Comments - Bristol Indymedia

more >>

Documents

New Events

16 Sep film/talk - The Power of Community: How Cuba Survi...

14 Sep Post-bookfair cafe @ Kebele

23 Sep Stop Global Warming: Change the World

07 Sep Kebele Cafe is back!!!

06 Sep The Cafe is back!!!

more >>

indycycle

Title	Posted

user preferences

Language - en
text size >>
make this your indymedia front page

Feeds

show story titles only
show comments per story
hide comment content
save preference

Latest Comments

Below are the newswire stories which have most recently been commented upon, allowing you to keep track of the latest commentary at a glance. From here you can more easily participate in commenting on articles that are posted, and continuing discussions that have started.

Story Title	Comment Title	Comment Author	Comment Posted
Tories self-destruct in St George West campaign	Green or Respect candidate?	Sid from St. Ge	11:04pm S7
	Does it matter which one of these two parties comes fourth in the by-election? OK , aoa few middle class lefties want to salve their conscience by voting for someone they think is trendy and 'alternative', but though a lot of these wannabe Montpelierites are in Easton, they haven't reached St. George yet in numbers. In reality St. George West is a battle between the three main parties. The Tories have dropped their local bloke from the cafe with the funny Greek name, and are putting forward a mate of Richard Eddy's from South Bristol. Labour are runnning a "local" fireman who works in Speedwell, but where does he live? The rumour here in Meadow Vale is that its not in Bristol! Lib Dems are likely to run Tony Potter again, a lot of leaflets have appeared with his name on, though they haven't called him 'candidate' yet. Tony's lived in the area all his life, and works in a factory. Its about time we had a working class Councillor who does a proper job I reckon.
Bring The Troops Home - Demonstration - 20/9/2008	Here's an example:	Uncle G.	10:50pm S7
	Mmmm, deletion! This site's dislike of dissent from the party line is pretty sickening too. Let's see if you delete this: Not Jews, your obsession with "Teh Zionists" and Israel in ittself shows up your racism and the institutional racism of the Palestine movement in general. (which btw has done a very disturbing entryist job on the anti-war movement) I've give you an example -You lot are so obsessed with Israel that when someone had the gall to protest against China (which even you couldn't connect with Isreal) that whichever one of you was on line at the time couldn't resist turning up and practically ordering the protestors to quit moaning about nice fluffy China and instead focus on.... good ole' Israel / Palestine! What a surpise! http://bristol.indymedia.org/article/688746?&condense_c...39485 So if you're so not racist... Why does everything have to be about Israel / Palestine? What connection does Bring The Troops Home have with Israel / Palestine - considering that British troops are not fighting there and haven't done since 1948? Do you think Israel is responsible for the Iraq War? Please to explain...?
The BBC in the West is going to name and shame the region's traffic trouble spots.	Thank you	Yawn	4:02pm S7
	The missing post has reappeared.
Bring The Troops Home - Demonstration - 20/9/2008	War criminal Blair gets the protection he deserves.	Calamity Jane	8:12pm S6
	Bliar's bodyguard leaves a loaded gun in Starbucks toilet, click on link for story. Comments are worth a read too. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23550803-det...ments Let's make Manchester a big one, show them we're not likely to forget what Blair and Co have done to our world.
My dad makes Global Warming worse!	Not relevant Mell O	Yawner	12:28pm S6
	Your comment about indigenous peoples experiences and observations on Climate Change - Global Warming and Climate Destabilisation are not relevant Mell O, its all about the science! - Those on the frontlines are not scientists, therefore they do not count!
My dad makes Global Warming worse!	Meanwhile as the "skeptics / denialists" prevaricate ........	Mell O	11:53am S6
	Many small island, rural and indigenous communities are already facing the first impacts of climate change. Their high vulnerability relates to their reliance upon resource-based livelihoods and the locations and configurations of their lands and territories. Ironically, despite broad recognition that small island, Arctic, high altitude and other vulnerable communities are on the frontlines of climate change, their voices have remained largely on the sidelines of climate change debates. Indeed, this exclusion has generated discord and protests by indigenous peoples and community representatives at recent international conferences and meetings on climate change. In response to this outcry, the grassroots Internet forum On the Frontlines of Climate Change was launched by UNESCO, in partnership with the Secretariat of the Convention on iological Diversity (SCBD), the Secretariat of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issue (SPFII) and the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR). The goals of the Frontlines forum are to: - Draw international attention to the knowledge and experiences of indigenous communities and peoples living in small islands, the Arctic and other vulnerable environments; - Seek community-level observations on climate change impacts, as well as local efforts to cope with and adapt to these changes; - Provide an opportunity for communities to voice their observations, experiences and concerns, and to share and exchange them with other communities; - Build up a global database of local observations, experiences, practices and coping strategies; - Support community-based research and educational activities related to climate change; - Heighten the profile and impact of indigenous peoples and their knowledge in international climate change debates. Following the forum's launch on 12 June 2008 on the theme of Early Impacts of climate change, 3 cycles of discussions have been received from contributors. This first debate can be accessed at www.climatefrontlines.org. A new forum theme on CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION will be launched on 24 September. We look forward to your continuing interest and active participation in the Climate Frontlines forum. We welcome questions and suggestions to improve the forum's relevance and utreach. peoples@climatefrontlines.org
Bring The Troops Home - Demonstration - 20/9/2008	Is there somewhere we can buy tickets?	Scaredy Cat	8:40am S6
	Previously, tickets have been sold from various shops such as La Ruca and Booty Book Shop. I'm not very keen to send my details by email as directed in the flyer below and this may have the effect of putting others off coming to the demo as well. Also there are those who would come to the demo but, and I know it's hard to believe, don't use computers. It may be an advantage to also sell tickets in your tried and tested way, if possible. Flyer:- Bring The Troops Home - Demonstration by info@bristolstopwar The Labour Party Conference takes place in Manchester at the end of September. Gordon Brown and his government are increasingly unpopular not least because of their refusal to bring the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan and stop supporting the policies of the US government. Stop The War and CND are organising a demonstration in Manchester on Saturday 20th September to call for the troops to be brought home – we want a change of policy irrespective of who is prime minister. There will be coaches from Bristol leaving at 8.15am from Anchor Rd (opposite @Bristol) Tickets £14 waged, £7 unwaged. To reserve a ticket please email bristolstopwar@hotmail.com giving your name, address & phone number. For further information email bristolstopwar@hotmail.com.
My dad makes Global Warming worse!	reducing methane/acid rain	Yawn	8:21am S6
	http://www.geotimes.org/jan05/NN_acidrain.html Acid rain curbs global warming Natural wetlands are the single largest source of methane, a potent greenhouse gas estimated to account for about one-quarter of Earth's current excess warming. Now, in an odd twist that highlights the complex nature of interactions between Earth's systems, researchers have found that acid rain is significantly suppressing the global emission of methane from wetlands. Acid rain contains sulfate derived from the burning of coal, particularly "dirty coal" with high sulfur content. In wetland environments, the additional sulfate input gives sulfate-reducing microbes a competitive advantage over their methane-producing kin. The process "results in a reduction in methane production and therefore a reduction in emission," says Vincent Gauci, a biogeochemist at Open University in Milton Keynes, United Kingdom, and lead author of a recent study on acid rain in wetlands. ……. So, if we get our industries to burn high sulphur coal we could reduce methane emissions from wetlands?
Stop Global Warming: Change the World	Another laugh!	Yawn	8:12am S6
	Debunked? What on your own blog? You are seriously having a "larf" are you not?
The BBC in the West is going to name and shame the region's traffic trouble spots.	You're confused!?	Yawn	8:04am S6
