Activism Discussion: Arctic Lost Part Of Its Perennial Sea Ice In 2005: NASA

Arctic Lost Part Of Its Perennial Sea Ice In 2005: NASA
Posts: 16

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

EconomicDemocracy Coop
2007-04-04 20:05:01 EST

Records dating back to 1958 have shown a gradual warming of Arctic
temperatures which speeded up in the 1980s.

"Our study suggests that on average the area of seasonal ice that
survives the summer may no longer be large enough to sustain a stable,
perennial ice cover, especially in the face of accelerating climate
warming and Arctic sea ice thinning,"

= = =

Arctic lost part of its perennial sea ice in 2005: NASA

Tue Apr 3, 6:09 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Global warming may already be having an effect on
the Arctic which in 2005 only replaced a little of the thick sea ice
it loses and usually replenishes annually, a
NASA study said Tuesday.

Scientists from the US space agency used satellite images to analyze
six annual cycles of Arctic sea ice from 2000 to 2006.

Sea ice is essential to maintaining and stabilizing the Arctic's ice
cover during its warmer summer months.

But "recent studies indicate Arctic perennial ice is declining seven
to 10 percent each decade," said Ron Kwok from NASA's Jet Propulsion
Laboratory in Pasadena, California.

"Our study gives the first reliable estimates of how perennial ice
replenishment varies each year at the end of the summer.

"The amount of first-year ice that survives the summer directly
influences how thick the ice cover will be at the start of the next
melt season."

The team observed that only 4.0 percent, about 2.5 million square
kilometers (965,000 square miles) of thin ice survived the 2005 summer
melt to replenish the perennial cover.

It was the weakest ice cover since 2000, and so there was 14 percent
less permanent ice cover in January 2006 than in the corresponding
period the year before.

"The winters and summers before fall 2005 were unusually warm," Kwok
said. "The low replenishment seen in 2005 is potentially a cumulative
effect of these trends.

"If the correlations between replenishment area and numbers of
freezing and melting temperature days hold long-term, it is expected
the perennial ice coverage will continue to decline."

Records dating back to 1958 have shown a gradual warming of Arctic
temperatures which speeded up in the 1980s.

"Our study suggests that on average the area of seasonal ice that
survives the summer may no longer be large enough to sustain a stable,
perennial ice cover, especially in the face of accelerating climate
warming and Arctic sea ice thinning," Kwok added.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070403/sc_afp/scienceclimatearctic_070403220958;_ylt=AkxshZ3gQkuEh074DrRRiCdrAlMA

=============

DON'T MOURN, ACT! WEBSITES FOR ACTION:

http://www.earthshare.org/get_involved/involved.html
http://www.greenhousenet.org/
http://www.solarcatalyst.com/
http://www.campaignearth.org/buy_green_nativeenergy.asp

Overview and local actions you can take: http://www.PostCarbon.org
=============

= = = =
STILL FEELING LIKE THE MAINSTREAM U.S. CORPORATE MEDIA
IS GIVING A FULL HONEST PICTURE OF WHAT'S GOING ON?
= = = =
Daily online radio show, news reporting: www.DemocracyNow.org
More news: UseNet's misc.activism.progressive (moderated)
= = = =
Sorry, we cannot read/reply to most usenet posts but welcome email
For more information: http://EconomicDemocracy.org/wtc/ (peace)
And http://EconomicDemocracy.org/ (general)

** Email Note: "info" and "map" etc DON'T work. Now:
econdemocracy(at)gmail


John Fernbach
2007-04-04 21:36:37 EST
On Apr 4, 8:05 pm, "EconomicDemocracy Coop" <econdemocr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Records dating back to 1958 have shown a gradual warming of Arctic
> temperatures which speeded up in the 1980s.
>
> "Our study suggests that on average the area of seasonal ice that
> survives the summer may no longer be large enough to sustain a stable,
> perennial ice cover, especially in the face of accelerating climate
> warming and Arctic sea ice thinning,"
>
> = = =
>
> Arctic lost part of its perennial sea ice in 2005: NASA
>
> Tue Apr 3, 6:09 PM ET
>
> WASHINGTON (AFP) - Global warming may already be having an effect on
> the Arctic which in 2005 only replaced a little of the thick sea ice
> it loses and usually replenishes annually, a
> NASA study said Tuesday.
>
> Scientists from the US space agency used satellite images to analyze
> six annual cycles of Arctic sea ice from 2000 to 2006.
>
> Sea ice is essential to maintaining and stabilizing the Arctic's ice
> cover during its warmer summer months.
>
> But "recent studies indicate Arctic perennial ice is declining seven
> to 10 percent each decade," said Ron Kwok from NASA's Jet Propulsion
> Laboratory in Pasadena, California.
>
> "Our study gives the first reliable estimates of how perennial ice
> replenishment varies each year at the end of the summer.
>
> "The amount of first-year ice that survives the summer directly
> influences how thick the ice cover will be at the start of the next
> melt season."
>
> The team observed that only 4.0 percent, about 2.5 million square
> kilometers (965,000 square miles) of thin ice survived the 2005 summer
> melt to replenish the perennial cover.
>
> It was the weakest ice cover since 2000, and so there was 14 percent
> less permanent ice cover in January 2006 than in the corresponding
> period the year before.
>
> "The winters and summers before fall 2005 were unusually warm," Kwok
> said. "The low replenishment seen in 2005 is potentially a cumulative
> effect of these trends.
>
> "If the correlations between replenishment area and numbers of
> freezing and melting temperature days hold long-term, it is expected
> the perennial ice coverage will continue to decline."
>
> Records dating back to 1958 have shown a gradual warming of Arctic
> temperatures which speeded up in the 1980s.
>
> "Our study suggests that on average the area of seasonal ice that
> survives the summer may no longer be large enough to sustain a stable,
> perennial ice cover, especially in the face of accelerating climate
> warming and Arctic sea ice thinning," Kwok added.
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070403/sc_afp/scienceclimatearctic_0704...
>
> =============
>
> DON'T MOURN, ACT! WEBSITES FOR ACTION:
>
> http://www.earthshare.org/get_involved/involved.htmlhttp://www.greenhousenet.org/http://www.solarcatalyst.com/http://www.campaignearth.org/buy_green_nativeenergy.asp
>
> Overview and local actions you can take:http://www.PostCarbon.org
> =============
>
Thanks for the post.



