"*JimH*" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...


*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...


*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Global Warmin' Is Fer Idjuts
Exxon writes America's energy policy, BushCo chops up emissions
reports. Is there any hope at all?
By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist

Friday, June 10, 2005


Printable Version
Email This Article

Mark Morford
Archives
Subscribe to Notes & Errata
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Who is this guy?


From http://united-states-of-earth.com/ar...sp?MenuID=1559

" Mark Morford is a columnist and editor for sfgate.com. He is also a
yoga
teacher and fiction writer..."

'Nuff said. ;-)

And that makes him automatically wrong in your eyes, Jim? Even the
facts that he re-wrote?


What *facts* are those Kevin?

I'm not Kevin, BUT if you would read the article, it's FULL of FACTS...
Now, I still want to know, what part of Morford's life makes you think
that he's automatically not credible?

Answer my questions first, including those out to you over the past 2
days.


Because he writes fiction, does
that mean that he also can't be a credible reporter?

Perhaps

Because he works
for sfgate means he can't be a credible reporter?

Perhaps

Because he's a yoga
teacher? Are you running a contest with NOYB to see who can be the most
narrow minded?



You have won that prize already, fair and square.


Fact: Bush's decision not to sign the Kyoto Treaty, the landmark
environmental policy signed by 122 other
nations to reduce greenhouse emissions, was influenced not at all by
sound science or serious concern for the planet, but by pressure put on

him by his pals at ExxonMobil and other major oil corporations.


Do you know why Kevin or are you relying on the crap you just cut and
pasted as your *proof*?



Fact: The man who butchered documents pertaining to global warming was
Philip Cooney, and he has zero scientific training
whatsoever and was formerly the "climate-team leader" (read: top flying

monkey) and a lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute, the largest

trade group representing the oil industry. He is now chief of staff for

the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the group that helps
devise and set the nation's environmental agenda; Cooney's cuts and
edits of scientific emissions and global warming reports often made it
into final White House policy.


Cite



Fact: They lie about why a gay male model and former prostitute who ran
gay
porn Web sites was allowed to pose as a partisan hack reporter in White

House press briefings for over two years, allowed to ask softball
questions of the president and the press secretary and allowed to sleep

overnight in the White House.

Cite

I cut the rest of your babble because that is all it was....babble.

Do you ever have any thoughts of your own Kevin?


Global Warming

Myth: The science behind the theory that human beings are causing dramatic
global warming is sound. CNN, for example, reported that a 2001 National
Academy of Sciences report represented "a unanimous decision that global
warming is real, is getting worse and is due to man. There is no wiggle
room."

Fact: Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology and one of the 11 scientists who prepared the NAS report (and who
also contributed to the UN's International Panel on Climate Change), has
said so - repeatedly. He has said there were a wide variety of scientific
views presented in the report and "that the full report did, [express a wide
variety of views] making clear that there is no consensus, unanimous or
otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them."1 The same
is true of the all of the U.N.'s IPCC studies to which many reporters refer.

Claims that scientific opinion is nearly unanimous on the subject of global
warming are wrong. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine received
signatures from over 17,100 basic and applied American scientists -
two-thirds with advanced degrees - to a document saying, "There is no
convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane
or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future,
cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the
Earth's climate."2

Myth: We saw global warming in the 20th century that was the result of
man-made emissions.

Fact: We do not know if there is any man-made global warming. The computer
models used in U.N. studies say the first area to heat under the "greenhouse
gas effect" should be the lower atmosphere - known as the troposphere.3
Highly accurate, carefully-checked satellite data has shown absolutely no
such tropospheric warming. There has been surface warming of about half a
degree Celsius, but this is far below the customary natural swings in
surface temperatures.4

A June 2001 National Academy of Sciences report on global warming notes that
increased radiation from the sun could be responsible for a significant part
of climate change during part of the industrial era.5 Additionally, our
understanding of the carbon cycle is so poor that we cannot be certain that
a rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide is even due to human activity.6

Myth: Carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the primary
cause of global warming, and the Earth's temperature can be expected to rise
between 2.5 and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit in this century.

Fact: There are many indications that carbon dioxide does not play a
significant role in global warming. Dr. Lindzen estimates that a doubling of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would produce a temperature increase of
only one degree Celsius.7 In fact, clouds and water vapor appear to be far
more important factors related to global temperature. According to Dr.
Lindzen and NASA scientists, clouds and water vapor may play a significant
role in regulating the Earth's temperature to keep it more constant.8

Myth: Even if the science on global warming isn't certain, we should abide
by the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol (an international global warming
treaty) as a precaution that man-made global warming might be real.

Fact: According to projections by the U.S. Energy Information Administration
(EIA), the Kyoto Protocol would have a devastating effect on the U.S.
economy. If Kyoto had been ratified and implemented by the U.S., the EIA
estimates gasoline prices would rise 14 to 66 cents per gallon by the year
2010, electricity prices would go up 20 to 86 percent9 and compliance with
the treaty would cost the United States economy $400 billion per year.10

The Kyoto Treaty, if ratified and ahdered to, would certainly increase the
level of poverty in this country. As economist Walter Williams of George
Mason University points out, "As you look around the world, it is poverty,
as opposed to dirty air, that has implications for health."11

Myth: The burdens of meeting the demands of the Kyoto Protocol are
distributed fairly.

Fact: The burdens of meeting the demands of the Kyoto Protocol would fall
most heavily on minorities. A study commissioned by six African-American and
Hispanic organizations found that the increased costs forced by the treaty
would cut minority income in the United States by ten percent (in contrast,
white incomes would go down only 4.5 percent) and 864,000 black Americans
and 511,000 Hispanics would lose their jobs.12

Undeveloped countries such as China, India and Brazil are exempted from the
Kyoto Protocol. However, these three countries alone are projected to
produce 16 percent more carbon dioxide by the year 2020 than the U.S., even
if the protocol is not in place.13


http://www.nationalcenter.org/EarthDay04Myths.html#A