	http://www.bristol.indymedia.org/hidden_articles.php The only thing you will be wasting if you give up debate A606 is the opportunity to broaden your mind because what "beyond confused" infers just does not make sense. As exemplified by the believers still having to label us sceptics as “denialists” so that their single minded obsession makes any kind of sense! But talking of being confused, I will point out another missing post that was there and now has gone and does not appear on the hidden articles. The post was in answer to:- words in my mouth by Anarchist606 Fri Sep 05, 2008 12:59 For an anarchist I find it most strange that you seem to want more government control not less? Want to show me where I argued for that? And as far as I can remember I stated a definition of Anarchy and my assumption that if you call yourself an anarchist then you are one. I then went on to state that “the believers” call for more tax, more government control etc. Something that would surely be an anathema to an anarchist. This post of mine most definitely appeared because there was a response and a further follow-up from me that can be seen in the hidden posts but for ease I repeat them here;- Time Hidden Comment Title Author Reason for hiding 2008-09-05 17:34:25 For Ms Yawn related to hidden comment Author: Ms. Title: For Yawn Content: And what should we deduce from your name "YAWN" ? 2008-09-05 17:34:06 For Yawn Ms. respect Author: Yawn Title: For Ms Content: Whatever you want - because unlike "anarchist111" (pick a number, any number) - Yawn is not a descriptive term. Just something I do when i am tired. ..... What is confusing therefore is why my post simply answering A606’s question has not been hidden but removed. Unless someone did not like the answer I gave and censored it – which meant that any follow up would require removing as well?? As for Ms’s post being hidden for braking the respect guidelines, I am truly staggered as I for one saw no dis-respect in this whatsoever and fail to see how such a comment conflicts with the respect guidelines. So may I respectfully ask what has happened to the deleted post?
Bring The Troops Home - Demonstration - 20/9/2008	Uncle Gerard	Not Jews	7:34am S6
	classical example
Bring The Troops Home - Demonstration - 20/9/2008	Ah! so you do know the difference!	Not Jews	7:32pm S5
	And there was me excusing you on the grounds of ignorance. As you very well know, zionists use judaism as a front to commit their atrocities in Palestine. A clever little formula because any criticism of zionists is immediately rebuffed by their devious and exaggerated outrage and accusations of anti-semitism and racism, which is exactly what you are doing now. And as for God, zionists use God when it suits them, they claim Palestine is their God-given land, they want it now, and they are taking it by force. Not, perhaps, the ways of a just and merciful God. Judaism does not countenance this atrocious treatment of our fellow man as can be seen by the many Jews on demonstrations who openly and bravely condemn these crimes against humanity. As Zionists and American Fundamental Christian Neocons sing from the same hymn-sheet in the Middle East, their God is essentially the same, namely domination by brute force and the yankee dollar. Zionism and Judaism are as different as chalk and cheese, and those who are always so ready to shout, "Racist, anti-semite", should examine their motives, because it is becoming more and more apparent that these accusers are the most racist, most anti-semitic of all.
The BBC in the West is going to name and shame the region's traffic trouble spots.	your patience astaounds me A606	Beyond confused	6:44pm S5
	Now you know exactly what they are about A606. Most of us worked out years ago exactly what their game is, which is why we no longer engage with them. Time and planet-wasters is what they are, but I have to admit to a peculiar sense of envy at your persistance in exposing that particular piece of work for what he is. Most of us would not give them the time of day, not wishing to play their genocidal game, or even to be sullied by their deviousness in any way. Well done A606, but now the question needs to be asked : what good did it do? And that is not a rhetorical question. Was the time you put into "that individual" not better used on someone / anyone with an open mind rather than on "him with the denialists agenda"?
The BBC in the West is going to name and shame the region's traffic trouble spots.	confused dot com	Anarchist606	5:32pm S5
	Are you confused dot com? I know I am. Trying to follow the denialist argument is hard work - and this is the problem with the credibility of it all. You cite people who think it is not happening (Vaclav Klaus and Rieters) and argue it is a natural process before citing people who think it is happening and is due to human (Lomborg and Landsea) but who dispute the details (Landsea) and response (Tol, Lomborg). It just makes no sense. To think Tol is correct is to think Vaclav Klaus and Rieters are wrong. To think it is a natural process is to think Tol and Lomborg are wrong. To think Vaclav Klaus is correct is to think Tol, Lomborg and Landsea are wrong. I did not ignore your point on relative CO2 emissions - I said that our input of CO2, even though it is relatively small, stands a good chance of upsetting the balance that currently exists. But again, if your point on relative CO2 is correct then Tol and Lomborg ( and I think Landsea too) are wrong. I am confused dot com with denialism. You seem to cite anything and everything that even slightly disagrees with a pre-set view you have of what the global warming consensus is, who advocates for it and what they want to do.
Bring The Troops Home - Demonstration - 20/9/2008	Zionism and Judaism - the simple difference	The Bristol Blo	4:03pm S5
	Zionism is a political movement not a religious movement. It therefore has no god. Judaism is a religion. It therefore has a god. This reference of yours to "their God" is a reference to Jews really isn't it? You're a racist and I claim my five pounds.
The BBC in the West is going to name and shame the region's traffic trouble spots.	I note you deflect the main point again	Yawn	2:38pm S5
	First you ignore the point on relative CO2 levels Now you ignore my "expose" of your ignoring what Tol actually said. As for the Anarchist and Government control point I made - I do confess to assuming that if you call yourself an anarchist then that is what you are? As such central government control should, I would have thought, be an anathema to you. "Anarchism is the political belief that society should have no government, laws, police, or other authority, but should be a free association of all its members" But GW activists tend to call for "more regulation", "more taxes", more government control". And that, frankly, does not add up. Because anarchy would allow us all to have our own ideas, our own free associations. Something that you and other "believers" wish to deprive those that think differently to you, of. But then perhaps some just like the label "Anarchist" and do not really subscribe to that ideal.
The BBC in the West is going to name and shame the region's traffic trouble spots.	just one more thing...	Anarchist606	1:29pm S5
	Carrying on regardless was never a sensible option, but then neither is ripping apart all that we have achieved on a socialist or anarchist ideal that nobody but a few loonies want. So what do you suggest we do?
The BBC in the West is going to name and shame the region's traffic trouble spots.	words in my mouth	Anarchist606	12:59pm S5
	For an anarchist I find it most strange that you seem to want more government control not less? Want to show me where I argued for that?
Stop Global Warming: Change the World	sigh here we go again.	Anarchist606	12:56pm S5
	More Zombie arguments back from the dead. If you look-up who owns the domain demanddebate.com it comes out as one Steven Milloy. A registered political lobbist who has been paid by various industries including the oil and nuclear. In 2005, it was reported that non-profit organizations operating out of Milloy's home, and in some cases employing no staff, have received large payments from ExxonMobil. Not very credible. Reiter sits on the "Scientific and Economic Advisory Council" of an organization called the "Annapolis Centre for Science-Based Public Policy. " The Annapolis Centre is a US think tank that has received $763,500 in funding from ExxonMobil. - He comes under the 'scientists funded by big oil' thing. Not very credible. And the petition - been debunked time after time. See here; http://anarchist606.blogspot.com/2008/08/more-denialist....html sigh
The BBC in the West is going to name and shame the region's traffic trouble spots.	Selectively laughing!	Yawn	12:46pm S5
	606 - you do make me chuckle . I do not know how you expect to have any credibility at all - (and yet you say Moore has none!!) This is what Tol actually concluded about the Stern report. "Here are the conclusions from Richard Tol's The Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change: A Comment: In sum, the Stern Review is very selective in the studies it quotes on the impacts of climate change. The selection bias is not random, but emphasizes the most pessimistic studies. In this sense, the Stern Review reminds one of Lomborg (2001). The discount rate used is lower than the official recommendations by HM Treasury. Results are occasionally misinterpreted. The report claims that a cost-benefit analysis was done, but none was carried out. The Stern Review can therefore be dismissed as alarmist and incompetent. This is not to say that climate change is not a problem, nor that greenhouse gas emissions should not be reduced. There are sound arguments for emission reduction. However, unsound analyses like the Stern Review only provide fodder for those skeptical of climate change and climate policy – and may well further polarize the debate. Climate policy is for the long-term. It will only be successful if a broad coalition – of countries and of stakeholders within countries – supports climate policy and continues to support climate policy. To my mind, this calls for a sober analysis, rather than hyperbole." And that is the point that you alarmists miss. By labelling sceptics "denialists" you polarise the debate. I have never said that we should "carry on regardless" - what I do say is that your belief is dangerous in that it focuses on a single solution to a complex problem. Carrying on regardless was never a sensible option, but then neither is ripping apart all that we have achieved on a socialist or anarchist ideal that nobody but a few loonies want. Where you fail is hyping up an issue to such an extent that you are categorised as alarmist not realist. And frankly I am happy with that. You clearly are not. No I think we sceptics would agree with Tol who calls for “sober analysis, rather than hyperbole.” And yet the Stern report was produced as the definitive work on GW by believers and is STILL quoted in certain biased papers such as the Guardian! I would quote from Tol:- "To my mind, this calls for a sober analysis, rather than hyperbole" and you are guilty of extolling the sort of hyperbole exemplified by the now discredited Stern, who in Tols words that you conveniently left out in your post:- "The Stern Review can therefore be dismissed as alarmist and incompetent." As can much of the posts on here that seem to want the destruction of the economic system as much as anything else. For an anarchist I find it most strange that you seem to want more government control not less?