BONZ0
2007-04-04 22:55:57 EST
What Arctic Warming?

Thursday, October 13, 2005



By Steven Milloy



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172188,00.html



At JunkScience.com, we analyzed surface temperature data collected by NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies and prepared
temperature graphs to underscore this point.



If you look at the temperature trends for the Arctic region since 1880, it appears that the Arctic generally warmed somewhat until
about 1938. From 1938 until about 1966, the Arctic cooled to about its 1918 temperature level. Then, between 1966 and 2003, the
Arctic warmed up to just shy of its 1938 temperature. But in 2004, the Arctic temperature again spiked downward.



Now if the 1880-1938 warming trend had continued up until this day, there certainly would be some significant warming in the Arctic
region to talk about. From 1918 to 1938, alone, the Arctic warmed by 2.5 degrees Centigrade. But the actual temperature trend is
much different, showing that there's been hardly any overall temperature change in the Arctic since 1938.



Not only does the temperature data contradict the claim that global warming is overtaking the Arctic, but data on greenhouse gas
concentrations ought to drive a spike through the heart of the claim.



During the warming period from 1880 to 1938, it's estimated that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide - the bugbear of
greenhouse gases to global warming worriers - increased by an estimated 20 parts per million. But from 1938 to 2003 - a period of
essentially no increase in Arctic warming - the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide increased another 60 parts per million.
It doesn't seem plausible, then, that Arctic temperatures are significantly influenced by atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases.



And even when the Arctic re-warmed between 1966 and 2003, the warming occurred much less aggressively (about 50 percent less) than
the 1918-1938 warming and at about the same rate as the period 1880-1938, despite much higher greenhouse gas levels in the 1966-2003
time frame.



Global warming worriers can take no comfort from South Pole data either.



Over the last 30 years, atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide increased by about 15 percent, from about 328 parts per million to
about 372 parts per million. But the Antarctic temperature trend for that period indicates a slight cooling. This observation
contrasts sharply with the relatively steep Antarctic warming observed from 1949 to 1974, which was accompanied by a much more
modest increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.



The hypothesis of global warming alarmism posits that increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide should lead to increasing
temperatures, particularly with respect to Antarctica's super-cold, super-dry air mass. But the data seem to indicate just the
opposite.



Getting back to the New York Times article, so why is the Arctic ice cap shrinking if air temperatures aren't really warming in any
significant way? Oregon State Climatologist George Taylor wrote that "Arctic sea ice has undergone significant changes in the last
1,000 years, even before the mid-20th century 'greenhouse enhancement.' Current conditions appear to be well within historical
variability."



No doubt many of the Times' readers do have "dark visions" of global warming, but that seems to be due more to the newspaper's
consistent skewing and omission of facts over the last decade rather than the facts themselves.



The U.S. Geological Survey says that 25 percent of the world oil and gas resources are in the Arctic region. We need those resources
desperately and if a little melting helps us get at them more easily - particularly since Mother Nature seems to be at the
controls - we should embrace whatever natural cycles make possible.



Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and CSRwatch.com, is adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, and is the author of Junk
Science Judo: Self-defense Against Health Scares and Scams (Cato Institute, 2001).




Regards

B0NZ0

"...and I think future generations are not going to blame us for anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a
degree panic us"
Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences

"Global warming, at least the modern nightmare version, is a myth. I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But
what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy-makers are not." Dr Gareth Jones, climate researcher, Met Office
UK


Souls Black As Coal
2007-04-04 23:07:17 EST
(Climatology) DOCTOR Richard Lindzen speaks about passive smoke and
health, Next up, prominent ROOFER discusses faults in modern Quantum
Mechanics Theory.

"BONZ0" <bon...@optusnt.com.au> wrote:

> Regards
>
> B0NZ0

> degree panic us"
> Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences

(Climatology) DOCTOR Richard Lindzen speaks about passive smoke and
health, Next up, prominent ROOFER discusses faults in modern Quantum
Mechanics Theory.
=========================
Philip Morris
Passive Smoking: How Great A Hazard?
Date: 19910700/P
Length: 48 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2046323437-3484.html

Page 36: cyb09e00
Richard Lindzen, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has
emphasized that problems will arise where we will need to depend on
scientific judgement, and by ruining our credibility now we leave
society with a resource of some importance diminished. The
implementation of public policies must be based on good science, to
the degree that it is available, and not on emotion or on political
needs. Those who develop such policies must not stray from sound
scientific investigations, based only on accepted scientific
methodologies. Such has not always been the case with environmental
tobacco smoke.

