idea that humans are destroying the Earth's climate. http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=258659

You don't have to take my word for the program's overwhelming bias; a Bloomberg News TV review noted "You'll find more dissent at a North Korean political rally than in this program" because of its lack of scientific objectivity.

Brokaw also presented climate alarmist James Hansen to viewers as unbiased, failing to note his quarter million dollar grant form the partisan Heinz Foundation or his endorsement of Democrat Presidential nominee John Kerry in 2004 and his role promoting former Vice President Gore's Hollywood movie.

Brokaw, however, did find time to impugn the motives of scientists skeptical of climate alarmism when he featured paid environmental partisan Michael Oppenhimer of the group Environmental Defense accusing skeptics of being bought out by the fossil fuel interests.

The fact remains that political campaign funding by environmental groups to promote climate and environmental alarmism dwarfs spending by the fossil fuel industry by a three-to-one ratio. Environmental special interests, through their 527s, spent over $19 million compared to the $7 million that Oil and Gas spent through PACs in the 2004 election cycle.

I am reminded of a question the media often asks me about how much I have received in campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry. My unapologetic answer is 'Not Enough,' -- especially when you consider the millions partisan environmental groups pour into political campaigns.

ENGINEERED 'CONSENSUS"

Continuing with our media analysis: On July 24, 2006 The Los Angeles Times featured an op-ed by Naomi Oreskes, a social scientist at the University of California San Diego and the author of a 2004 Science Magazine study. Oreskes insisted that a review of 928 scientific papers showed there was 100% consensus that global warming was not caused by natural climate variations. This study was also featured in former Vice President Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=259323

However, the analysis in Science Magazine excluded nearly 11,000 studies or more than 90 percent of the papers dealing with global warming, according to a critique by British social scientist Benny Peiser.

Peiser also pointed out that less than two percent of the climate studies in the survey actually endorsed the so-called "consensus view" that human activity is driving global warming and some of the studies actually opposed that view.

But despite this manufactured "consensus," the media continued to ignore any attempt to question the orthodoxy of climate alarmism.

As the dog days of August rolled in, the American people were once again hit with more hot hype regarding global warming, this time from The New York Times op-ed pages. A columnist penned an August 3rd column filled with so many inaccuracies it is a wonder the editor of the Times saw fit to publish it.

For instance, Bob Herbert's column made dubious claims about polar bears, the snows of Kilimanjaro and he attempted to link this past summer's heat wave in the U.S. to global warming - something even alarmist James Hansen does not support. http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=261382
 
How about a Nobel prize for this
http://www.etherzone.com/1998/china4.html

FBI COVER-UP OF CHINESE
INFILTRATION OF WHITE HOUSE

By Bob Momenteller

Friday's leak through the Washington Post that the FBI has known since 1991 that the Democrat Party is infiltrated by Chinese agents is a seminal event. For it offers sufficient detail to complete the picture of how the entire Chinese intelligence penetration succeeded. When combining it with other leaks, intelligence reports, and congressional investigation results, the following picture can be put together:


In the 1980s, the People's Republic of China made a decision
to build the most powerful military force in the world. In less
than a decade, China's annual military spending tripled. In terms of manpower, it already had the largest army in the world. But to project force, it needed a modern Navy as well. To rival the U.S. military, it needed advanced U.S. military technology, and it needed U.S. dollars to purchase such technology. Republican administrations had permitted trade with China that produced hard currency, but had employed tight export controls to prevent advanced U.S. military technology from falling into the hands of Communists. So the Chinese government bet its money on two Southern Democrats with an expressed and desperate desire to ascend to the U.S. Presidency.

THE INGENIOUS DIVERSION


It is against the law for a foreign government to support U.S. politicians, and movement inside U.S. borders of Communist China agents is watched closely by FBI counterintelligence.

So Communist China set up a diversion so ingenious that it
has confused reporters for years, but has been known to and kept secret by the FBI. Mainland China used its archrival Taiwan, as well as Hong Kong, as conduits for the funds paid to Clinton and Gore. Democratic Taiwan and Hong Kong are the last places you could look for Communist agents, and the many U.S. subsidiaries of Taiwanese, Hong Kong, and Indonesian companies and organizations offered convenient footholds through which to launder money and buy influence with U.S. politicians.

China Resources bought into Lippo Bank of Hong Kong and
Indonesia and placed its officers John Huang and James Riady in Arkansas. John Huang was born in Mainland China, but had served in the Taiwanese air force. Ya Long Economic Trading of the Chinese Hainan province sought influence and legitimacy through the Hsi Lai temple of Taiwan, through its representative Maria Hsia, born in Taiwan.

Both John Huang and Maria Hsia are known by the FBI to be
agents of Communist China. Together with James Riady, they formed he Pacific Leadership Council, and invited none other than then-Senator Al Gore to the Hsi Lai temple headquarters in Taiwan in 1989. On behalf of the Chinese government, Maria Hsia promised Al Gore that she would persuade all her colleagues "in the future to play a leader role in your presidential race." When Al Gore entered the Hsi Lai temple of Los Angeles seven years later to facilitate the laundry of donations in a "fund-raiser," he must have known it came from the Chinese government.
.....ect........
 