Stop Global Warming: Change the World	Scientists?	Mell O	12:11pm S5
	Scientists need to get out more.
Stop Global Warming: Change the World	Consensus?	Con	11:51am S5
	Survey of IPCC Climate Experts DemandDebate.com, November 8, 2007 Introduction Many claim that there is a consensus among scientists that manmade emissions of greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide (CO2), are harming global climate. To test the nature of this consensus, we surveyed the U.S. contributors to, and reviewers of the most recent scientific assessment by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Methodology Survey questions (see Appendix) were sent to 345 U.S. contributors and reviewers of the IPCC’s “Climate Change 2007: The Physical Basis.” Respondents were asked to check the box that best represents their view. Results and DiscussionFifty-four responses were included in the final results (see Appendix). The responses to the survey’s first four questions were predictable ─ between 83% to 90% of the respondents favored the view that manmade emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are driving or helping to drive global climate to unprecedentedly warmer temperatures and that limiting manmade CO2 emissions would reduce such climate change. But despite the apparent “consensus” on these four questions, the responses to the last two questions expose that consensus as potentially meaningless. Less than 50% of the respondents said that an increase in global temperature of 1-degree Celsius is flatly undesirable. Half of the respondents said that such a temperature increase is desirable, desirable for some but undesirable for others or too difficult to assess. Among survey respondents, then, there’s no consensus on desirability of 1-degree Celsius of global warming ─ twice the level of warming that occurred during the 20thcentury.When asked about the ideal climate, only 14% said that the ideal climate was cooler than the present climate. Sixty-one percent said that there is no such thing as an ideal climate. But if there’s no agreement on what the target climate should be, what precisely is the point of taking action on global warming? What is the climatic goal at which we are aiming?A couple other notable results include the astounding 20% who said that human activity is the principal driver of climate change. So was there no climate change before mankind? And if there was natural climate change before man, why not now also? Forty-four percent didn’t think that the current global climate was unprecedentedly warm. The survey results indicate that when asked routine questions about the climatic role of manmade CO2, the IPCC scientists surveyed responded for the most part with the Pavlovian manmade-CO2-is-bad view seemingly demanded of them by the IPCC. But when you ask questions that are off the usual script, the supposed consensus seems to readily fall apart. And let’s not forget that many climate experts no longer participate in the IPCC process because they perceive it to be biased. Dr. Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute, for example, resigned from the IPCC because, “My colleague and I repeatedly found ourselves at loggerheads with persons who insisted on making authoritative pronouncements, although they had little or no knowledge of our specialty.” There’s also the Petition Project, http://www.oism.org/pproject/ where 19,000 scientists have signed a petition questioning the scientific basis of climate alarmism. The above link allows access to the list. Appendix: Full survey results available :- http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:efbbxA8SnGAJ:www.d...gl=uk
Stop Global Warming: Change the World	Agree with bits but not all	Che	11:21am S5
	His book calls for yet more and more regulation. As he is a socialist this is not surprising. What is surprising is the fact that socialists still think that "government" control is the answer. But I do believe that he is correct in citing new technology as a huge part of the answer to our using less energy without sacrificing the development of third world countries or indeed our own populations standard of living. So this socialist author at least seems to recognise that. But other than that it is a classic example of the socialists jumping on the GW bandwagon. Limited audience - limited relevance.
The BBC in the West is going to name and shame the region's traffic trouble spots.	forgot a couple!	Anarchist606	11:08am S5
	Ooops - just in case you thought I did not read all of your post. To add (or not) to our list of evidence for denialism; Patrick Moore has zero credibility. His environmental credentials evaporated back in 1989 when he got into a row over the pollution his salmon farming buisness, Quatsino Seafarms Ltd, was producing. Ironic - the then founded a business consultancy that whores itself to logging, mining and nuclear corporations for cash. In short it is his business to contrite. Tol did criticise the Sterm report (for being too like Lomborg !!!) - but not because he does not think global warming is not happening, but because the report is not thorough enough and provides ammo for denalists; "In this sense, the Stern Review reminds one of Lomborg (2001)...This is not to say that climate change is not a problem, nor that greenhouse gas emissions should not be reduced. There are sound arguments for emission reduction. However, unsound analyses like the Stern Review only provide fodder for those skeptical of climate change and climate policy – and may well further polarize the debate." Sorry - neither are evidence for your claims. And I have to ask, is that the best evidence you have got? C'mon.....please.....
Bring The Troops Home - Demonstration - 20/9/2008	Zionist or Jew, there's a big difference.	Not Jews	10:58am S5
	Bristol Blogger wrote:- "What on earth has Israel got to do with the Russia/Georgia conflict? Is it that everything is the fault of those peskie Jews?" Israel and USA have for some time been arming and training up Georgia for this invasion of South Ossetia. Georgia's Defense Minister is an Israeli zionist. Israel is governed by zionists, supported by zionists in the US and the UK governments, (they don't have to be Jews, or of any particular race, to be zionists). Zionists are religious fundamentalists whose God told them to drive the Palestinian people off their homeland and possess their homes. What kind of a God is that? So, because their God told them to, Israeli zionists are currently imprisoning 1.5 million people in the concentration camp of Gaza under atrocious conditions. What kind of a God is that? Among the 1.5 million prisoners is LAUREN BOOTH, MIDDLE EAST PEACE ENVOY TONY BLAIR'S SISTER-IN-LAW and campaigner for a free Gaza who is currently being imprisoned in Gaza against her will. Lauren Booth accompanied 40 other peace protestors who sailed into Gaza on two boats last week to highlight this cruel, criminal, collective punishment of the Palestinian people. She is now being unlawfully detained by Israel. How can anyone give currency to Israel, flagrant flouter of International Law by clouding the issue and attempting to confuse zionist with Jew, prostituting the known historic suffering of a noble and talented people? The world is finally beginning to see through this old worn out zionist trick.
The BBC in the West is going to name and shame the region's traffic trouble spots.	where?	Anarchist606	10:53am S5
	Thanks for filling in the gaps. So in addition to my list we need to add the following evidence; Prof Rieters challenge to the IPCC - Reiter sits on the "Scientific and Economic Advisory Council" of an organization called the "Annapolis Centre for Science-Based Public Policy. " The Annapolis Centre is a US think tank that has received $763,500 in funding from ExxonMobil. - He comes under the 'scientists funded by big oil' thing. Chris Landsea has a degree of credibility, but that is tainted by his appointment to the Bush administration to speak on hurricanes after Katrina, in what some say as a political move to dilute criticism of their policy on global warming lets the disaster in New Orleans be linked to their policies. Vaclav Klaus is not a climate scientist and thinks the science of the environment should be in the social sciences category. So no surprise there. Does not add anything to the science of Global Warming at all. In addition, Christopher Landsea & Bjorn Lomborg think it is happening, just argue over the details; which I agree need more research and discussion. I think you will see that the "consensus" demanding that we place all our eggs in one global warming basket is steadily falling apart. Even the Republican Party in on board now, "I will clean up the planet," McCain said. "I will make global warming a priority." (Though they have a bit of a disconnect with Palin, who think it is happening but it is not our fault, but that is no surprise given she also thinks it is God's will that they build a new pipeline in Alaska and is a Creationist and funded by oil interests.) I see no evidence for your claims of get real.