=========================
Philip Morris
Fred Seitz
Date: 31 Aug 1989
Length: 1 page
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2023266534.html

PHILIP MORRIS COMPANIES INC.
INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE
120 PARK AVENUE, NEW YORK, NY 10017
TO: Bill Murray
FROM:Alexander Holtzman
Subject: Fred Seitz
DATE: August 31, 1989

I spoke to Bill Hobbs about arranging an appointment for you with Dr.
Fred Seitz, former head of Rockefeller University and the principal
scientific advisor to the R.J. Reynolds medical research program. Bill
told me that Dr. Seitz is quite elderly and not sufficiently rational
to offer advice.

Bill said that he would strongly recommend your speaking to Dr. Alfred
G. Knudson Jr. of the CTR Scientific Advisory Board. I asked Bill to
proceed with arrangements to introduce you to Knudson and he said he
would do so and get back to you or me.

~ Alexander Holtzman

=========================
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2025528264.html
Philip Morris
Environmental Fear-Mongers Exposed
Date: 19930428/P
Length: 1 page

Mr. Singer. professor of envronmertal sciences at the University of
Virginia. directs the Washfngton-based Science and Environmenta Policy
Project.
=========================
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2074144055-4061.html
Philip Morris
Warming Theories Need Warning Label
Date: 19920600/P
Length: 7 pages

BULLETIN OF THE ATOMIC SCIENTISTS
A WARMING THEORIES NEED WARNING LABEL BY FRED SINGER The debate over
global warming has been more hype than solid fact.

=========================
Philip Morris
The Ozone Scare: Policy by Press Release
Date: 19920427/P
Length: 1 page
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2074144038.html

By S. Fred Singer

=========================
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2074144105.html
Philip Morris
Great Hoax on Asbestos Finally Ends
Date: 19921115/P
Length: 1 page

By Michael J. Bennett
Michael J. Bennett, journalist and author of "The Asbeslos Racket: An
Environmental Parable", is affiliated with the Washington-based
Science & Environmental Policy Project.

The Science & Environmental Policy Project, 2101 Wilson Blvd., #1003,
Arlington, VA 22201 ·(703) 527-0130 · .
=========================
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2074144041.html
Philip Morris
Following Sheep Over the Edge
Date: 19920810/P
Length: 1 page

Following sheep over the edge By PATRICK J. MICHAELS

Michaels. associate professor of environmental sciences at the
University of Virginia. is associated witt the Science & Environmental
Policy Project, Washfngton, D.C.

=========================
Philip Morris
Meaner Growns the Greenery
Date: 19921209/P
Length: 1 page
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2074144010.html

Candace C Crandall is executive director of the Science and
Environmental Policy Project, which monitors the use of scientific
data in developing federal envi ronmental policy.

The Science & Environmental Policy Project, 2101 Wilson Blvd., #1003,
Arlington, VA 22201 ·(703) 527-0130 · .

=========================
Philip Morris
Earth Summit Will Shackle the Planet, Not Save It
Date: 19920219/P
Length: 1 page
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2074144017.html

Mr. Singer, professor of atmospheric physics at the University of
Virginia, directs the Science and Environmental Policy Project in
Washington.

=========================
Philip Morris
N403
Date: 19950420/P
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2048551242.html

GOVERNMENTS,, particularly those in Asia, should rethink their
environment-related regulations to avoid the potentially damaging
effects of ill-advised envoronmental protection policies.

This call was made by Professor Fred Singer, director of the Science
and Environmental Policy Project in Washington, and Michael Fumento,
leading envirnmental journalist and lawyer for the United States
Commission on Civil Rights.

Prof. Singer said the US government, through the efforts of certain
lawmakers might back out this year from key international
environmental pacts...

=========================
Philip Morris
Scientific Myths Ride in on Hurricane Winds
Date: 19920920/P
Length: 1 page
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2074144018.html

The Science & Environmental Policy Project, 2101 Wilson Blvd., #1003,
Adington, VA 22201 .(703) 527-0130

Scientific myths ride in on hurricane winds. By PATRICKJ, MICHAELS

Patrick J. Michaels is a professor of environmental sciences at the
University of Virginia, is affiliated with The Science and
Environmental Policy Project in Washington.

=========================
Philip Morris
Scientists Ripped As Alarmists in Ecology Warning
Date: 19921121/P
Length: 1 page
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2074144034.html

Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service. - - Appeared in: St. Louis
Post-Dispatch Washington Times and other newspapers

"It's the usual hype we've come to expect from the Union of Concerned
Scientists," said Candace Crandall, executive director of the Science
and Environmental Policy Project, a research group. ...

S. Fred Singer, director of the Science and Environmental Policy
Project, said ... the group might have been trying to offset the
Heidelberg Allpeal, a statement signed by 1,800...

Singer said that the appeal amounted to a "revolt by scientists tired
of seeing science constantly politicized and mistreated."

=========================
Philip Morris
Date: 12 May 1993
Length: 2 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2046989059-9060.html

The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition TASSC
Dr. Richard Lindzen Mass Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts
Avenue Bldg. 54-1720 Cambridge, MA 02139

=========================
Philip Morris
Date: Mar 1991 (est.)
Length: 6 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2025528294-8299.html

3) Michael Gough, program manager for biological applications for the
Congressional Office of Technology Assessment -- Regarding the EPA's
lowering the confidence interval from 95 to 90 percent, Michael Gough
says, "You cannot run science with the government changing the rules
all the time. "

13) Dr. Fred Singer -- University of Virginia. Charged that the EPA-
supported theories of global warming and global ozone depletion are
not backed up by the scientific evidence. Has charged that several
major government studies that found information contrary to
"politically correct" issues (acid rain), was ignored. At a Consumer's
Research seminar in D.C. that dealt with official regulations
frequently have little basis in scientific fact, being instead driven
instead by political/social factors. "The tendency not only to misuse
science but to ignore it is very strong" in policy decisions
concerning global warming, ozone depletions, and acid rain. Has spoken
on issue of cost of other environmental problems. Singer was director
of the Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy, on leave from
Uva's department of environmental science.