Ski town's flame too hot for global warming cops
Mayor targets downtown attraction for extinction

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 25, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern



â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com


In the mountain resort of Aspen, where mansions each pump out more than 600 pounds of carbon dioxide annually, and jets delivering the rich and famous to their second homes add another 300,000 tons, the mayor is trying to eliminate a natural-gas fueled flame in an open municipal hearth in downtown that is intended to provide ambience.

"This isn't Arlington National Cemetery. It's not the eternal flame," Mayor Mick Ireland told the Denver Post. "It's a symbol like if the mayor were to run around in a Range Rover."

The flame was installed about 18 months ago amid the hoopla of increasing the city's "vibrancy" and "to encourage pedestrians to linger in Aspen's downtown center."

But it emits an estimated nine pounds or so of carbon dioxide every year, so even at its launching, the city acknowledged, "it is important to note that the city recognizes and acknowledges the energy use and the resulting greenhouse gas emissions from this project. However, the balance between creating vibrancy and managing our energy consumption is an ongoing and conscious effort we take very seriously. So, as part of our effort to reduce our overall greenhouse gas emissions as outlined in the Canary Initiative, the city will be offsetting the emissions from the Community Fire Hearth by purchasing renewable energy credits equal to the electricity and natural gas emissions from the hearth."

aspen2%20(2).jpg


But Ireland told the newspaper it's insensitive to burn natural gas, and made the extinguishment of the flame part of his recent campaign. A week ago he called for a vote to kill the light, but it failed, 3-2, meaning city workers will return to their brainstorming to find some way to make the hearth "environmentally acceptable."

The Aspen campaign against global warming is turned on high despite a recent report from the U.S. Senate that documents hundreds of prominent scientists – experts in dozens of fields of study worldwide – who say global warming and cooling is a cycle of nature and cannot legitimately be connected to man's activities.

Ireland said the natural gas used by the attraction sends the wrong message in a town trying to cut its carbon emissions, through a city effort called the Canary Initiative. The goal is to cut city carbon emissions more than 80 percent over the next 43 years.

The city already has held a contest to generate ideas for alternative sources of energy for the feature. It offered $500 cash and a $500 gift certificate for home energy efficiency appliances, but there were no winners.

The newspaper said the city concluded biofuels would use too much energy in development and delivery, cooking grease wasn't practical, burning wood releases too many particulates and an electric flame was too fake.

"And copying the city of San Francisco's efforts to make power from dog poo had too high a yuck factor," the newspaper said.

The "green" city already features free mass transit, solar parking meters, a carbon tax and a bike-riding mayor. Even Christmas lights are LEDs. The city also monitors water quality from runoff, features low-flow toilets, recycles electronics and urges consumers to patronize organic food suppliers.

Council member Jack Johnson told the paper the hearth should be an educational display, with a sign explanation how it is wasting fuel and why.

As the flame burns, Escalades and Hummers drive by, paparazzi trip over hearth chairs seeking photographs of supermodel Heidi Klum and sales associate Kate Kelly, in a nearby retailer, told the newspaper, "Al Gore wouldn't be too happy about this."

But participants in a newspaper forum ridiculed the situation.

"Maybe just put the fire out and hang a picture of a fire instead. You put up a kiosk with informational booklets (printed on recycled paper) that explain the Global Warming Crisis, why the fire had to be put out, and ask for donations to purchase Carbon Credits. Ask the rich to stop coming to Aspen, because it's actually bad for the environment, to have all those jets flying around. Shut down the ski area. Because, really; can we afford to waste time skiing, when the oceans are about to rise 20 ft.? I think not." wrote Rulo Melko. "Well, maybe not. We'll let the rich still fly their jets in and ski, and spend money. As long as they're the Hollywood rich who "get it". Who "understand".

"This article," Bart Gripenstraw told the newspaper, "gave me a good chuckle this morning. It almost made me want to drive up to Aspen in my gas guzzling SUV, premium unleaded gas of course, with my wife in her full length fur coat so we could enjoy this beautiful fire pit. I am sure Al Gore would jump on his private lear jet, (sic) leaving behind his tastefully done 30,000 sq. foot home in Tennessee, to join me in a toast to the sillyness (sic) he has helped create."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59365
 
Global Warming Will Save America from the Right...Eventually

Sat., 12/22/2007 - 19:21—Say what you will about the looming catastrophe facing the world as the pace of global heating and polar melting accelerates. There is a silver lining.

Look at a map of the US.