Stop Bristol Airport Expansion Campaign Call For Local Solidarity	Great work!	Mell O	9:54am S5
	Thanks for that Emma, its good to know that YOU are on the case!
The BBC in the West is going to name and shame the region's traffic trouble spots.	Oh yes - quite a bit	Yawn	8:51am S5
	Prof Rieters challenge to the IPCC And his statement to the UK House of Lords His having to threaten legal action to have his name removed from the "consensus" The conclusion of the same UK House of Lards citing the politicalisation of the IPCC process The resignation of Chris Landsea citing "spin" within the IPCC. The president of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, stating that the "believers" (my description" are as dangerous as the old soviet dictatorship (and he should know coming from a country invaded by the soviets) The fact that warming IS happening on other planets in our solar system which begs the question "how are influencing that - if it is all our fault?" The fact that Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore says there is no proof global warming is caused by humans And that he heavily criticises Greenpeace and other believers because the ACC/Catastrophe road they want us all to travel is "anti human" to use Patrick Moores own words. The fact that politicians organised a dodgy dossier by Stern here in the UK to force the message down the populations throats. But despite silly messages from the likes of Margaret Becket that "non-believers are more dangerous than terrorists", the Stern report was trashed by other most qualified economists Bill Nordhaus, Paul Samuelson, Richard Tol and others. Richard Tol for one blasted Stern which must have been particularly embarrassing as Stern had quoted Tol about 60 times to which Tol stated that Stern was making worst case assumptions and using overly precautionary principles in assessing the risks / costs so that the very worse case scenario could be presented. Then we have the treatment of Bjion Lomborg by Scientific American who published an 11 page critique that fell far below accepted standards of science. It was a hatchet job that appalled those on both sides of the argument. Even worse was the threat to sue Lomborg by Scientific American for daring to defend himself. Just how far the believers were prepared to go to silence alternative views was thus exposed for all to see. http://www.greenspirit.com/lomborg/ But every cloud has its silver lining and out of this debacle came the Copenhagen Consensus, which acts as a very useful brake to the hype the spin, the smoke and mirrors politics from the believers by taking a stand. Lomborg has more and more support and his views on how wrong we are to concentrate just on one problem can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs Oh- and if you add those you kindly list to the above 606, I think you will see that the "consensus" demanding that we place all our eggs in one global warming basket is steadily falling apart. We have young people who look at your certainty that you are right and say "hang on" - THAT is why an essay from a 15 year old is so important! That fact that it took a huge number of web hits and has gained an unprecedented world wide audience is testament to the fact that the "believers" have overstated the problem to such an extent that the pendulum is now most definitely swinging back the other way. As exemplified by your having to be on the defensive.
My dad makes Global Warming worse!	Southern Chile swamped by worst rains in 30 years	Tory Twit	8:07am S5
	Santiago (AFP) Sept 4, 2008 Emergency crews used helicopters Thursday to rescue some of the nearly 100,000 people hit by the worst rains in three decades in southern Chile, where at least four people have died, officials said. A storm has dumped torrential rain on the Araucania region 700 kilometers (435 miles) south of Santiago since Saturday, damaging at least 10,000 homes as waters flooded rivers and canals, blocked roadways and inundated 200,000 hectares (494,000 acres) of farmland. The towns of Carahue, Nueva Imperial, Puerto Saavedra and Teniente Schmidt were all inundated after nearby rivers overflowed. In Araucania, a largely rural region that is home to indigenous Mapuche tribes, about 1,400 people were placed in emergency relief centers, while another 12,373 people were cut off by rising floodwaters as emergency personnel were conducting evacuations by helicopter. Of the four known fatalities, one woman was crushed when her house collapsed, while the three other victims drowned, according to the National Emergency Office. The region was designated a "catastrophe zone" by President Michelle Bachelet, who toured some of the worst-hit areas Wednesday. The rains had eased mid-week, although a new storm front is expected to batter the region on the weekend.
Court Case Victory for the Red Factory	use it	cars	11:04pm S4
	isomeone should use this wasted office space there is too much and not enough homes. I have been homeless and was housed temporarily in the old grosvenor hotel that eventually got shut down. You have to struggle and fight for housing in this city, and it should not be so difficult.
The BBC in the West is going to name and shame the region's traffic trouble spots.	getting real, Yawn - but can you help...	Anarchist606	8:49pm S4
	Please please please - would you get real! OK, I admit, I am not being real. I'll get real and come round to the view that; Global warming is not really happening/is really happening but is not that bad (delete as appropriate) and that even if it is it is real then it is happening naturally anyway and even if it is happening and is not natural then we would be better off not spending money on it as it will destroy the global economy. Now the cause of the global confusion/conspiracy (delete as appropriate) over this thing that is happening/is not happening (delete as appropriate) that is not our fault (if it is happening) is due to; the government wanting to tax carbon/greedy scientists pursuing funding/the environmental lobby/communists/anarchists/nazis/the UN/tree-huggers trying to found a new religion (delete as appropriate). And the evidence for this confusion/conspiracy (delete as appropriate) is; - Front groups funded by the oil industry to the tune of $millions - A handful of mainly non-climate scientists funded by the oil industry to the tune of $millions - The psudo-science of a business advisor, Monkton. - An essay by a 15 year Kristen Byrnes. - The findings of a school biology teacher, Ernst-Georg Beck. - And the work by Koutsoyiannis et al on climate modeling; which does state it it not happeing, only predictions might not be right, so as I have stated - global warming might be even worse. - A random post on a news group where some person who admits they don't know what they are talking about says CO2 is a poison. - One of the 1000s of scientists said some controversial stuff and is going to be a witness at a trial. Have I missed anything? Man this theory is deep, like really deep. You're right - this is real.
My dad makes Global Warming worse!	Yeah Jersey is an even better place to go now.	Art	6:22pm S4
	Good stuff! Thanks. As regular visitor to the CI's (via the Vomit Comet from Weymouth usually as I try not to fly) I shall enjoy it all the more now that I am likely to enjoy such warmer climes. See every cloud has a silver lining. Flood via a storm surge is not really a problem - that is just down to inadequate planning. Easily sorted. I suggest most of this should be released via the Jersey Tourism office. It is good!!
My dad makes Global Warming worse!	Millions vulnerable to Climate Change NOW.	Dancing on a pi	6:21pm S4
	Millions of vulnerable people in Asia facing the brunt of climate crisis. Global warming is set to reverse decades of social and economic progress across the Asia-Pacific, home to more than four billion people or 60 per cent of the world’s population, according to a new multi-agency report published today called Up in Smoke: Asia and the Pacific. The report, compiled by more than 35 development and environmental groups including Oxfam and Friends of the Earth, says there is growing consensus about the huge challenges facing the Asia Pacific region. However it notes “reason to hope” that there is now enough knowledge about the causes of climate change, how the world must tackle it, and how people in the region must continue to adapt to it. Immediate action is vital, it says. “The effect that climate change will have on poor countries is both preventable and predictable. As a leader in the region, Australia must assist its less fortunate neighbours in adapting to climate change. This is vital for the future of our region’s security and stability,” said Charlotte Sterrett one of the contributors to the report and Oxfam Australia’s Climate Change Advocacy Coordinator. “Climate change is affecting people’s health, access to energy, water supplies and crops – and it is affecting the most vulnerable. To ignore the findings of this report would be a failure of the Australian government,” said Cam Walker of Friends of the Earth. As world leaders prepare for important UN talks in Bali next month to determine an international response to climate change, the report shows: • science consensus that all of Asia-Pacific will warm during this century with less predictable rainfall and monsoons – around which farming systems are designed – and more extreme tropical cyclones; • more than half the population of Asia live near the coast and are directly vulnerable to rises in sea-level; • Asia is home to 87 per cent of the world’s known 400 million small farms which are all especially vulnerable to climate change because the rely on regular