26) Michael J. Bennett The Asbestos Racket: An Environment Parable
(Merrill Press) -- Bennett's meticulously researched saga of America's
plunge into the fantasy world of environmental junk science captures
the essence of the costly tragedy that befell the US during the great
asbestos scare. In formulating the nation's asbestos policy, the EPA,
aided and abetted by Congress, systematically ignored science. The
series of articles in the Detroit News on which much of the book is
based was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize. (EPA Watch, July 31, 1992)
(202) 488-7692

29) Dr. Patrick Michael, Uva Dept of Environmental Science,
Climatologist, global warming issues are not backed by science, on
Board of Advisors of American Policy Center\EPA Watch (804) 924-0549,
co-authored an article with David E. Stooksbury, also of Uva.

30) Dr. Bruce Ames, Biochemist, University of California at Berkeley
(friend of Michael Bennett)

36) Jim Tozzi, Director of Washington-based Multinational Business
Services Inc., has cited problems with EPA risk assessment policy, in
particular, risk assessment guidelines for non-cancer health effects
and criteria for inferring causation from epidemiologic data. Tozzi's
firm represents a number of companies interested in the risk
assessment issue.

38) Richard Lindzen, Robert Balling, William Nierenberg, Fred Seitz,
Patrick Michaels, Fred Singer, Sherwood Idso -- scientists opposed to
global warming issues, as cited by Peter Samuel.

40) Michael Fumento of Investor Business Daily who does write about
these issues.

44) Candace Crandall -- Executive Vice President of the Science and
Environmental Policy Project (SEPP). She has published extensively on
junk science issues in the past. Crandall was the Director of
Communications for the Center for Strategic and International Studies
before joining SEPP. The primary focus of SEPP is to document the use
of scientific data in the development of federal environmental policy.
SEPP is an independent, non-profit research group that relies on
private funding. It will co-sponsor a conference with George Mason
University in May on scientific integrity in the political process.
Crandall has arranged for a number of prominent scientists to be
participants, including Dr. Bernard Davis of Harvard University and
Sir William Mitchell of Oxford University. Crandall is Dr. Fred
Singer's wife.

=========================
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2025802450-2451.html
Philip Morris
Scientific Integrity in the Public Policy Process Semi-Final Program
930524 - 930525 the Madison Hotel 15th and M Streets, Nw Washington,
D.C.
Date: 19930525/D
Length: 2 pages

=========================
Philip Morris
Passive Smoking: How Great A Hazard?
Date: 19910700/P
Length: 48 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2046323437-3484.html

Page 36: cyb09e00
Richard Lindzen, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has
emphasized that problems will arise where we will need to depend on
scientific judgement, and by ruining our credibility now we leave
society with a resource of some importance diminished. The
implementation of public policies must be based on good science, to
the degree that it is available, and not on emotion or on political
needs. Those who develop such policies must not stray from sound
scientific investigations, based only on accepted scientific
methodologies. Such has not always been the case with environmental
tobacco smoke.

=========================
Philip Morris
Fred Seitz
Date: 31 Aug 1989
Length: 1 page
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2023266534.html

PHILIP MORRIS COMPANIES INC.
INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE
120 PARK AVENUE, NEW YORK, NY 10017
TO: Bill Murray
FROM:Alexander Holtzman
Subject: Fred Seitz
DATE: August 31, 1989

I spoke to Bill Hobbs about arranging an appointment for you with Dr.
Fred Seitz, former head of Rockefeller University and the principal
scientific advisor to the R.J. Reynolds medical research program. Bill
told me that Dr. Seitz is quite elderly and not sufficiently rational
to offer advice.

Bill said that he would strongly recommend your speaking to Dr. Alfred
G. Knudson Jr. of the CTR Scientific Advisory Board. I asked Bill to
proceed with arrangements to introduce you to Knudson and he said he
would do so and get back to you or me.

~ Alexander Holtzman

=========================


Jeffrey Turner
2007-04-04 23:18:24 EST
BONZ0 wrote:

> What Arctic Warming?
>
> Thursday, October 13, 2005
>
>
>
> By Steven Milloy
>
>
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172188,00.html
>
>
>
> At JunkScience.com

At least you can admire their honesty, putting the quality of their work
right in the name of the web site.

--Jeff

--
The spirit of democracy cannot be imposed
from without. It has to come from within.
--Mohandas K. Gandhi

BONZ0
2007-04-04 23:26:38 EST
"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote in message news:1318qk5jr87pr2c@corp.supernews.com...
> BONZ0 wrote:
>> What Arctic Warming?
>> Thursday, October 13, 2005
>> By Steven Milloy
>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172188,00.html
>> At JunkScience.com
> At least you can admire their honesty, putting the quality of their work
> right in the name of the web site.


The "Junk" refers to, in this particular case, the phony "science" of global warming!

The group's mission is to debunk such drivel wherever it occurs!

