Whoa. What propaganda. Global warming is a propaganda ingeniously promoted by
members of the evil elite who are hell bent in every way and manner on fully
establishing a New World Order. Al Gore and Co. are laughing their as off. They
know that nothing like the like of global warming will ever occur, and it never
hasn't. It's about fear and control. They want to instill fear this way in the
masses and control them. I bet the black pope(wears black) Adolpho Nicholas is
laughing his ass off too along with the white pope(who obviously wears white)
Benedict XVI.
"Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your
country." —
John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address, January 20, 1961
"I run for the presidency because I want the United States to stand for hope,
instead of despair, and for the reconciliation of men instead of the growing
risk of world war"- Senator Robert F. Kennedy, during his presidential campaign
stop in Oregon for the Oregon Primary.
----- Original Message ----
From: Kris Millegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Cia-drugs Cia-drugs <Cia-drugs@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 6:11:30 PM
Subject: [cia-drugs] Fwd: #1 on the Endangered Species List: Homo Sapiens
Begin forwarded message:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] com
Date: August 11, 2008 2:26:33 PM PDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] com
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] com, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: #1 on the Endangered Species List: Homo Sapiens
"No amount of 'adaptation' to drastic climate change can keep life from
becoming unbearable for most of the world's population, and even for the lucky
few in urban-industrial centers it'll be pretty damned nasty"
On a planet 4C hotter,
all we can prepare for is extinction
There's no 'adaptation' to such steep warming. We must stop pandering to
special interests, and try a new, post-Kyoto strategy
* Oliver Tickell
* The Guardian, Monday August 11 2008
* http://www.guardian .co.uk/commentis free/2008/ aug/11/climatech ange
We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson told the
Guardian last week. At first sight this looks like wise counsel from the
climate science adviser to Defra. But the idea that we could adapt to a 4C
riseis absurd and dangerous. Global warming on this scale would be a
catastrophe that would mean, in the immortal words that Chief Seattle probably
never spoke,"the end of living and the beginning of survival" for humankind. Or
perhaps the beginning of our extinction.
The collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable, bringing long-term
sea level rises of 70-80 metres. All the world's coastal plains would be lost,
complete with ports, cities, transport and industrial infrastructure, and much
of the world's most productive farmland. The world's geography would be
transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age, when sea levels rose
by about 120 metres to create the Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out
of dry land. Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent
and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would
be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die.
Watson's call was supported by the government's former chief scientific
adviser, Sir David King, who warned that "if we get to a four-degree rise it is
quite possible that we would begin to see a runaway increase". This is a
remarkable understatement. The climate system is already experiencing
significant feedbacks, notably the summer melting of the Arctic sea ice. The
more the ice melts, the more sunshine is absorbed by the sea, and the more the
Arctic warms. And as the Arctic warms, the release of billions of tonnes of
methane – a greenhouse gas 70 times stronger than carbon dioxide over 20 years
– captured under melting permafrost is already under way.
To see how far this process could go, look 55.5m years to the Palaeocene-Eocene
Thermal Maximum, when a global temperature increase of 6C coincided with the
release of about 5,000 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, both as CO2
and as methane from bogs and seabed sediments. Lush subtropical forests grew in
polar regions, and sea levels rose to 100m higher than today. It appears that
an initial warming pulse triggered other warming processes. Many scientists
warn that this historical event may be analogous to the present: the warming
caused by human emissions could propel us towards a similar hothouse Earth.
But what are we to do? All our policies to date to tackle global warming have
been miserable failures. The Kyoto protocol has created a vast carbon market
but done little to reduce emissions. The main effect of the EU's emissions
trading scheme has been to transfer about €30bn or more from consumers to
Europe's biggest polluters, the power companies. The EU and US foray into
biofuels has, at huge cost, increased greenhouse gas emissions and created a
world food crisis, causing starvation in many poor countries.
So, are all our efforts doomed to failure? Yes, so long as our governments
remain craven to special interests, whether carbon traders or fossil fuel
companies. The carbon market is a valuable tool, but must be subordinate to
climatic imperatives. The truth is that to prevent runaway greenhouse warming,
we will have to leave most of the world's fossil fuels in the ground,
especially carbon-heavy coal, oil shales and tar sands. The fossil fuel and
power companies must be faced down.
Global problems need global solutions, and we also need an effective
replacement for the failed Kyoto protocol. The entire Kyoto system of national
allocations is obsolete because of the huge volumes of energy embodied in
products traded across national boundaries. It also presents a major obstacle
to any new agreement – as demonstrated by the 2008 G8 meeting in Japan that
degenerated into a squabble over national emission rights.
