Why did the President say "so I did not bring him here" if it could not be done ?
Quote:
the official bi partisan investigation
Assumption 1. Everyone involved could be contacted and participated fully
Assumption 2. Everyone involved remembered accurately and without "errors"
Assumption 3. The evidence was compiled without any political considerations whatsoever
Quote:
Sudan never offered Bin Laden to Clinton according to the official bi partisan investigation.
But who was asked the question ? The Sudan, Bin Laden or Clinton ?
0 Replies
sumac
1
Reply
Fri 4 Dec, 2009 09:35 am
Holding the Line
H. Jesse Smith
Figure 1
CREDIT: JUPITERIMAGES
Roughly one-third of all the CO2 emitted by human activity is ultimately absorbed by the ocean, a process that has helped slow down the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. As the ocean continues to absorb CO2, however, the rate at which it does so is expected to decrease because of the changes in carbonate chemistry that CO2 uptake causes. Global warming should then accelerate, a frightening prospect considering how quickly temperatures are rising already. Several studies have shown that the uptake of atmospheric CO2 by some regions of the ocean has slowed already, but does that mean that the integrated world ocean has become a less effective CO2 sink? Knorr combines data from ice cores, direct atmospheric measurements, and emission inventories to show that the global fraction of emitted CO2 that remains in the atmosphere has stayed constant over the past 160 years, at least within the limits of uncertainty of the measurements. Khatiwala et al. also fail to detect a significant recent change in the fraction of CO2 that the ocean is absorbing, in an examination of both ocean and terrestrial CO2 sinks for the longer period of the past two and a half centuries. That is welcome news, but not reason to be complacent about the future, as sooner or later the capacity of the ocean to absorb CO2 will be reduced. The real question is why we have not seen evidence of that reduction already.
Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L21710 (2009); Nature 462, 346 (2009).
0 Replies
sumac
1
Reply
Fri 4 Dec, 2009 09:36 am
December 3, 2009, 11:04 am
In Letter to Obama, Senators State Conditions for Supporting Climate Bill
By JOHN M. BRODER
A group of Senate Democrats who are considered swing votes on pending climate change and energy legislation sent a letter to President Obama Thursday morning detailing their conditions for supporting any domestic bill or international treaty to address global warming.
The senators, most from industrial states or regions heavily dependent on coal for power generation, laid out 10 provisions any agreement must contain to win their support. They timed their letter to guide Mr. Obama’s thinking as he prepares to go to Copenhagen next week to address the United Nations conference on climate change that is working toward a binding international treaty. With few if any Republicans likely to support legislation imposing mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions, sponsors of the bill will need to round up virtually all Democrats to pass it, including these nine.
The senators who signed the letter are Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Mark Begich of Alaska. All are fence-sitters on the legislation and their votes will be needed when the Senate bill comes up for debate early next year.
The signers of the letter say they will support climate legislation and international efforts to combat global warming if all nations " industrialized as well as developing " are held to stringent limits on climate-altering emissions. They say that tough verification and enforcement mechanisms are necessary. They want to see trade penalties levied against nations that do not comply with any international agreement. They say that any program to transfer technology to emerging nations must contain copyright protections for intellectual property. And any treaty or bill must protect American jobs and promote low-cost solutions to environmental problems.
The conditions are shared by virtually all the so-called Brown Dogs who come from manufacturing states and those that produce or use large amounts of coal. They are familiar to those who have followed the debate and reflect concerns about possible sharp increases in energy costs and loss of jobs in the heartland.
The White House issued the following statement in response to the letter:
The president agrees with many of the senators’ recommendations and has worked with other world leaders to advance a Copenhagen accord that reflects them. Domestically, the U.S. has taken numerous steps this year to transition to a clean energy economy " from setting an aggressive new fuel economy standard for new cars and trucks to making an historic investment in clean energy in the Recovery Act this year. The president worked closely with members of Congress as they passed comprehensive energy legislation out of the House and is working with senators to pass a bill that will decrease our dependence on foreign oil, create jobs and enhance American competitiveness.
In addition to taking strong action at home, the president has kept climate change at the forefront of our foreign policy throughout the year. Following bilateral meetings with China and India, each country announced that they would take significant mitigation actions and stand by those commitments, and they called for full transparency as to their implementation. Since those meetings, China has announced a mitigation plan. And the president has worked with Prime Minister Rasmussen in support of a comprehensive accord in which all countries take meaningful steps, that has immediate operational effect and rallies a global response to the global threat of climate change.