Regards

B0NZ0

"...and I think future generations are not going to blame us for anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a
degree panic us"
Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences

"Global warming, at least the modern nightmare version, is a myth. I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But
what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy-makers are not." Dr Gareth Jones, climate researcher, Met Office
UK


Exxon Liars & Thieves
2007-04-04 23:27:11 EST
On Apr 4, 7:55 pm, "BONZ0" <bon...@optusnt.com.au> wrote:

> Regards
>
> B0NZ0

> degree panic us"
> Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences


(Climatology) DOCTOR Richard Lindzen speaks about passive smoke and
health, Next up, prominent ROOFER discusses faults in modern Quantum
Mechanics Theory.
=========================
Philip Morris
Passive Smoking: How Great A Hazard?
Date: 19910700/P
Length: 48 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2046323437-3484.html

Page 36: cyb09e00
Richard Lindzen, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has
emphasized that problems will arise where we will need to depend on
scientific judgement, and by ruining our credibility now we leave
society with a resource of some importance diminished. The
implementation of public policies must be based on good science, to
the degree that it is available, and not on emotion or on political
needs. Those who develop such policies must not stray from sound
scientific investigations, based only on accepted scientific
methodologies. Such has not always been the case with environmental
tobacco smoke.

=========================

The visible SOCIOPATHY of Bonz0

Apparently you are not qualified to diagnose your own evident
sociopathy.

I conveniently provided a webpage with the most conspicuous symptoms
listed: you don't need them all -- just three is sufficient for a
positive diagnosis.

http://h2-pv.us/Bush-Hitler/Blogspot/Sociopathy.html
DSM-IV-TR Handbook of Differential Diagnosis
by Michael B. First, Allen, MD Frances, Harold Alan, MD Pincus
Paperback: 247 pages
Publisher: American Psychiatric Association; 1st edition (January,
2002)
ISBN: 1585620548

SOCIOPATHY
The DSM-IV-TR, a widely used manual for diagnosing mental disorders,
defines anti-social personality disorder as a pervasive pattern of
disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since
age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:

1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful
behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds
for arrest
2. deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases,
or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
3. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
4. aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or
assaults
5. reckless disregard for safety of self or others
6. consistent irresponsibility
7. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or
rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another

In this case, we see symptoms #3, lack of future
planning, #2 lying, #4 aggressiveness towards those who can't stop
your
killing them from their position of vulnerability, #5 reckless,
disregard for those damaged by your words and acts, #6 no accepting
responsibility for what you are doing, #7 no remorse, and #1 is known
that you accept the criminal frauds of others and use them to your
purposes, making you a known accessory after the fact.

Did I leave anything out?


BONZ0
2007-04-04 23:36:05 EST
"Exxon Liars & Thieves" <Exxon.Liars.and.Thieves@Exxon-Turds.info> wrote in message > (Climatology) DOCTOR Richard Lindzen speaks
about passive smoke and
> health, Next up, prominent ROOFER discusses faults in modern Quantum
> Mechanics Theory.
> =========================
> Philip Morris
> Passive Smoking: How Great A Hazard?
September 28, 1998

by Dominick Armentano
Dominick Armentano is professor emeritus in economics at the University of Hartford and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. He
lives in Vero Beach, Florida.

Smoking tobacco products over a long period of time may entail significant health risks. Acknowledging those risks, millions of
Americans have quit smoking because they estimate that the possible costs exceed any possible benefits. That's their right.
Alternatively, millions of other Americans have voluntarily assumed the risks of smoking and they continue to puff away. And that's
their right, too.

Or is it? One of the important arguments for restricting smoking is that it can endanger innocent nonsmokers who inhale
environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). Indeed, many states (led by California and Florida) have decided over the last few years to
severely restrict smoking in commercial establishments on the basis of a 1993 Environmental Protection Agency report that classified
ETS as a "Group A Carcinogen," that is, as a significant risk to health.

It now turns out that the influential 1993 EPA report "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other
Disorders" was as phony as a three-dollar bill. State officials and private businesses that believed that ETS was a public health
danger (and not just a nuisance) were completely misled by the EPA. And, of course, so was main street American public opinion.

Are those the views of a vast right-wing conspiracy? Hardly. They are the sober conclusions of a gutsy federal district court judge
in North Carolina named William Osteen, whose recent ruling invalidated the very foundation of the EPA report. Judge Osteen's views
coincide with a Congressional Research Service analysis released in late 1995 that had serious reservations about the EPA report.

Judge Osteen determined that the EPA had "cherry picked" its data and had grossly manipulated "scientific procedure and scientific
norms" in order to rationalize the agency's own preconceived conclusion that passive smoking caused 3,000 lung cancer deaths a year.
In addition, Osteen ruled that the EPA had violated the Radon Act, which was the agency's authority for disseminating its "de facto
regulatory scheme" that intended to prohibit passive smoking. The agency responded, embarrassingly, with an ad hominem attack on the
judge, not on the cold logic of his arguments.
As a result of the EPA report, many bans on smoking in public places have been introduced. One would think that any such ban would
be based solidly on scientific studies of ETS exposure in public places. In fact, the EPA did not even evaluate the studies on
smoking in public places. Instead, the EPA's analysis was based on 11 U.S. studies that examined the risks of contracting lung
cancer to nonsmoking spouses married to smokers, a different matter altogether. Yet none of the studies in the original sample
reported a strong relative cancer risk associated with ETS.

Still, the EPA was determined to prove that ETS was a serious carcinogen that justified stringent regulation. To do that, it simply
set aside 19 of the original constellation of 30 ETS studies and then, defying all scientific standards, simply changed the
"confidence levels" in the statistical analysis from 95 percent to 90 percent. When the highly manipulated smaller sample finally
"confessed" that passive smoking was a health risk, the EPA proudly announced it had "proven" its preconceived conclusions.