and reliable rainfall; • an increase of just 1°C in night-time temperatures during the growing season will reduce Asian rice yields by 10 per cent, while wheat production could fall by 32 per cent by 2050; • people from small island states like Vanuatu, Kiribati and Tuvalu in the Pacific have already fallen victim to sea-level rises and entire nations are at risk; • in northern China massive droughts have resulted in severe agricultural losses. If no action is taken, by the end of this century China could suffer 37 per cent loss in its staple crops of wheat, rice and corn. The report gives detailed analysis on the implications of climate change in to poor people living in Bangladesh, central Asia, China, India, Indonesia, the Philippines, East Timor, the Lower Mekong and Malaysia, Nepal and Pakistan and the Pacific Islands. It also shows that positive measures are being taken by local governments and people to reduce emissions and cope with climate change now. Up in Smoke recommends that the international community commit to meaningful and mandatory emissions cuts to ensure that global temperature increases stay below 2°C. “For Australia this means reducing carbon emissions by at least 30% by 2020, and 80% by 2050”, said Mr Walker. Rich countries must honour their commitments to renewable energy as the potential for its use across the Asia- Pacific is vast. “The international community must also urgently assess the full global costs facing poor countries having to adapt to climate change and give new funds. If Australia is to pay its fair share this amounts to at least $1.5bn per annum, and more if global emissions aren’t cut rapidly enough”, said Ms Sterrett. The report notes that rich-country subsidies to their domestic fossil fuel industry stood at $73 billion per year in the late 1990s. It also says that crisis responses must be better planned, organised and funded and that vulnerable communities must be assisted in coping and preparing for climate-related disasters. A copy of the report can be found on the Oxfam website www.oxfam.org.au --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- More money needed to help Pacific cope with climate change. Published: 29 Aug 08 Aid agency Oxfam Australia welcomed the Rudd Government’s announcement of $14.8 million to help vulnerable Pacific countries adapt to the effects of climate change, but warned that the government’s contribution would need to increase to at least $300 million annually to tackle the rapidly escalating problem around the world. The funds, announced today by Minister for Climate Change and Water Senator Penny Wong, are drawn from the government’s $150 million commitment over three years (announced in the 2008/9 Budget) to meet priority climate adaptation needs in vulnerable countries, with an emphasis on those in the Pacific region. “Oxfam believes that the focus on adaptation – helping people adapt to the impacts of climate change – is the number one priority for the Pacific,” Oxfam Australia executive director Andrew Hewett said. “The need is urgent. Within the Pacific region, people living in low-lying islands and river deltas are already experiencing the negative results of climate change, including rising seas and salt water inundation. “This contributes to crop losses, destruction of fresh water sources and flooding. The nation of Kiribati faces the prospect of disappearing completely, as do other low-lying islands in the Pacific, including Tuvalu, the Marshall Islands and the coast regions of Papua New Guinea.” He said the government was taking the right steps, such as signing the Kyoto Protocol and committing funds to tackle climate change in developing countries, but the amounts committed were going to be much greater in future to comprehensively address the needs of poor countries. “It is the poor who are most at risk, and will suffer most from climate change. Poor people are already bearing the brunt of the impacts of climate change in our region through more frequent droughts, floods and severe weather events,” Mr Hewett said. “The injustice at the heart of climate change is that poor people in developing countries are the least responsible for causing climate change, however are the most affected.” As a leading agency working with communities around the world to end poverty and social injustice, Oxfam is already seeing the impacts of climate change on poor and vulnerable people in the developing world, including in the Pacific. “Climate change is borderless, it is happening, and everyone is affected,” Mr Hewett said. “Australia has the responsibility to act and the capacity to do so. Australia, as one of the biggest carbon emitters per person in the world and an important neighbour in the Pacific region, has a greater responsibility for addressing the problem.”
My dad makes Global Warming worse!	Indigenous Peoples and Climate Change: A Human Rights Issue	Open your freek	6:10pm S4
	The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report published in early 2007 confirmed that global climate change is already taking place and having an impact on many communities around the world. The report found that communities who live in marginal lands and whose livelihoods are highly dependent on natural resources are among the most vulnerable to climate change. Many indigenous and traditional peoples who have been pushed to the least fertile and most fragile lands as a consequence of historical, social, political and economic exclusion are among those who are at greatest risk. On the other hand, people living in marginal lands have long been exposed to many kinds of environmental changes and have developed strategies for coping with these phenomena. They have valuable knowledge about adapting to climate change, but the magnitude of future hazards may exceed their adaptive capacity, especially given their current conditions of marginalization. The potential impacts of climate change on the livelihoods and cultures of indigenous and traditional communities remain poorly known. As such, the International Union for Conservation of Nature has conducted a report examining how climate change may continue to impact indigenous peoples in the near future. The goals of the IUCN report on Indigenous Peoples and Climate Change were: * to improve understanding of the potential impacts of climate change on vulnerable communities and cultures and their associated ecosystems; * to identify further research required to reduce the risks of climate change; and * to develop appropriate adaptation and mitigation measures, particularly in areas with high risk of socio-cultural impacts. Published in March of 2008, the report offers some elements that will facilitate integration of socio-cultural considerations in programs and actions to address climate change impacts. A central point of the report is that indigenous and traditional peoples are going to be particularly burdened by the costs of climate change impacts, and that there is evidence that the dangers of climate change are already threatening traditional cultures (previously discussed in terms of anthropology, indigenous peoples, and climate change; and biofuel, indigenous peoples, and West Papua). The report documents that the degree of vulnerability varies from one group to another and can be unevenly distributed across and within communities. Women are expected to be particularly affected by the effects of global warming as a result of their disproportionate involvement in reproductive work, their frequently insecure property rights and access to resources, as well as of their reduced mobility due to caring for children and the elderly in situations of stress. Broken down by ecological region, the report covers case studies in: * Oceans, Coastal Areas, Islands and Climate Change; * The Tropical Forest Belt and Climate Change; * Drylands, Climate Change, and Indigenous and Local Communities; and * Watersheds and Climate Change. The report also reveals that there is already a long record of adaptations to climate variability practiced by indigenous peoples which may ultimately enhance their resilience. Examples of such traditional and innovative adaptation practices include: shoreline reinforcement, improved building technologies, increased water quality testing, rainwater harvesting, supplementary irrigation, traditional farming techniques to protect watersheds, changing hunting and gathering periods and habits, crop and livelihood diversification, use of new materials, seasonal climate forecasting, community-based disaster risk reduction and so on. The capacity to adapt to climate change can be asymmetrically distributed within a community (depending on age, social status or sex) and may change over time. Adaptive capacity depends on a range of factors, some of which coincide with the determining factors of vulnerability. The determinants of adaptive capacity include: social capital, social networks, values, perceptions, customs, traditions, and levels of cognition. Additionally, the capacity to adapt is also affected by external factors including violent conflicts or the spread of infectious diseases (IPCC, 2007b). However, even if the capacity to adapt is given within a society, successful adaptation may not occur. Research has shown that in some cases societies are reluctant to adapt even though they would actually possess the capability to adapt. There are significant issues which hinder adaptation including poverty, policies, lack of resources, financial or technological limits. In the case of indigenous and traditional peoples, social and cultural barriers, insecurity of rights and loss of traditional knowledge may hold back adaptation (IPCC, 2007b). All in all, the IUCN report documents that impacts to indigenous peoples as a result of climate change is largely a human rights issue. Human rights include the right to life - a right that climate change is effecting as indigenous and traditional peoples are continually impacted and marginalized. The question is, what can we do as individuals. Well, beyond the basics of recycling, consuming less, and being social active, one can go to the Amnesty International site and get involved in the many pressing human rights issues. References IPCC, 2007a. Climate Change 2007: The Scientific Basis. Working Group I. Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. IPCC, 2007b. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. The Working Group II Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