The answer? Scrap national allocations and place a single global cap on
greenhouse gas emissions, applied "upstream" – for instance, at the oil
refinery, coal-washing station and cement factory. Sell permits up to that cap
in a global auction, and use the proceeds to finance solutions to climate
change – accelerating the use of renewable energy, raising energy efficiency,
protecting forests, promoting climate-friendly farming, and researching
geoengineering technologies. And commit hundreds of billions of dollars per
year to finance adaptation to climate change, especially in poor countries.
Such a package of measures would allow us to achieve zero net greenhouse gas
emissions by 2050, and long-term stabilisation at 350 parts per million of CO2
equivalent. This avoids the economic pain that a cap-and-trade system alone
would cause, and targets assistance at the poor, who are least to blame and
most need help. The permit auction would raise about $1 trillion per year,
enough to finance a spread of solutions. At a quarter of what the world spends
on oil each year, it is a price well worth paying.
------------ ------
The truth is, we're fighting for survival
Amid the trivial political squabbles, a stark truth lies hidden:
humanity is staring global catastrophe in the face
* Joss Garman
* guardian.co. uk, Friday August 08 2008 11:00 BST
* http://www.guardian .co.uk/commentis free/2008/ aug/08/kingsnort
hclimatecamp. climatechange
Up to 4 billion people left without water. Up to 5 billion at risk of flooding.
Half a billion left hungry as agricultural yields decline by 15-35% in Africa
with entire swaths of the world ceasing food production altogether. More than
80 million exposed to malaria in Africa. The Amazon collapses and 50% of
species go extinct. It's basically the end of the world. And it's reported in
this morning's Guardian.
There is such a gaping chasm between the matter-of-fact reporting of this
nightmarish 4C scenario that government scientists now say we should be
planning for, and the total failure of apparently rational people to understand
what is happening on the Hoo peninsula this week.
Reports from Kingsnorth, the site of this year's climate camp, completely fail
to scrutinise the pin-striped criminals who are pushing the planet towards the
brink. Instead, the Press Association runs stories on apparent conspiracies to
attack police with knives without even phoning the accused activists for a
reaction to these smears. What other set of people could be accused of
conspiracy to commit cop killings without being asked for any reaction? This is
a victory for the police and the rightwing media they leak to.
Equally, E.ON UK's greenwashing PR campaign is run without any question. Every
report repeats the myth that the proposed new power station would be a "cleaner
coal" plant. No one reports that in fact, this coal plant will pollute as much
as more than 30 developing countries combined, that there will be no use of
carbon capture and storage (CSS) technology, and that the plant will be so
inefficient as to waste half of all the energy it creates. No mention of the
fact that Chris Davies, the Lib Dem MEP, who is notoriously pro-CCS coal, has
pledged to attend the camp precisely because Kingsnorth won't be a "cleaner
coal" plant.
E.ON UK keeps pumping out the spin that "we need coal to keep the lights on",
even following reports in the Financial Times that independent energy experts,
Pöyry, have proven (pdf) that if the UK hit its existing renewables and
efficiency targets, no new coal would be required. Even when emails expose
close contact between E.ON UK and the business department, they are only
reported in the Guardian.
As the prime minister has a last look at a bit of beautiful coastline already
succumbing to the sea, the media frenzy focuses on the same old soap opera
personality politics. Is so-and-so too remote/young/ jaded/damaged to be the
next majorette marching us over the cliff? Whoever it is, we know it'll be one
of the same crew who got us into this mess and can't get us out because the
solutions don't fit the electoral cycle. There is an echo here too of the US
media's response to Iraq. Even now, anyone who opposed the war is on some sort
of "radical fringe", and having supported the war, at least at the time of its
inception, is a necessary qualification to be seen as "serious". With climate
change, in order to be "serious" you need to acknowledge that the end of the
world is an interesting detail in the broader pattern of economic "progress",
but never succumb to the incredible naivety of the protesters, who fail to
realise that the survival of life on
earth is a bourgeois luxury which we can ill afford in these times of economic
constraint.
The harsh reality is that there is no way we could plan for a 4C rise. No
amount of adaptation is going to make that liveable for most of the world's
population, and it's going to be pretty damn nasty for those lucky few of us
living in the north as well. Despite this, we end up with two possible stories
– the front page banner "dangerous anarchists threaten chaos", or, tucked away
at the back of the paper, "peaceful protest passes without incident". And all
the time, not even the liberal press is concerned that, even if every single
person at the camp arrived with a heavy machine gun, they couldn't kill half
the number of people who will die as a result of the effects of climate change.
________________________________
Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget? Read reviews on
AOL Autos.
=