And the sordid tale gets worse. The EPA chose to omit entirely from its analysis two recent U.S. ETS studies that had determined
that passive smoking was NOT a statistically significant health risk. Worse for the EPA, including those studies with the
"cherry-picked" 11 produces a result that shows no statistically significant health risks associated with passive smoking, even at
reduced confidence levels. In short, even employing the EPA's own corrupt methodology, ETS was simply not a "Group A Carcinogen," as
the agency had boldly asserted.

You don't have to be a fan of smoking to agree that the EPA is a regulatory renegade spinning wildly out of control on this issue.
Even several veteran career employees of the agency have gone public recently to protest its "junk science" and its irrational
environmental zealotry. Congress should pull the plug on any EPA regulation that cannot be justified by evidence that is
demonstrable, compelling, unequivocal and significant. None yet exists with respect to passive smoking.

Regards

B0NZ0

"...and I think future generations are not going to blame us for anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a
degree panic us"
Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences

Regards

B0NZ0

"...and I think future generations are not going to blame us for anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a
degree panic us"
Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences

"Global warming, at least the modern nightmare version, is a myth. I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But
what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy-makers are not." Dr Gareth Jones, climate researcher, Met Office
UK


Crackpot Lemmings Chow For Exxon's Tiger Teeth & Claws
2007-04-05 00:12:48 EST
On Apr 4, 8:36 pm, "BONZ0" <bon...@optusnt.com.au> wrote:

> Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences
>
> Regards
>
> B0NZ0

> Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences

The denial industry -- TASSC, EXXON & Serial Killer Tobacco Lies

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1875762,00.html


For years, a network of fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific
bodies has been claiming that science of global warming is
inconclusive. They set back action on climate change by a decade. But
who funded them? Exxon's involvement is well known, but not the
strange role of Big Tobacco. In the first of three extracts from his
new book, George Monbiot tells a bizarre and shocking new story


ExxonMobil is the world's most profitable corporation. Its sales now
amount to more than $1bn a day. It makes most of this money from oil,
and has more to lose than any other company from efforts to tackle
climate change. To safeguard its profits, ExxonMobil needs to sow
doubt about whether serious action needs to be taken on climate
change. But there are difficulties: it must confront a scientific
consensus as strong as that which maintains that smoking causes lung
cancer or that HIV causes Aids. So what's its strategy?

Article continues
The website Exxonsecrets.org, using data found in the company's
official documents, lists 124 organisations that have taken money from
the company or work closely with those that have. These organisations
take a consistent line on climate change: that the science is
contradictory, the scientists are split, environmentalists are
charlatans, liars or lunatics, and if governments took action to
prevent global warming, they would be endangering the global economy
for no good reason. The findings these organisations dislike are
labelled "junk science". The findings they welcome are labelled "sound
science".

Among the organisations that have been funded by Exxon are such well-
known websites and lobby groups as TechCentralStation, the Cato
Institute and the Heritage Foundation. Some of those on the list have
names that make them look like grassroots citizens' organisations or
academic bodies: the Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global
Change, for example. One or two of them, such as the Congress of
Racial Equality, are citizens' organisations or academic bodies, but
the line they take on climate change is very much like that of the
other sponsored groups. While all these groups are based in America,
their publications are read and cited, and their staff are interviewed
and quoted, all over the world.

By funding a large number of organisations, Exxon helps to create the
impression that doubt about climate change is widespread. For those
who do not understand that scientific findings cannot be trusted if
they have not appeared in peer-reviewed journals, the names of these
institutes help to suggest that serious researchers are challenging
the consensus.

This is not to claim that all the science these groups champion is
bogus. On the whole, they use selection, not invention. They will find
one contradictory study - such as the discovery of tropospheric
cooling, which, in a garbled form, has been used by Peter Hitchens in
the Mail on Sunday - and promote it relentlessly. They will continue
to do so long after it has been disproved by further work. So, for
example, John Christy, the author of the troposphere paper, admitted
in August 2005 that his figures were incorrect, yet his initial
findings are still being circulated and championed by many of these
groups, as a quick internet search will show you.

But they do not stop there. The chairman of a group called the Science
and Environmental Policy Project is Frederick Seitz. Seitz is a
physicist who in the 1960s was president of the US National Academy of
Sciences. In 1998, he wrote a document, known as the Oregon Petition,
which has been cited by almost every journalist who claims that
climate change is a myth.

The document reads as follows: "We urge the United States government
to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto,
Japan, in December 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed
limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the
advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare
of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human
release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is
causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating
of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.
Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in
atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the
natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

Anyone with a degree was entitled to sign it. It was attached to a
letter written by Seitz, entitled Research Review of Global Warming
Evidence. The lead author of the "review" that followed Seitz's letter
is a Christian fundamentalist called Arthur B Robinson. He is not a
professional climate scientist. It was co-published by Robinson's
organisation - the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - and an
outfit called the George C Marshall Institute, which has received
$630,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. The other authors were Robinson's
22-year-old son and two employees of the George C Marshall Institute.
The chairman of the George C Marshall Institute was Frederick Seitz.

The paper maintained that: "We are living in an increasingly lush
environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide
increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and
animal life than that with which we now are blessed. This is a
wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution."

It was printed in the font and format of the Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences: the journal of the organisation of which
Seitz - as he had just reminded his correspondents - was once
president.

Soon after the petition was published, the National Academy of
Sciences released this statement: "The NAS Council would like to make
it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National
Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-
reviewed journal. The petition does not reflect the conclusions of
expert reports of the Academy."