0 Replies
sumac
1
Reply
Fri 4 Dec, 2009 10:01 am
United Nations to probe climate e-mail leak
By RAPHAEL G. SATTER
The Associated Press
Friday, December 4, 2009 10:21 AM
LONDON -- The United Nations will conduct its own investigation into e-mails leaked from a leading British climate science center in addition to the probe by the University of East Anglia, a senior U.N. climate official said Friday.
E-mails stolen from the climate unit at the University of East Anglia appeared to show some of world's leading scientists discussing ways to shield data from public scrutiny and suppress others' work. Those who deny the influence of man-made climate change have seized on the correspondence to argue that scientists have been conspiring to hide evidence about global warming.
In an interview with BBC radio, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri, said the issue raised by the e-mails was serious and said "we will look into it in detail,"
"We will certainly go into the whole lot and then we will take a position on it," he said. "We certainly don't want to brush anything under the carpet."
The University of East Anglia has defended the integrity of the science published by the climate unit and its researchers, but on Thursday said it would investigate whether some of the data had been fudged. Phil Jones, the director of the unit, stepped down earlier in the week pending the result of the investigation.
East Anglia said its review will examine the e-mails and other information "to determine whether there is any evidence of the manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice."
The theft of the e-mails and their publication online - only weeks before the U.N. summit on global warming - has been politically explosive, even if researchers say their content has no bearing on the principles of climate change itself.
Britain's Ed Miliband, the climate change secretary, acknowledged the revelations may have an impact on the Copenhagen talks on a new global emissions reduction pact, but dismissed as "flat Earth-ers" critics who claim the e-mails are proof the case for man-made climate change is exaggerated.
"We need maximum transparency including about all the data but it's also very, very important to say one chain of e-mails, potentially misrepresented, does not undo the global science," Miliband said Friday. "I think we want to send a very clear message to people about that."
"There will be people that want to use this to try and undermine the science and we're not going to let them," he said.
Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives have grilled government scientists on the leaked e-mails in a hearing Wednesday in Washington, but the scientists countered that the e-mails don't change the fact that the Earth is warming.
"The e-mails do nothing to undermine the very strong scientific consensus ... that tells us the Earth is warming, that warming is largely a result of human activity," said Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
She said the e-mails don't address data from her agency or the U.S. space agency NASA, which both keep independent climate records that show dramatic global warming.
---
Associated Press Writer David Stringer in London contributed to this report.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report 334
Oxford-educated Geochemist Dr. Cal Evans, a prominent researcher who has advised the Alberta Research Council, the Natural Sciences, and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and who is affiliated with the Calgary-based group Friends of Science, dismissed climate fears in 2007. "The primary process that governs global temperature cycles has been identified - it's a combination of solar irradiation and high-energy cosmic rays. Carbon dioxide appears to be a very minor factor. Although the political forces that support the CO2 theory remain formidable, the science has turned decisively against them," Evans said according to an article on July 9, 2007. "Yes, there's been an increase [in CO2] but the quantity remains extremely small, no more than a trace element," Evans said. "Whatever causes global warming must involve clouds and other atmospheric vapour. To date, no one has been able to identify a link between higher CO2 concentrations and greater volumes of atmospheric water vapour," he added. "The slight increase in ground temperature has no parallel in the troposphere. If atmospheric CO2 concentration was actually a significant factor in global warming, it stands to reason that atmospheric temperatures would rise but that hasn't happened," he said. "It's ironic that CO2 propaganda has achieved an unprecedented degree of political penetration in Canada and the United States precisely at the same time that the scientific case is melting away. Billions of dollars in research funding and related activity are at stake, and so are a great many professional reputations. So the truth will certainly be inconvenient for someone, and the struggle won't end for a while yet. Eventually, however, the facts will make themselves known," he concluded. (LINK)
0 Replies
Finn dAbuzz
1
Reply
Fri 4 Dec, 2009 05:39 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
Finn wrote:
The assertion by Parados that your failure to provide him with evidence of the bogus nature of the Global Warming Big Lie, is specious, but if you take a look in recent WSJ archives you'll find an excellent article by a MIT Meteorologist.