The BBC in the West is going to name and shame the region's traffic trouble spots.	Slipery stuff......	Yawn	6:10pm S4
	.....you are 606. You ask for a reference "where advocates for GW……" - ADVOCATES - please note!!!! Ref: Advocate:- supporter, backer, promoter, believer, activist, campaigner, sponsor (that from my Thesaurus.) Advocates - not scientists - not the IPCC, but advocates - or "believers" as I prefer to call them. I have never said it was a view of the IPCC or scientists per se that stated that CO2 is a "pollutant" - but that it is the mind set and spin of many within the "new religion" you subscribe to. Now I agree that it is bollocks to label CO2 a pollutant, but this is another example of how believers hype up the reality. And as such you post either confirms that you are unaware of the true definition of "Advocate" - or indeed you hoped to wriggle out of the fact that there are plenty of references from believer/advocates that call CO2 a pollutant. As for the post that points out the reference i quoted is American - SO WHAT? Are we going to dismiss any reference not eminating from within a 20 or 30 mile radius of Bristol now? Please please please - would you get real! No personal disrespect intended but that post is seriously naff.
My dad makes Global Warming worse!	Climate Change, Drought, and Indigenous Peoples: The Current Situation	whogivesashit	5:56pm S4
	Drylands cover 40% of the earth’s terrestrial surface and are home to over 2 billion people, the majority of whom belong to the poorest people in the world (MA 2005b). Most of the ‘poorest’ people living in drylands are pastoralists, hunter-gatherers and other traditional communities that can be considered as indigenous peoples according to international standards (ILO Convention No.169 Article 1). Dryland ecosystems are characterized by the limited availability of water and consequently a relatively low primary productivity. However, it is as much the uncertainty of precipitation as the total volume that determines many features of dryland ecosystems, as well as the livelihood strategies of the people. Based on the climatic conditions drylands are divided into dry subhumid, semiarid, arid and hyperarid areas. Drylands host a unique array of biodiversity. About 32% of the global ‘‘biodiversity hotspots’’ are in drylands. At least 30% of the world’s cultivated plants originate in drylands and over 40% of all cultivated lands worldwide are within drylands. According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment there is medium certainty that some 10–20% of the drylands are degraded and affecting the livelihoods of millions of people. Desertification thus ranks among the greatest environmental challenges. However, at the same time it is important not to forget that drylands are very resilient ecosystems. Plant and animal species and microorganism have developed numerous coping strategies to survive the high variability of rainfall – very short life cycles to make use of periods of water availability as well as numerous strategies to escape drought (Bonkoungou and Niamir-Fuller 2001). Drylands that look deserted after a period of drought are not necessarily degraded (MA 2005b; Bonkoungou and Niami-Fuller 2001). Similarly, people living in drylands have developed complex pastoral and cropping systems to cope with the erratic and harsh climate (Bonkoungou and Niamir-Fuller 2001). Scientific studies on the current and projected impact of climate change in drylands are notoriously few. Although climate change will affect different regions in different ways, for drylands in general it is projected that climate change will lead to a decrease in water availability and quality while extreme weather events such as droughts and floods are projected to increase (IPCC 2007a; MA 2005a). In addition, although agricultural productivity is expected to rise in some regions, it will likely decrease overall in drylands (IPCC 2007a; MA 2005a). “Agricultural production, including access to food, in many African countries and regions is projected to be severely compromised by climate variability and change. The area suitable for agriculture, the length of growing seasons and yield potential, particularly along the margins of semi-arid and arid areas, are expected to decrease. This would further adversely affect food security and exacerbate malnutrition in the continent. In some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50% by 2020.” (IPCC 2007a) Water availability in drylands is expected to decrease in the next 40 years by 10-30% while drought-affected areas will likely increase in extent and floods are expected to be more frequent (IPCC 2007a). Overall this is expected to have severe impacts on food security in drylands especially in subsistence sectors (IPCC 2007a) and will be worsened by the expected warming of lakes and rivers with effects on fish productivity. In addition, climate change is projected to overall severely affect the health of especially vulnerable people through malnutrition, decrease in water quality, heat waves, floods, storms, fires and droughts (IPCC 2007a). Impacts of climate change are already felt in drylands. For instance in the Sahelian region crop productivity has dropped due to warmer and drier conditions and thus a shorter growing season (IPCC 2007a). Hence, drylands and the people living in drylands appear to be one of the most affected by climate change, given the already existing water stress, land degradation and the limited capacity to adapt in these regions (IPCC 2007a; MA 2005 a3). Case study: Sudan The drought-prone Bara province is situated in western Sudan and is mainly composed of desert scrub vegetation and ondulating sand dunes. The average rainfall is around 250 mm per year with significant seasonal and inter-annual rainfall variability. The land is becoming increasingly degraded as a result of recurring droughts, cultivation of marginal lands, overstocking of livestock and fuelwood gathering. Since 1992 community based rangeland rehabilitation (CBRR) for carbon sequestration measurements have been implemented in 17 villages in central Bara province. These measurements mainly consisted of the implementation of simple model community-based natural resource management to prevent overexploitation of marginal lands and rehabilitate rangelands and the diversification of local production systems to ensure sustainability of the approach as well as to improve socio-economic conditions. The outcomes of the CBRR project were very successful. Over 700 ha of rangeland were improved. Other achievements of the project included: the establishment of local institutions to coordinate community natural resource management and community development activities, regeneration and stabilization of five km of sand dunes to halt expansion of the desert, construction of windbreaks to protect farms from soil erosion, restocking of livestock by replacing goat herds with more resilient and less damaging sheep, creation of water management sub-committees to better manage wells and the preparation of a drought contingency plan. The main lesson learned was that in order to secure the long-term effectiveness of the achievements of this project it is crucial to build the capacity of the affected communities in order to enable them to cope with climate-induced stresses (IISD, 2003).
My dad makes Global Warming worse!	White House buries climate change deaths report	Mell O	5:26pm S4
	The White House buried a report prepared by US government scientists which detailed a rising death toll from heat waves, fires, disease and smog they predicted would be caused by global warming. Environmental advocates accused President George W Bush's administration of delaying the release of the 149-page report so that it could avoid regulating greenhouse gases. It was prepared as part of a response to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling under the Clean Air Act, which found the Environmental Protection Agency must regulate greenhouse gases unless there was a scientific reason not to, but was not made public until Monday. The report lays out for the first time the scientific case for the grave risks that global warming poses to people, and to the food, energy and water on which society depends. "Risk (to human health, society and the environment) increases with increases in both the rate and magnitude of climate change," scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency said. Global warming, they wrote, is "unequivocal," and humans are to blame. It suggests that extreme weather events and diseases carried by ticks and other organisms could kill more people as temperatures rise and allergies could worsen because climate change could produce more pollen. Smog, a leading cause of respiratory illness and lung disease, could become more severe in many parts of the country. At the same time, global warming could mean fewer illnesses and deaths due to cold. "This document inescapably, unmistakably shows that global warming pollution not only threatens human health and welfare, but it is adversely impacting human health and welfare today," said Vickie Patton, deputy general counsel for the Environmental Defence Fund. "What this document demonstrates is that the imperative for action is now." While scientists have pointed to a link between public health and climate change, the Bush administration has worked to discourage such a connection, fearing that doing so would compel the government to regulate greenhouse gases. On Friday, the White House dismissed the scientists' findings, when it said the Clean Air Act was the wrong tool to control global warming pollution and a new law which dealt solely with global warming was needed. Stephen Johnson, the EPA chief, said through a spokesman that although he knew "the science is clear, and that climate change is a significant issue," he did not want to make a "rash decision under the wrong law".
My dad makes Global Warming worse!	Observations from another small island on the other side of the planet.	Talking shop vi	5:15pm S4
	Take a look at this thru the wrong end of your telescope. http://www.climatefrontlines.org/sites/default/files/Sa...7.pdf
My dad makes Global Warming worse!	Observations from a small island.	Talking shop vi	5:08pm S4
	While you are all sitting in front of your screens, take a look at this. http://www.climatefrontlines.org/sites/default/files/Ca...s.pdf
My dad makes Global Warming worse!	consistent view	Anarchist606	3:27pm S4
	Hansen's actions seem consistent with this view that global warming is a serious issue; thus he is prepared to speak out about it. I am untroubled by the political nature of his actions - as simply being in his position is a political act - and it cuts both was, as he says that the Bush people were censoring his statements a couple of years back. The most important point is that if the whole global warming issue was build around just him, then that might alter you perception of the whole issue. But it is not - he is one of 1000s of scientists working in the area - as he himself says; "The players in the present U.S. temperature story, we scientists included, are just bit players."
My dad makes Global Warming worse!	606 pay attention at the back there	Joe Bloggs	2:50pm S4
	Diversionary tactics 606 answer the charge about Hansen. I've never suggested for a moment that sceptics don't have political connections. What I have been saying is the pro AGW scientists are ALSO vulnerable to the charge of political and financial bias and now we have a concrete example of one of the major players, who should be impartial, openly stepping into the political arena.
My dad makes Global Warming worse!	Night of the living doomers	Joe Bloggs	2:45pm S4
	George you old zombie tickler, what post is it you are attributing to me. I've never suggested anyone thinks CO2 is a poison, I think you must be refering to someone elses post.
My dad makes Global Warming worse!	somthing smells	Anarchist606	2:26pm S4
	This is a little disingenuous, that you cry foul over a scientist attached to the IPCC giving a political opinion when just about all of the scientists linked to the IPCC cited by the denialists have a proven link to political interests. For example; Timothy F. Ball - "consultant" of a Calgary-based global warming skeptic organization called the "Friends of Science" (FOS). In a January 28, 2007 article in the Toronto Star, the President of the FOS admitted that about one-third of the funding for the FOS is provided by the oil industry. Roy Spencer - Spencer is listed as an author for the Heartland Institiute, a US think tank that has received $561,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998. S. Fred Singer - Singer's own "Science and Environmental Policy Project" (SEPP) has recieved $20,000 from ExxonMobil. He also worked with an organization challenging the claims by the US Environmental Protection Agency that second-hand tobacco smoke is bad for human health. Political operators one and all.
My dad makes Global Warming worse!	Born Undead in the USA	George Romero	2:25pm S4
	'We often hear of how we must reduce our carbon footprint. We are told as Americans, that CO2 is a pollutant ' Sorry Yawn. I am not an American. If I was I wouldn't be on Bristol Indymedia. Just to make it completely clear to you, Bristol is in the UK. The UK is not the same as the USA. I wonder why the only people I seem to find making the argument that CO2 is a pollutant are strawman seeking denialists? Even the random post Joe Bloggs found on the net to try and support his ludicrous claim that this is what greens 'believe' spoke of excess CO2, rather than CO2 in itself being a bad thing. Why can't you try debating with the people on here about what they have said to you rather than having to go elsewhere to try and find an argument, or ignoring their responses and moving onto the next oil funded/random blog post you googled then cut and pasted? So still waiting, where has 606, Sy, Boyd, Crash, myself or anyone else you've argued with on Bim claimed that CO2 is a pollutant. Failing that where have the IPCC, NASA, Met Office, Realclimate, or other sources that we've used said that CO2 is a pollutant? Various people hold various views on ACC... If you want to debate the issues with someone, converse with them rather than the desperately seeking strawmen showcase we have repeatedly seen here.
My dad makes Global Warming worse!	Oxygen depletion: A new form of ocean habitat loss	Mell O	2:24pm S4
	Oh dear! Scientists confirm computer model predictions that oxygen-depleted zones in tropical oceans are expanding, possibly because of climate change. An international team of physical oceanographers including a researcher from Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego has discovered that oxygen-poor regions of tropical oceans are expanding as the oceans warm, limiting the areas in which predatory fishes and other marine organisms can live or enter in search of food. The new study is led by Lothar Stramma from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences (IFM-GEOMAR) in Kiel, Germany, and is co-authored by Janet Sprintall, a physical oceanographer at Scripps Oceanography and others. The researchers found through analysis of a database of ocean oxygen measurements that levels in tropical oceans at a depth of 300 to 700 meters (985 to 2,300 feet) have declined during the past 50 years. The ecological impacts of this increase could have substantial biological and economical consequences. “We found the largest reduction in a depth of 300 to 700 meters (985 to 2,300 feet) in the tropical northeast Atlantic, whereas the changes in the eastern Indian Ocean were much less pronounced,” said Stramma. “Whether or not these observed changes in oxygen can be attributed to global warming alone is still unresolved. The reduction in oxygen may also be caused by natural processes on shorter time scales.” Sprintall said the oxygen-poor areas have the potential to move into coastal areas via currents that flow from the mid-depth tropical oceans, where the oxygen changes were observed, and along the west coast of continents. “The width of the low-oxygen zone is expanding deeper but also shoaling toward the ocean surface,” said Sprintall, a specialist in observing changes of fluxes in ocean properties such as heat distribution. Sprintall contributed data to the study gathered during recent cruises undertaken as part of the Climate Variability and Predictability (CLIVAR) program, a long-running study operated by the World Climate Research Programme that seeks to understand climate through ocean-atmosphere interactions. The study, “Expanding Oxygen-Minimum Zones in the Tropical Oceans,” appears in the May 2 edition of the journal Science. The research team includes Stramma, Sprintall, NOAA scientist Gregory Johnson, and Volker Mohrholz from the Institute for Baltic Sea Research in Warnemünde, Germany. The team selected ocean regions for which they could obtain the greatest amount of data to document the decline in oxygen. Some of the more recent data came from oxygen sensors which have been added to about 150 of the profiling floats used in Argo, a worldwide network of sensors that track basic ocean conditions such as temperature and salinity. There are more than 3,000 Argo floats operating in the world’s oceans, and Sprintall said the quality of the data gathered by the Argo floats suggests that more units in the network should be outfitted with oxygen sensors. Lisa Levin, a biological oceanographer at Scripps Oceanography who studies oxygen-minimum zones that intercept the seafloor, said an expansion of oxygen-minimum zones in the oceans could lead to diminished biodiversity and to the expanded distributions of organisms that have adapted to live in hypoxic, or oxygen-poor waters. “I think it’s uncharted territory,” said Levin, who was not affiliated with the study. “Thicker oxygen minimum zones could affect nutrient cycling, predator-prey relationships and plankton migrations. Where the expanding oxygen-minimum zones impinge on continental margins, we could see huge ecosystem changes.”
The BBC in the West is going to name and shame the region's traffic trouble spots.	credible?	Anarchist606	2:17pm S4
	it's as credible as your denialist stuff; As I am not a chemist, nor a marine biologist, it has been interesting, and more than just a little worrying, all at the same time. My conclusion is that there are several damaging processes going on, in connection with increased levels of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere due to the burning of Fossil Fuels. And the link they give goes to a 404 error. That is what you used to suggest that the entire community of those who advocate action on climate change had a credibility problem? A post on some random blog by a person who admits they don't know what they are talking about? I think I see where you might be going wrong: Constructing a straw-man argument from nothing then using that as a stick to beat thousands of research scientists. Kind of a desperate argument IMHO - means you don;t have to do any real science; It is far too easy simply to read something that appeals to your instinct and accept it as fact. We saw evidence of this just a week ago, when a spoof scientific paper citing bacteria as the cause of climate change was picked up and disseminated on several sceptical blogs. The hoax was spotted early, and some bloggers removed their articles; if you search online for "Journal of Geoclimatic Studies" you can follow the trail. The point is that anyone, trained scientist or not, who looked at it with the slightest degree of scepticism would quickly have spotted several things that just did not fit. Yet because it tallied with the sceptical bloggers' world view, it was immediately accepted as "the proof we have been waiting for" that man-made global warming was a hoax.
My dad makes Global Warming worse!	Hansen	Joe Bloggs	1:35pm S4
	Personally I don't think there should have been a trial, there is nothing to be gained by attempting to criminalise people over symbolic acts. I disagree with his wisdom in appearing in a trial because it calls into question his impartiality in this debate. There is a world of difference between expressing fears and concerns about AGW, which he is in many ways obliged to do, if that is his scientific opinion, and attempting to influence the relationship between a foreign government and it' s people which is what he is doing now. One is his job, the other is interference. Yes he was called as a witness for the defence but he could have said no, there was no compulsion on him to come here. Calling a witness for the defence is an attempt to influence the jury into acquitting the people charged. He is an American Scientist, the head of NASA and a lead IPCC author standing in the witness box attempting to influence the outcome of a trial in the UK. That is attempting to interfere by any standards. What clearer evidence do you need before you accept that the IPCC and it's authors have to answer the charge of stepping beyond the bounds of it's remit and entering the political arena. 606 wanted some evidence of bias yesterday, well here it is. In the mainstream media He is supposed to be an impartial scientist providing information to the IPCC so that policy makers can make informed decisions about AGW, not defending individuals accused of crimes. Do you seriously believe that we can now be sure that if contrary evidence appears that we can trust NASA or the IPCC to disclose it, or even to conduct relevant research, don't you think we should be sure.
My dad makes Global Warming worse!	Your Carbon Footprint	Yawn	1:27pm S4
	Your 2007 Carbon Footprint We often hear of how we must reduce our carbon footprint. We are told as Americans, that CO2 is a pollutant and that we release upwards of 20 tons of carbon dioxide per person per year into the atmosphere. This sounds incredible and evokes images of black soot and dirt clogging the air. Most of us have seen the advertisement for the environmental movie with a big muddy boot print, representing our carbon footprint, stomped into the planet. But CO2 is not black or dirty or muddy, it is not even visible, nor can one smell it nor taste it. Because we exhale CO2, a crowded university lecture hall may have 10 times more CO2 than average atmospheric concentrations. While CO2 is not poisonous to animals, it is a necessary airborne fertilizer for plant life. Reducing CO2 to slightly less than half of current concentrations would kill off all green plant life. As concentrations increase, so do plant growth rates and harvests, and many greenhouses and conservatories add CO2 to the air to quickly grow healthy and productive plants. Yet, we are told this trace gas is pollution. We are told that CO2 causes global warming that far exceeds natural variation. We are told, as a result, that we must be concerned about, be aware of and reduce our carbon footprint. There is much scientific data showing CO2 has very little to do with any planetary warming let alone the catastrophic kind. In fact, despite recent increases in CO2, both NASA and the UN's IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) have recently conceded that the earth has entered a natural cooling phase that will last decades. However if you are concerned about the size of your footprint read on: How big is your is your footprint in relation to the atmosphere? Grab a ruler, and let's go for a walk. Make each step about one meter long, so walk as though you are a football referee. As we are walking we will both count each step and do some math. How much CO2 is in the atmosphere? Current estimates put it at 350 -380 parts per million. For ease of computation, we will round it up to the nearest 100, or 400 parts per million. Now let's use that old fashioned math and reduce that down. 400 parts per million is the same as 40 parts per 100,000 and can be reduced further to 4 parts per 10,000. When we have finished taking 10,000 steps, stop and turn around. You have just walked 10,000 meters or 10K, which runners know is roughly 6 miles. At average walking speed this takes about 2 hours. (If you do not want to take the walk, get in your car, and drive 6 miles, just to see how far it is.) Once there, look back at where you started. Remember that all the CO2 in the atmosphere is 4 parts per 10,000. Take 4 steps back towards your starting point. Those four steps out of 6 miles represent the entire amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Global warmists determine that the carbon dioxide caused from man as the amount we have today over what existed before the Industrial Revolution. That is debatable, with some scientists estimating that man is only responsible for 15% of that amount, but for our demonstration purposes we will concede to the alarmists that all the additional CO2 came from Man. One step out of the 6 miles represents man's carbon footprint from the 1880s until today. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL) the entire CO2 increase for the earth in 2007, was 2.4 parts per million. Once again we will assume it is all man made and, furthermore, we will round up to 2.5. The 2007 world wide carbon footprint of 2.5 parts per million translates in our walk to two and one half centimeters, or about 1 inch out of 6 miles. Some environmentalists suggest that the three hundred million people in the United States are responsible for as much as one fifth of all CO2 released in a year. Because it is easier to find ¼ inch on our ruler, let us say that the U.S. population is responsible for one quarter of all CO2 released in the world last year. Look at the ¼ of an inch on your ruler that represents the carbon footprint of the entire U.S.. Now look back over the six miles you walked that represents the entire atmosphere. Next, all you need to do to find your carbon footprint is divide that ¼ inch by 300,000,000. That from http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/your_2007_carbon....html made me smile - should make all of us think - particularly the believers !!
Stop Bristol Airport Expansion Campaign Call For Local Solidarity	Support the expansion	Flyboy	1:20pm S4
	I shall write to support the expansion. I think regional airports are far better than large ones. If you don't like aircraft - don't move to where the are!!!
My dad makes Global Warming worse!	Glad Hansen has been called	Art	1:15pm S4
	Because if he gets cross examined effectively by council who knows their stuff, - the outcome could be very interesting indeed. It is possible (and I am no fan of coal) that new technology IS able to clean up a CFPS. Wouldn't it be ironic if by calling Hansen in and getting his views expertly criticised the believers end up shooting themselves in the foot?
The BBC in the West is going to name and shame the region's traffic trouble spots.	For 606	Yawn	1:09pm S4
	Sorry 606 – I really did not think you were serious (!) as there are references aplenty if you google. Here is one from the top of the list – there are plenty of others http://portal.campaigncc.org/node/1729 which provides another link to http://www.workface-limited.co.uk/html/ocean_poison_200....html Carbon Dioxide : Ocean Poison Submitted by jo on 27 December, 2006 - 00:32 I have been reading a lot recently about ocean processes with regard to the impacts from Global Warming. As I am not a chemist, nor a marine biologist, it has been interesting, and more than just a little worrying, all at the same time. My conclusion is that there are several damaging processes going on, in connection with increased levels of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere due to the burning of Fossil Fuels. Excess levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are effectively poisoning the seas, killing marine life due to ocean acidification, anoxia and thermal interference. Global Warming is bad enough, with the attendant Climate Change. Ocean Death is going to be much, much worse. This is the thing that has rarely been mentioned : the acute reason why we need to stop the excess emissions of Carbon Dioxide is that this gas, combined with the Global Warming that it contributes to, could cause the largest extinction on the planet since the death of the dinosaurs. And that will mean everything living, not just the creatures and plants of the seas. Please read more. Perhaps start here :- http://www.workface-limited.co.uk/html/ocean_poison_200....html Ooooooooooooer! Scary!!!!
My dad makes Global Warming worse!	No I don't think so Dances	Art	12:52pm S4
	Hansen just thinks he does. Most credible climate scientists cringe at his willingness to prostitute himself by taking sides politically. I would say he is a spent force now in "real science" and is setting up a new career - rather like his mate Al Gore who used the film to push the idea of carbon credits and what does Gore do now? - Run a firm that trades in Carbon Credits that will make the proverbial "killing" when carbon credits become compulsory. Spooky that
My dad makes Global Warming worse!	Maybe you ASSUME too much 'joe bloggs' ?	DOOMER

Calendar