But it was too late. Seitz, the Oregon Institute and the George C
Marshall Institute had already circulated tens of thousands of copies,
and the petition had established a major presence on the internet.
Some 17,000 graduates signed it, the majority of whom had no
background in climate science. It has been repeatedly cited - by
global-warming sceptics such as David Bellamy, Melanie Phillips and
others - as a petition by climate scientists. It is promoted by the
Exxon-sponsored sites as evidence that there is no scientific
consensus on climate change.

All this is now well known to climate scientists and
environmentalists. But what I have discovered while researching this
issue is that the corporate funding of lobby groups denying that
manmade climate change is taking place was initiated not by Exxon, or
by any other firm directly involved in the fossil fuel industry. It
was started by the tobacco company Philip Morris.

In December 1992, the US Environmental Protection Agency published a
500-page report called Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking.
It found that "the widespread exposure to environmental tobacco smoke
(ETS) in the United States presents a serious and substantial public
health impact. In adults: ETS is a human lung carcinogen, responsible
for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually in US non-smokers.
In children: ETS exposure is causally associated with an increased
risk of lower respiratory tract infections such as bronchitis and
pneumonia. This report estimates that 150,000 to 300,000 cases
annually in infants and young children up to 18 months of age are
attributable to ETS."

Had it not been for the settlement of a major class action against the
tobacco companies in the US, we would never have been able to see what
happened next. But in 1998 they were forced to publish their internal
documents and post them on the internet.

Within two months of its publication, Philip Morris, the world's
biggest tobacco firm, had devised a strategy for dealing with the
passive-smoking report. In February 1993 Ellen Merlo, its senior vice-
president of corporate affairs, sent a letter to William I Campbell,
Philip Morris's chief executive officer and president, explaining her
intentions: "Our overriding objective is to discredit the EPA
report ... Concurrently, it is our objective to prevent states and
cities, as well as businesses, from passive-smoking bans."

To this end, she had hired a public relations company called APCO. She
had attached the advice it had given her. APCO warned that: "No matter
how strong the arguments, industry spokespeople are, in and of
themselves, not always credible or appropriate messengers."

So the fight against a ban on passive smoking had to be associated
with other people and other issues. Philip Morris, APCO said, needed
to create the impression of a "grassroots" movement - one that had
been formed spontaneously by concerned citizens to fight
"overregulation". It should portray the danger of tobacco smoke as
just one "unfounded fear" among others, such as concerns about
pesticides and cellphones. APCO proposed to set up "a national
coalition intended to educate the media, public officials and the
public about the dangers of 'junk science'. Coalition will address
credibility of government's scientific studies, risk-assessment
techniques and misuse of tax dollars ... Upon formation of Coalition,
key leaders will begin media outreach, eg editorial board tours,
opinion articles, and brief elected officials in selected states."

APCO would found the coalition, write its mission statements, and
"prepare and place opinion articles in key markets". For this it
required $150,000 for its own fees and $75,000 for the coalition's
costs.

By May 1993, as another memo from APCO to Philip Morris shows, the
fake citizens' group had a name: the Advancement of Sound Science
Coalition. It was important, further letters stated, "to ensure that
TASSC has a diverse group of contributors"; to "link the tobacco issue
with other more 'politically correct' products"; and to associate
scientific studies that cast smoking in a bad light with "broader
questions about government research and regulations" - such as "global
warming", "nuclear waste disposal" and "biotechnology". APCO would
engage in the "intensive recruitment of high-profile representatives
from business and industry, scientists, public officials, and other
individuals interested in promoting the use of sound science".

By September 1993, APCO had produced a "Plan for the Public Launching
of TASSC". The media launch would not take place in "Washington, DC or
the top media markets of the country. Rather, we suggest creating a
series of aggressive, decentralised launches in several targeted local
and regional markets across the country. This approach ... avoids
cynical reporters from major media: less reviewing/challenging of
TASSC messages."

The media coverage, the public relations company hoped, would enable
TASSC to "establish an image of a national grassroots coalition". In
case the media asked hostile questions, APCO circulated a sheet of
answers, drafted by Philip Morris. The first question was:

"Isn't it true that Philip Morris created TASSC to act as a front
group for it?

"A: No, not at all. As a large corporation, PM belongs to many
national, regional, and state business, public policy, and legislative
organisations. PM has contributed to TASSC, as we have with various
groups and corporations across the country."

There are clear similarities between the language used and the
approaches adopted by Philip Morris and by the organisations funded by
Exxon. The two lobbies use the same terms, which appear to have been
invented by Philip Morris's consultants. "Junk science" meant peer-
reviewed studies showing that smoking was linked to cancer and other
diseases. "Sound science" meant studies sponsored by the tobacco
industry suggesting that the link was inconclusive. Both lobbies
recognised that their best chance of avoiding regulation was to
challenge the scientific consensus. As a memo from the tobacco company
Brown and Williamson noted, "Doubt is our product since it is the best
means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the mind of
the general public. It is also the means of establishing a
controversy." Both industries also sought to distance themselves from
their own campaigns, creating the impression that they were
spontaneous movements of professionals or ordinary citizens: the
"grassroots".

But the connection goes further than that. TASSC, the "coalition"
created by Philip Morris, was the first and most important of the
corporate-funded organisations denying that climate change is taking
place. It has done more damage to the campaign to halt it than any
other body.

TASSC did as its founders at APCO suggested, and sought funding from
other sources. Between 2000 and 2002 it received $30,000 from Exxon.
The website it has financed - JunkScience.com - has been the main
entrepot for almost every kind of climate-change denial that has found
its way into the mainstream press. It equates environmentalists with
Nazis, communists and terrorists. It flings at us the accusations that
could justifably be levelled against itself: the website claims, for
example, that it is campaigning against "faulty scientific data and
analysis used to advance special and, often, hidden agendas". I have
lost count of the number of correspondents who, while questioning
manmade global warming, have pointed me there.