The area that will by completely inundated by the rising ocean—and not in a century but in the lifetime of my two cats—are the American southeast, including the most populated area of Texas, almost all of Florida, most of Louisiana, and half of Alabama and Mississippi, as well as goodly portions of eastern Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina. While the northeast will also see some coastal flooding, its geography is such that that aside from a few projecting sandbars like Long Island and Cape Cod, the land rises fairly quickly to well above sea level. Sure, Boston, New York and Philadelphia will be threatened, but these are geographically confined areas that could lend themselves to protection by Dutch-style dikes. The West Coast too tends to rise rapidly to well above sea level in most places. Only down in Southern California towards the San Diego area is the ground closer to sea level.

So what we see is that huge swaths of conservative America are set to face a biblical deluge in a few more presidential cycles.

Then there’s the matter of the Midwest, which climate experts say is likely to face a permanent condition of unprecedented drought, making the place largely unlivable, and certainly unfarmable. The agribusinesses and conservative farmers that have been growing corn and wheat may be able to stretch out this doomsday scenario by deep well drilling, but west of the Mississippi, the vast Ogallala Aquifer that has allowed for such irrigation is already being tapped out. It will not be replaced.

So again, we will see the decline and depopulation of the nation’s vast midsection—noted for its consistent conservatism. Only in the northernmost area, around the Great Lakes (which will be not so great anymore), and along the Canadian border, will there still be enough rain for farming and continued large population concentrations, but those regions, like Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois, are also more liberal in their politics.

Finally, in the Southwest, already parched and stiflingly hot, the rise in energy costs and the soaring temperatures will put an end to right-wing retirement communities like Phoenix, Tucson and Palm Springs. Already the Salton Sea is fading away and putting Palm Springs on notice that the good times are coming to an end. Another right-wing haven soon to be gone.

So the future political map of America is likely to look as different as the much shrunken geographical map, with much of the so-called “red” state region either gone or depopulated.

There is a poetic justice to this of course. It is conservatives who are giving us the candidates who steadfastly refuse to have the nation take steps that could slow the pace of climate change, so it is appropriate that they should bear the brunt of its impact.

The important thing is that we, on the higher ground both actually and figuratively, need to remember that, when they begin their historic migration from their doomed regions, we not give them the keys to the city. They certainly should be offered assistance in their time of need, but we need to keep a firm grip on our political systems, making sure that these guilty throngs who allowed the world to go to hell are gerrymandered into political impotence in their new homes.

There will be much work to be done to help the earth and its residents—human and non-human—survive this man-made catastrophe, and we can’t have these future refugee troglodytes, should their personal disasters still fail to make them recognize reality, mucking things up again.

It should be considered acceptable, in this stifling new world, to say, “Shut up. We told you this would happen.”

http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/2007/122407Lindorff.shtml
 
you_first_tiny.jpg


French scientist calls Gore a "Crook" and his followers "Zealots"

Climate-change skeptics are taking a beating these days even in France, where people long resisted the green creed.

Paris bookstores brim with guidebooks — including one shaped like a toilet seat — that tell readers how to help save our planet. Yet the dissidents refuse to shut up, even now that Al Gore has won the Nobel Peace Prize and the U.S. government has agreed to negotiate a new global-warming treaty by 2009.

The most conspicuous doubter in France is Claude Allegre, a former education minister and a physicist by profession. His new book, ``Ma Verite Sur la Planete'' (``My Truth About the Planet''), doesn't mince words. He calls Gore a "crook" presiding over an eco-business that pumps out cash. As for Gore's French followers, the author likens them to religious zealots who, far from saving humanity, are endangering it. Driven by a Judeo-Christian guilt complex, he says, French greens paint worst-case scenarios and attribute little-understood cycles to human misbehavior.

Allegre doesn't deny that the climate has changed or that extreme weather has become more common. He instead emphasizes the local character of these phenomena.

While the icecap of the North Pole is shrinking, the one covering Antarctica — or 92 percent of the Earth's ice — is not, he says. Nor have Scandinavian glaciers receded, he says. To play down these differences by basing forecasts on a global average makes no sense to Allegre.

He dismisses talk of renewable energies, such as wind or solar power, saying it would take a century for them to become a serious factor in meeting the world's energy demands.

http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=215937&D=2007-12-28&SO=&HC=3
 
Greenhouse Gas, front for Nuclear Lobby?

Hanford Site
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hanford Site plutonium production reactors along the Columbia River during the Manhattan Project.The Hanford Site is a facility of the government of the United States established to provide plutonium necessary for the development of nuclear weapons. It was established in 1943 as the Hanford Engineer Works, part of the Manhattan Project, and codenamed "Site W." No longer used to produce plutonium, it is currently the United States' most contaminated nuclear site.[1]

The site occupies 586 square miles (1,517 kmâ┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š²) in Benton County, south-central Washington, and is approximately equivalent to half the total area of the state of Rhode Island (centered on 46â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š°30′00″N, 119â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š°30′00″W.) The Federal government bought the towns of White Bluffs and Hanford and all of the surrounding farmland and orchards, and evacuated the residents to make room for the site.

Plutonium manufactured at the Hanford site was used to build the first nuclear bomb, which was tested at the Trinity site near Alamogordo, New Mexico, and used to build Fat Man, the bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki, Japan.

Currently, the Hanford Site is engaged in the world's largest environmental cleanup, with many challenges to be resolved in the face of overlapping technical, political, regulatory, and cultural interests. The cleanup effort is focused on three outcomes: restoring the Columbia River corridor for other uses, converting the central plateau to long-term waste treatment and storage, and preparing for the future.

Although most of the original Hanford Site is in Benton County, approximately twenty percent was once across the Columbia River in Grant and Franklin counties. This land has since been returned to private use and is now covered with orchards and irrigated fields. In 2000, large portions of Hanford were turned over to the Hanford Reach National Monument.

Contents [hide]
1 History of the Hanford Nuclear Site
1.1 Selecting the Hanford Site
1.2 Construction begins
1.3 Building the reactors
1.4 Plutonium separation plants
2 Cold War era
3 Cleanup era
3.1 Clean land released to other uses
4 Contemporary Hanford
5 References
6 External links



[edit] History of the Hanford Nuclear Site

Hanford High School, before and after operation of the Hanford Nuclear Site
The Uranium Committee of the federal Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) decided to sponsor an intensive research project on plutonium. At this time, plutonium was a rare element that had been isolated in a University of California laboratory only nine months prior. The OSRD placed the contract with the University of Chicago Metallurgical Laboratory (Met Lab). Communities surrounding the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in southeastern Washington were exposed to radionuclides, particularly iodine-131, released during the period 1945 to 1951.


[edit] Selecting the Hanford Site
In June 1942, the Army Corps of Engineers formed the Manhattan Engineer District (MED) to construct industrial-size plants to manufacture the plutonium and uranium for the Met Lab scientists. In November 1942, the DuPont Company was recruited, and reluctantly agreed, to be the prime contractor for the construction of the facility. DuPont recommended that the plutonium production facilities be located far away from the existing uranium production facilities at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and described the ideal site:

A large and remote tract of land,
A "hazardous manufacturing area" of at least 12 by 16 miles (19 by 26 km),
Space for laboratory facilities at least 8 miles (13 km) from the nearest reactor or separations plant,
No towns of more than 1,000 people closer than 20 miles (32 km) from the hazardous rectangle,
No main highway, railway, or employee village closer than 10 miles (16 km) from the hazardous rectangle,
A clean and abundant water supply,
A large electric power supply,
Ground that could bear heavy loads.
 
NYT Takes on Al Gore and Climate Alarmists...Happy New Year!

By Noel Sheppard | January 1, 2008 - 10:29 ET

The new year is beginning with some very serious shots being fired across the bow of the manmade global warming myth and at alarmists using it to advance their deplorable agendas.

Moments after Investor's Business Daily presaged that "2008 just might be the year the so-called scientific consensus that man is causing the Earth to warm begins to crack," the New York Times of all entities published a rather shocking piece pointing fingers at folks like Nobel Laureate Al Gore for being part of a group of "activists, journalists and publicity-savvy scientists who selectively monitor the globe looking for newsworthy evidence of a new form of sinfulness, burning fossil fuels."

This from the New York Times?

Hold on tightly to your seats, folks, for the shocks in this piece came early and often (emphasis added throughout):

Today's interpreters of the weather are what social scientists call availability entrepreneurs: the activists, journalists and publicity-savvy scientists who selectively monitor the globe looking for newsworthy evidence of a new form of sinfulness, burning fossil fuels.

A year ago, British meteorologists made headlines predicting that the buildup of greenhouse gases would help make 2007 the hottest year on record. At year's end, even though the British scientists reported the global temperature average was not a new record - it was actually lower than any year since 2001 - the BBC confidently proclaimed, "2007 Data Confirms Warming Trend."

When the Arctic sea ice last year hit the lowest level ever recorded by satellites, it was big news and heralded as a sign that the whole planet was warming. When the Antarctic sea ice last year reached the highest level ever recorded by satellites, it was pretty much ignored. A large part of Antarctica has been cooling recently, but most coverage of that continent has focused on one small part that has warmed.

When Hurricane Katrina flooded New Orleans in 2005, it was supposed to be a harbinger of the stormier world predicted by some climate modelers. When the next two hurricane seasons were fairly calm - by some measures, last season in the Northern Hemisphere was the calmest in three decades - the availability entrepreneurs changed the subject. Droughts in California and Australia became the new harbingers of climate change (never mind that a warmer planet is projected to have more, not less, precipitation over all).

Checking that link to make sure it really goes to a Times piece? I understand, I've checked it about nine times, and I still don't believe it:

When judging risks, we often go wrong by using what's called the availability heuristic: we gauge a danger according to how many examples of it are readily available in our minds. Thus we overestimate the odds of dying in a terrorist attack or a plane crash because we've seen such dramatic deaths so often on television; we underestimate the risks of dying from a stroke because we don't have so many vivid images readily available.

Slow warming doesn't make for memorable images on television or in people's minds, so activists, journalists and scientists have looked to hurricanes, wild fires and starving polar bears instead. They have used these images to start an "availability cascade," a term coined by Timur Kuran, a professor of economics and law at the University of Southern California, and Cass R. Sunstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago.

The availability cascade is a self-perpetuating process: the more attention a danger gets, the more worried people become, leading to more news coverage and more fear. Once the images of Sept. 11 made terrorism seem a major threat, the press and the police lavished attention on potential new attacks and supposed plots. After Three Mile Island and "The China Syndrome," minor malfunctions at nuclear power plants suddenly became newsworthy.

And, of course, those that have invested huge amounts of money in green alternatives as well as carbon credit manufacturers - Saint Albert Gore, for example! - benefit tremendously every time attention is drawn to a weather-related issue that can be used to incite fear in the population:

"Many people concerned about climate change," Dr. Sunstein says, "want to create an availability cascade by fixing an incident in people's minds. Hurricane Katrina is just an early example; there will be others. I don't doubt that climate change is real and that it presents a serious threat, but there's a danger that any ‘consensus' on particular events or specific findings is, in part, a cascade."

Once a cascade is under way, it becomes tough to sort out risks because experts become reluctant to dispute the popular wisdom, and are ignored if they do. Now that the melting Arctic has become the symbol of global warming, there's not much interest in hearing other explanations of why the ice is melting - or why the globe's other pole isn't melting, too.

Amazingly, at this point Times author John Tierney addressed studies previously reported by NewsBusters while similarly pointing out how absurd the media's lack of coverage of said items was:

Global warming has an impact on both polar regions, but they're also strongly influenced by regional weather patterns and ocean currents. Two studies by NASA and university scientists last year concluded that much of the recent melting of Arctic sea ice was related to a cyclical change in ocean currents and winds, but those studies got relatively little attention - and were certainly no match for the images of struggling polar bears so popular with availability entrepreneurs.

Could have read that at NewsBusters, right? Same with this:

Roger A. Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, recently noted the very different reception received last year by two conflicting papers on the link between hurricanes and global warming. He counted 79 news articles about a paper in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, and only 3 news articles about one in a far more prestigious journal, Nature.

Guess which paper jibed with the theory - and image of Katrina - presented by Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth"?

It was, of course, the paper in the more obscure journal, which suggested that global warming is creating more hurricanes. The paper in Nature concluded that global warming has a minimal effect on hurricanes. It was published in December - by coincidence, the same week that Mr. Gore received his Nobel Peace Prize.

Incredible. Suddenly, the New York Times is acting as a media analyst exposing liberal bias. How exciting.

Yet, Tierney wasn't done, for in his conclusion, he pointed his pen at the man most responsible for inciting all this hysteria:

In his acceptance speech, Mr. Gore didn't dwell on the complexities of the hurricane debate. Nor, in his roundup of the 2007 weather, did he mention how calm the hurricane season had been. Instead, he alluded somewhat mysteriously to "stronger storms in the Atlantic and Pacific," and focused on other kinds of disasters, like "massive droughts" and "massive flooding."

"In the last few months," Mr. Gore said, "it has been harder and harder to misinterpret the signs that our world is spinning out of kilter." But he was being too modest. Thanks to availability entrepreneurs like him, misinterpreting the weather is getting easier and easier.

So true. Hopefully such will become less easy in 2008 if more writers like Tierney start acting like journalists instead of the green advocates they've been since Gore's schlockumentary was released in early 2006.

After all, it will truly be a happy new year if newspapers like the Times regularly publish articles tearing to shreds the deceptions fostered by Gore and his sycophants thereby shedding light on this issue, and, just maybe, allowing America to prevent a recurrence of the kind of costly foolishness that halted the construction of nuclear power plants decades ago.

Of course, one article like this doth not make a trend. In fact, it seems almost a metaphysical certitude that in an election year, with all the Democrat presidential candidates in lock-step with the availability entrepreneurs, a downpour of sanity regarding this matter is highly unlikely.

But, published just two days before the Iowa caucuses, this piece certainly offers hope that folks in the media are starting to realize all the hysteria being incited by people like Gore is almost as believable as a Hillary Clinton campaign promise.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...akes-al-gore-climate-alarmists-happy-new-year
 
In Their Own Words

"Since the late 1960s, much of the North Atlantic Ocean has become less salty, in part due to increases in fresh water runoff induced by global warming, scientists say."
-Michael Schirber, LiveScience

June 29, 2005"The surface waters of the North Atlantic are getting saltier, suggests a new study of records spanning over 50 years. They found that during this time, the layer of water that makes up the top 400 metres has gradually become saltier. The seawater is probably becoming saltier due to global warming, Boyer says."
-Catherine Brahic, New Scientist

August 23, 2007"Utopia is an excellent escape for politicians because they can busy themselves with far-away goals and don't have to worry about immediate problems. Climate change is an excellent issue for that escape."
-Czech President Vaclav Klaus

"The advent of a new ice age, scientists say, appears to be guaranteed. The devastation will be astonishing."
-Gregg Easterbrook in Newsweek, Nov. 23, 1992

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_originals/peerreview.html
 
It's Official; Anthropogenic Global Warming May Cause Headaches

Now that global warmingists are getting governments like the UK and the US to ban fluorescent lightbulbs, we're hearing some inconvenient accusations about the bulbs. This time, a January 3 article in the UK's Telegraph said the bulbs may cause migraines (h/t NB reader Linda).

The UK's Migraine Action Association reported that some of its members say the bulbs trigger the headaches. As a result, they want an exception for health reasons included in the UK's ban on traditional incandescent bulbs.

Global warmingists claim that using fluorescent bulbs will reduce carbon emissions and help to stop anthropogenic global warming, but the Telegraph explained the bulbs may be a problem (bold mine):

Several versions use a technology similar to fluorescent strip lights and some migraine sufferers say they produce a flickering effect that triggers their condition.


Karen Manning, from the MAA, said: "When the Government announced that traditional light bulbs would be phased out, we were inundated with over 200 calls and emails from members who said the flickering had caused migraines.

"This is a debilitating condition which can often leave people bed-ridden for days.

"The bulbs do not necessarily affect every sufferer, but we are talking about up to six million people in the UK who suffer migraines - so this is a serious concern.

"We would ask the Government to avoid banning them completely and leave some opportunity for conventional bulbs to be purchased."


Of course, the people who make the bulbs disagree:

The Lighting Association, which represents manufacturers, denied that modern designs produced a flicker.

A spokesman said: "A small number of cases have been reported by people who suffer from reactions to certain types of linear fluorescent lamps. These were almost certainly triggered by old technology."


Migraine sufferers aren't the only people voicing concerns about mandatory usage of fluorescent bulbs. The article also explained that in addition to the few retro-environmentalists who haven't moved on to global warming and still worry about no-longer-trendy toxic chemicals, people with lupus and epilepsy have concerns.

It's always difficult to determine whether claims like these are valid, but this is what happens when governments make sweeping bans on something that is so pervasive in society.

http://newsbusters.org/
 
Br-r-r! Where did global warming go?
By Jeff Jacoby
Globe Columnist / January 6, 2008

THE STARK headline appeared just over a year ago. "2007 to be 'warmest on record,' " BBC News reported on Jan. 4, 2007. Citing experts in the British government's Meteorological Office, the story announced that "the world is likely to experience the warmest year on record in 2007," surpassing the all-time high reached in 1998.



In South America, for example, the start of winter last year was one of the coldest ever observed. According to Eugenio Hackbart, chief meteorologist of the MetSul Weather Center in Brazil, "a brutal cold wave brought record low temperatures, widespread frost, snow, and major energy disruption." In Buenos Aires, it snowed for the first time in 89 years, while in Peru the cold was so intense that hundreds of people died and the government declared a state of emergency in 14 of the country's 24 provinces. In August, Chile's agriculture minister lamented "the toughest winter we have seen in the past 50 years," which caused losses of at least $200 million in destroyed crops and livestock.

Latin Americans weren't the only ones shivering.

University of Oklahoma geophysicist David Deming, a specialist in temperature and heat flow, notes in the Washington Times that "unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007." Johannesburg experienced its first significant snowfall in a quarter-century. Australia had its coldest ever June. New Zealand's vineyards lost much of their 2007 harvest when spring temperatures dropped to record lows.

Closer to home, 44.5 inches of snow fell in New Hampshire last month, breaking the previous record of 43 inches, set in 1876. And the Canadian government is forecasting the coldest winter in 15 years.

Now all of these may be short-lived weather anomalies, mere blips in the path of the global climatic warming that Al Gore and a host of alarmists proclaim the deadliest threat we face. But what if the frigid conditions that have caused so much distress in recent months signal an impending era of global cooling?

"Stock up on fur coats and felt boots!" advises Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences and senior scientist at Moscow's Shirshov Institute of Oceanography. "The latest data . . . say that earth has passed the peak of its warmer period, and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012."

Sorokhtin dismisses the conventional global warming theory that greenhouse gases, especially human-emitted carbon dioxide, is causing the earth to grow hotter. Like a number of other scientists, he points to solar activity - sunspots and solar flares, which wax and wane over time - as having the greatest effect on climate.

"Carbon dioxide is not to blame for global climate change," Sorokhtin writes in an essay for Novosti. "Solar activity is many times more powerful than the energy produced by the whole of humankind." In a recent paper for the Danish National Space Center, physicists Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen concur: "The sun . . . appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change," they write.

Given the number of worldwide cold events, it is no surprise that 2007 didn't turn out to be the warmest ever. In fact, 2007's global temperature was essentially the same as that in 2006 - and 2005, and 2004, and every year back to 2001. The record set in 1998 has not been surpassed. For nearly a decade now, there has been no global warming. Even though atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to accumulate - it's up about 4 percent since 1998 - the global mean temperature has remained flat. That raises some obvious questions about the theory that CO{-2} is the cause of climate change.

Yet so relentlessly has the alarmist scenario been hyped, and so disdainfully have dissenting views been dismissed, that millions of people assume Gore must be right when he insists: "The debate in the scientific community is over."

But it isn't. Just last month, more than 100 scientists signed a strongly worded open letter pointing out that climate change is a well-known natural phenomenon, and that adapting to it is far more sensible than attempting to prevent it. Because slashing carbon dioxide emissions means retarding economic development, they warned, "the current US approach of CO{-2} reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it."

Climate science isn't a religion, and those who dispute its leading theory are not heretics. Much remains to be learned about how and why climate changes, and there is neither virtue nor wisdom in an emotional rush to counter global warming - especially if what's coming is a global Big Chill.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e...008/01/06/br_r_r_where_did_global_warming_go/
 
Global Warming's Communist Underpinnings And the MSM's Active Participation in Same
By Warner Todd Huston | January 15, 2008 - 18:55 ET

If you need any more proof that the concept of Global Warming is less "science" and is more just a replacement for the kind of failed concepts of communism and socialism that is increasingly being rejected by the world, two recent stories helps clarify the point. These same stories also highlight how the media facilitate the lies that is globaloney.

The first is a recent article by one Kellie Hastings, a writer who claims that her "research is thorough" and her "articles are written with style and intellect." In a piece titled "Deadly Ozone From Drive-Thru Mania," our Miss Hastings pours out her considerable "intellect" into the theory that drive thru windows are destroying the planet and making us a bunch of fatties.

These drive-thru window services contribute to smog, emissions, noise pollution, air pollution, pollution within the store itself as employees at the window are constantly breathing in exhaust fumes. They add to our obesity problem creating a lazy society. They congest the parking lots creating line ups adding to even more idling vehicles.


Wow, that is quite a list, a result of her "thorough research," no doubt.

And what does all this evil come down to as far as Miss. Hastings is concerned?

And all this is for what, convenience sake, money, success?

Is the human species evolving or are we becoming selfish to our never ending needs, our services rendered mind set? Or is it because we cannot turn back the clock and change the structured society we all love so much?

Maybe we have misled ourselves in regards to the meaning of purpose. Materialistically speaking, is it our destiny or purpose to acquire as much as possible? Is our evolutionary success based on our technologically convenient lifestyle? Or are we here to serve the almighty dollar?

Yeah, it's all because of ... you guessed it... capitalism. Her solution, of course, is to put an end to all this capitalism stuff like all good communists aim to do.

She fails utterly to prove with all her "research" that the "air pollution" she claims is a result from drive-thru windows will be reduced by getting rid of the convenience. She just states it straight out as fact. But, if Miss. Hastings is unhappy over the continued and expanded use of automobiles because of the air pollution they cause, she can't be too happy about the Tata Corporation in India offering a new auto for around $2,500, an offering that will allow many millions more people than had ever been able to afford a brand new car.

Now, owning a car opens up possibilities to a person that is beyond their reach otherwise, it opens up a freedom that many millions do not currently enjoy. The ability to find work at further distances from their homes than ever gives them more choices to find lucrative employment opportunities, the ability to find markets and entertainments are also greatly expanded. All this greatly expands individual freedom.

If many millions more of the people of India (and around the world) find themselves able to afford this new car, it will incredibly improve their standard of living. It will also force the government to redirect their own efforts to internal improvements to accommodate this rise in cars that will add even more to raising the standard of living in once poor countries.

Isn't this great news? Not to the communists of Greenpeace who are protesting this new product. Green communists are attempting to forever keep the poor in the grinding poverty in which they currently wallow. These green communists do not want people to be raised up out of poverty because to do so will cause "pollution" and "global warming."

And Greenpeace isn’t alone. Their pals in the media are happy to fan the flames of alarmism over the supposed "global disaster" of this incredible new freedom-promoting car. As the Washington Post proved with an article outrageous titled "It Costs Just $2,500. It's Cute as a Bug. And It Could Mean Global Disaster."

Green communists do not care about people and these two stories add to the ever growing proof that enviro-communists have gravitated to environmentalism as a replacement for an overt espousal of communist ideals.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/01/15/global-warmings-communist-underpinnings
 
morewarming%20005.jpg

It snowed, but they still came. A heavy snowfall blanketed a global warming protest outside the State House in Annapolis this morning, but it did not dampen the shouts of about 400 activists who urged lawmakers to pass the nation's toughest greenhouse gas control law.

As supporters waved signs, chanted and banged drums, 18 legislators walked down a symbolic green carpet to sign up as co-sponsors to a bill that would mandate that all businesses in Maryland cut emissions of global warming pollution by 25 percent by 2020 and 90 percent by 2050.

"We are going to pass this bill this year," said State Sen. Paul Pinsky, a Democrat from Prince
George's County and chairman of the senate's environmental matters subcommittee. "We are
not going to rest, we are not going to stop....We are going to keep going until we pass this
bill."
warming%20002%20%282%29.jpg


Pinsky and co-author Del. Kumar Barve, the house Democratic leader, proposed a similar
but unsuccessful Global Warming Solutions Act last year. It would have created a
system of financial rewards and punishments (known as a "cap and trade" system) to force all businesses to reduce their emissions.

The Maryland legislature over the last two year has approved more limited cuts in carbon dioxide pollution from coal-fired power plants and cars. Together, these add up to an expected 25 percent reduction.

The Maryland Chamber of Commerce, Constellation Energy and many Republicans oppose the 90 percent mandate, saying such aggressive regulation could cripple the states economy if
other states don't have such limits.

"It would be harmful for employment," said Senate Republican Leader David R. Brinkley.
"We have a conscientious business community, and nobody wants to contribute to pollution,
but these guys are intent on making Maryland uncompetitive."

Rob Gould, a spokesman for Constellation Energy, the state's biggest owner of power plants, said federal or international regulation of greenhouse gases makes more sense. And he suggested that power shortages could result from excessive state regulation. "Constellation Energy is very supportive of federal and international regulation. Our concern with last year's bill was that it limited the ability to trade to sources inside Maryland. Given that the only way to reduce CO2 from non-nuclear power plants is to run those plants less, our concern remains that a single small state like Maryland cannot meet these aggressive targets without reliability impacts occurring."

The U.S. Congress is considering legislation that would set up a national system of greenhouse gas reductions through a "cap and trade" system. But the Bush administration has opposed any mandatory limits in part because China, India and other economic competitors of the U.S. have refused to impose cuts.

California has approved a law with an 80 percent reduction by midcentury, and Maryland's law
is modelled after this proposal. The bill would order state agencies to come up with a variety of regulations to increase energy efficiency, encourage mass transit, discourage the burning of fossil fuels and boost clean energy.

After last year's bill failed, Gov. Martin OMalley appointed a climate change advisory commission that recommend that the state adopt a California-style program and cut greenhouse
gases by 90 percent by 2050. A spokeswoman for O'Malley, Christine Hansen, wouldn't say this evening whether the governor would support the Pinsky/Barve legislation, but said he is going to look "very seriously" at the bill. "The governor knows that we need to work to address global climate change," Hansen said.

Many of the protesters who endured the cold to chant "Stop Global Warming!" said they
didn't think the snowfall conflicted with their message. Davey Roegner, a 22 year old student at the University of Maryland College Park, beat on an African Djembe drum to rev up the crowd. He said the snow was a "gift" to remind eveyone about how rarely Maryland has been blanketed with beautiful white in recent years as temperatures have increased.

"It's only the second snow of the year, which is very sad," said Rogner, from Silver Spring. "Global warming is the most important issue of our generation. The state of Maryland should be taking a leadership role in it, because of our vulerability with all our shoreline."

Barve said the snow was a good sign: "At least we have weather appropriate for winter time, finally."

The 18 legislators who "walked the green carpet" to co-sponsor the "Global Warming Solutions Act" included: Senators Frosh, Rosapepe and Pinsky; and Delegates Hecht, Nathan-Pulliam, Cardin, Stein, Bobo, Barve, Carr, Waldstreicher, Manno, Mizeur, Barnes, Kullen, Anderson, Neimann and Ramirez.

Claire Douglass, Maryland driector of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, told the cheering crowd: “Maryland is the third most vulnerable state in the nation to sea level rise. With over 3,100 miles of coastline, it is our job to protect it.”�”�

Dr. Cindy Parker of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health said: "I’m a physician, why am I here for a rally for an environmental bill? It’s not an environmental bill, that’s why. It’s a health bill. This is the biggest threat to our health of anything going on right now, and anything we expect this century. We have to pass this bill for our health and for the health of everybody in the world and our children and their children."

Ted Rouse, an owner of the Baltimore-based development firm Struever Brothers Eccles and Rouse, and a leader of the Chesapeake Sustainable Business Alliance, said: "You can make a profit while looking after the planet. There is opportunity in this bill for business. So business supports this bill as well."

Reached by phone, a spokesman for the Maryland Chamber of Commerce disagreed. Will Burns, director of communications for the chamber, said Maryland should not impose restrictions that companies in Virginia, Pennsylvania and other regional states don't face.

"With an issue like this, its best not to act unilaterally. It's best to act regionally, so that you’re not stepping out on your own," said Burns. "Our economy is not like California's...You certainly would put Maryland at a disadvantage when it takes such radical action alone.”�”�

A nonpartisan analysis of last year's proposal, by the Maryland Department of Legislative Services, said the law would impose new regulations on "all businesses, small and large" across the state. "Accordingly, costs could increase significantly, but any such increase cannot be reliability calculated at this time."

(Note: this story was featured on the Drudge Report soon after it went online this evening, and so many of the comments you'll see below are from readers who came to this blog from that web page).

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/new...og/2008/01/global_warming_protest_snowed.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top