Now.. if one were to read Finn's claim vs the quote I provided From Lindzen I see a disconnect in whether Lindzen thinks there is a Global Warming Big Lie. Lindzen thinks the catastrophic projections are wrong but Lindzen believes that warming does exist.
Finn also made this claim...
Finn wrote:
The WSJ article was written by a scientist, an academic meterologist from Harvard. It is simply not true there was no science in it
It is impossible to tell which opinion piece of Linzen's Finn was referring to but this piece has even less scientific references than the piece I first used and I didn't really find any actual science in that piece.
My mistake, that was george with the second quote.
0 Replies
okie
1
Reply
Fri 4 Dec, 2009 06:54 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
Yeah.. we should take your word that "release" means "offer" and "did not bring him here" means "declined the offer".
I think I will take the word of the 9/11 commission that actually interviewed people involved over your interpretation okie. Sudan never offered Bin Laden to Clinton according to the official bi partisan investigation.
See, folks, a prime example of a man that threw common sense overboard, if he ever had any.
Whether you want to call it an offer or not, it is clear they released him and we apparently could have taken him or Saudi Arabia could have taken him, but instead Clinton turned down the opportunity because he thought we had no basis to hold him, as did the Saudis turn down the begging of Clinton to take him, and so he went to Afghanistan where he executed the planning for more terrorist acts, including 9/11 and the murder of about 3,000 American citizens.
So if somebody wants to find blame, and what we did wrong, certainly the 9/11 Commission had some right there staring them in the face, but of course the quote unquote "nonpartisan" commission was too blind to look at it or they dismissed it. And it would certainly have nothing to do with the fact that key Democrats were on that Commission, now would it folks? Oh no, that would be impossible.
"Climate Express" to Copenhagen lowers footprint
By ARTHUR MAX, Associated Press Writer Arthur Max, Associated Press Writer 2 hrs 15 mins ago
ABOARD THE CLIMATE EXPRESS " A train splashed with a green stripe carried 450 U.N. officials, delegates, climate activists and journalists from Brussels to the climate summit in Copenhagen on Saturday to symbolize efforts to reduce the convention's carbon footprint.
More trains were leaving from other European capitals, and one was concluding a trip from Kyoto, Japan, through China and the Trans-Siberian route across Russia.
But symbols were all the trains could be. Most of the 15,000 people expected at the two-week conference opening Monday will arrive by plane from opposite ends of the globe.
The journey through Belgium, Germany and Denmark was intended to underscore what campaigners say is the need to switch to low-carbon economies and rely more on public transportation to reduce tailpipe emissions.
"Anyone who thinks it's impossible is wrong," said Achim Steiner, director of the U.N. Environment Program, noting Germany's move away from fossil fuels over the past 10 years toward greater use of wind, solar and hydroelectricity.
Railway officials claimed the trip is carbon neutral. They said the German railroad, Deutsche Bahn, bought the equivalent of the electricity needed to run the train from renewable sources and added it to the Germany electrical grid.
Traveling by train along the nearly 500-mile (800-kilometer) route emits 33 kilograms of carbon dioxide per person, compared with 115 kilograms by air, the officials said.
Led by France, high-speed rail is being extended through much of Europe, with trains moving faster than 155 miles per hour (250 kph). Airlines say they plan to link up with railways to provide alternatives to short European flights.
But train travel is still not glitch-free. A power problem in moving from the Belgian to the German grid delayed the Climate Express by a half-hour at the German border town of Aachen, although railway officials said the transfer problem was unusual and the lost time would be made up.
The 14-hour journey passed rolling hills of eastern Belgium and German farmland and industrial centers. That compared with three hours' flight and about nine hours by car " in the unlikely case there are no traffic jams on Europe's crowded highways.
Steiner called for more investment in public transport and green energy, saying that business investors were looking for signals emerging from the summit.
"Hundreds of billions of dollars are in waiting mode," he said. "In this financial crisis right now, Copenhagen should be one of the biggest stimulus packages."
The summit aims to draw up a political accord among 192 countries for controlling global greenhouse gas emissions causing the warming of the earth. Transportation is responsible for about 27 percent of worldwide emissions.
sumac, you would not dare to suggest that global warmers are hypocrites, would you? That would be a huge shock!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We all know that those people, such as Gore, would never be hypocritical in regard to energy usage, don't we?
ican, it is encouraging though that people are waking up to the fraud.
Americans Skeptical of Science Behind Global Warming
.....
Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s Very Likely. Just 26% say it’s not very or not at all likely that some scientists falsified data.
Whether you want to call it an offer or not, it is clear they released him and we apparently could have taken him or Saudi Arabia could have taken him, but instead Clinton turned down the opportunity because he thought we had no basis to hold him, as did the Saudis turn down the begging of Clinton to take him, and so he went to Afghanistan where he executed the planning for more terrorist acts, including 9/11 and the murder of about 3,000 American citizens.
Right..and you know more than the 9/11 commission because why? You interviewed the people involved or because you want to pretend you know more than they do?
Quote:
And it would certainly have nothing to do with the fact that key Democrats were on that Commission, now would it folks? Oh no, that would be impossible.
We should believe you because there is no evidence unless you make an interpretation of Clinton's statement that isn't what he said? LOL.. When you rely only on an unsupported interpretation of Clinton's statement that isn't even close to what he said, you shouldn't accuse others of throwing common sense overboard. It certainly makes us realize why you are so willing to discard all the scientific evidence supporting global warming.
okie always pretends he knows more than the very people who performed all those interviews and investigations. That tells us more about okie's ignorance than anything he can say.
Most people call him a dumb ****, but he seems immune to the reality that surrounds him.
I asked parados the following but he was either unable or unwilling to answer:
Quote:
Why did the President say "so I did not bring him here" if it could not be done ?
Quote:
(parados) the official bi partisan investigation
Assumption 1. Everyone involved could be contacted and participated fully
Assumption 2. Everyone involved remembered accurately and without "errors"
Assumption 3. The evidence was compiled without any political considerations whatsoever
Quote:
(parados) Sudan never offered Bin Laden to Clinton according to the official bi partisan investigation.
But who was asked the question ? The Sudan, Bin Laden or Clinton ?
Perhaps as someone who:
Quote:
knows more than the very people who performed all those interviews and investigations.
you can provide the answers ?
Quote:
Most people call him a dumb ****
You are not going to like what they call you then.
0 Replies
okie
1
Reply
Sat 5 Dec, 2009 09:13 pm
@parados,
Parados, read Clinton's statement and use common sense and comprehend what you read. The answer is inescapable. Clinton did not bring OBL here because why, not because he couldn't but because he did not think we had any basis to hold him. Clinton then pleaded with the Saudis to take him, and they decided not to, why, not because they could not but because they decided it was a hot potato issue they wanted no part of, so the end result is OBL went to Afghanistan. Only an idiot and blind partisan would not conclude that Clinton dropped the ball big time when he turned down the opportunity to bring him here when the Sudan released him, to be taken by somebody else or for him to go someplace else, and it is the latter that happened, he went to Afghanistan.
Parados, you must be one miserable person to follow blindly any pathetic politician that you choose to follow, even when it takes throwing all common sense, decency, and honesty, totally out the window. No wonder you also blindly swallow the global warming fiasco and hoax.
Actually, could it have been Clinton's lousy and pathetic affairs that diverted his attention from Bin Laden? After all, he probably did not want to be bothered with terrorists like Bin Laden. The Clintons were one pathetic bunch in the White House, thats for sure, Bill more interested in interns than he was with anything else, no wonder he screwed things up and may have dropped the ball, leading to the murder of about 3,000 innocent people. Why the man was elected to begin with is a mystery to me, and why he was not thrown out on his ear is anothe mystery. Actually not a mystery, not one lousy Democrat thought decency was more important than their lousy and pathetic political party.
Actually, could it have been Clinton's lousy and pathetic affairs that diverted his attention from Bin Laden?
Ironically, before 9/11, Republicans used to accuse Clinton of "Wag the Dog" tactics - of creating a foreign policy distraction, of trying to divert the nation’s attention from the problems he was facing domestically due to the Lewinsky scandal by going after Osama bin Laden and by launching a cruise missiles attack against the El Shifa Plant in Sudan.
One has to wonder what kind of accusations would have been thrown his way had he launched a wider offensive and pursued killing bin Laden more aggressively.