The man who runs it is called Steve Milloy. In 1992, he started
working for APCO - Philip Morris's consultants. While there, he set up
the JunkScience site. In March 1997, the documents show, he was
appointed TASSC's executive director. By 1998, as he explained in a
memo to TASSC board members, his JunkScience website was was being
funded by TASSC. Both he and the "coalition" continued to receive
money from Philip Morris. An internal document dated February 1998
reveals that TASSC took $200,000 from the tobacco company in 1997.
Philip Morris's 2001 budget document records a payment to Steven
Milloy of $90,000. Altria, Philip Morris's parent company, admits that
Milloy was under contract to the tobacco firm until at least the end
of 2005.

He has done well. You can find his name attached to letters and
articles seeking to discredit passive-smoking studies all over the
internet and in the academic databases. He has even managed to reach
the British Medical Journal: I found a letter from him there which
claimed that the studies it had reported "do not bear out the
hypothesis that maternal smoking/ passive smoking increases cancer
risk among infants". TASSC paid him $126,000 in 2004 for 15 hours'
work a week. Two other organisations are registered at his address:
the Free Enterprise Education Institute and the Free Enterprise Action
Institute. They have received $10,000 and $50,000 respectively from
Exxon. The secretary of the Free Enterprise Action Institute is Thomas
Borelli. Borelli was the Philip Morris executive who oversaw the
payments to TASSC.

Milloy also writes a weekly Junk Science column for the Fox News
website. Without declaring his interests, he has used this column to
pour scorn on studies documenting the medical effects of second-hand
tobacco smoke and showing that climate change is taking place. Even
after Fox News was told about the money he had been receiving from
Philip Morris and Exxon, it continued to employ him, without informing
its readers about his interests.

TASSC's headed notepaper names an advisory board of eight people.
Three of them are listed by Exxonsecrets.org as working for
organisations taking money from Exxon. One of them is Frederick Seitz,
the man who wrote the Oregon Petition, and who chairs the Science and
Environmental Policy Project. In 1979, Seitz became a permanent
consultant to the tobacco company RJ Reynolds. He worked for the firm
until at least 1987, for an annual fee of $65,000. He was in charge of
deciding which medical research projects the company should fund, and
handed out millions of dollars a year to American universities. The
purpose of this funding, a memo from the chairman of RJ Reynolds
shows, was to "refute the criticisms against cigarettes". An undated
note in the Philip Morris archive shows that it was planning a "Seitz
symposium" with the help of TASSC, in which Frederick Seitz would
speak to "40-60 regulators".

The president of Seitz's Science and Environmental Policy Project is a
maverick environmental scientist called S Fred Singer. He has spent
the past few years refuting evidence for manmade climate change. It
was he, for example, who published the misleading claim that most of
the world's glaciers are advancing, which landed David Bellamy in so
much trouble when he repeated it last year. He also had connections
with the tobacco industry. In March 1993, APCO sent a memo to Ellen
Merlo, the vice-president of Philip Morris, who had just commissioned
it to fight the Environmental Protection Agency: "As you know, we have
been working with Dr Fred Singer and Dr Dwight Lee, who have authored
articles on junk science and indoor air quality (IAQ)
respectively ..."

Singer's article, entitled Junk Science at the EPA, claimed that "the
latest 'crisis' - environmental tobacco smoke - has been widely
criticised as the most shocking distortion of scientific evidence
yet". He alleged that the Environmental Protection Agency had had to
"rig the numbers" in its report on passive smoking. This was the
report that Philip Morris and APCO had set out to discredit a month
before Singer wrote his article.

I have no evidence that Fred Singer or his organisation have taken
money from Philip Morris. But many of the other bodies that have been
sponsored by Exxon and have sought to repudiate climate change were
also funded by the tobacco company. Among them are some of the world's
best-known "thinktanks": the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the
Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Hudson Institute, the
Frontiers of Freedom Institute, the Reason Foundation and the
Independent Institute, as well as George Mason University's Law and
Economics Centre. I can't help wondering whether there is any aspect
of conservative thought in the United States that has not been formed
and funded by the corporations.

Until I came across this material, I believed that the accusations,
the insults and the taunts such people had slung at us
environmentalists were personal: that they really did hate us, and had
found someone who would pay to help them express those feelings. Now I
realise that they have simply transferred their skills.

While they have been most effective in the United States, the impacts
of the climate-change deniers sponsored by Exxon and Philip Morris
have been felt all over the world. I have seen their arguments
endlessly repeated in Australia, Canada, India, Russia and the UK. By
dominating the media debate on climate change during seven or eight
critical years in which urgent international talks should have been
taking place, by constantly seeding doubt about the science just as it
should have been most persuasive, they have justified the money their
sponsors have spent on them many times over. It is fair to say that
the professional denial industry has delayed effective global action
on climate change by years, just as it helped to delay action against
the tobacco companies.

· This is an edited extract from Heat, by George Monbiot, published by
Allen Lane. To order a copy for £16.99 with free UK p&p (rrp £17.99),
go to Guardian.co.uk/bookshop or call 0870 836 0875.


L*@rogers.com
2007-04-05 08:36:48 EST
On Apr 4, 11:07 pm, "Souls Black as Coal" <Coal.Pollut...@Exxon-
Turds.info> wrote:


When you learn to post on topic, please do come back.

Meanwhile ****PLONK****

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


2021 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron