News In the meantime, what about climate change?

  • Thread starter alexandra
  • Start date

alexandra

The insatiable greed for profit is leading to who knows what disasters. While everyone focuses on the latest bout of terrorism (which is a reaction to a cycle of acts of terrorism that are bound to increase), this is what the scientists are saying:
Urgency 'vital' in climate talks
Climate campaigners have urged G8 leaders not to lose sight of the urgent need to tackle greenhouse emissions as well as develop clean technologies.

At the G8 summit in Gleneagles, the US and UK leaders called for a new consensus on climate change.

They said it was time to replace a focus on Kyoto-style curbs on emissions with research into clean technology.

But others warn new technology will come too late and emissions targets are needed to tackle the problem.... More: At the G8 summit in Gleneagles, the US and UK leaders called for a new consensus on climate change.

They said it was time to replace a focus on Kyoto-style curbs on emissions with research into clean technology.

But others warn new technology will come too late and emissions targets are needed to tackle the problem.

More: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4660079.stm
The following statement calling for the restoration of scientific integrity in policy-making in the US has been signed by over 6000 scientists:
statement
Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policymaking

Successful application of science has played a large part in the policies that have made the United States of America the world’s most powerful nation and its citizens increasingly prosperous and healthy. Although scientific input to the government is rarely the only factor in public policy decisions, this input should always be weighed from an objective and impartial perspective to avoid perilous consequences. Indeed, this principle has long been adhered to by presidents and administrations of both parties in forming and implementing policies. The administration of George W. Bush has, however, disregarded this principle.

When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions....

For example, in support of the president’s decision to avoid regulating emissions that cause climate change, the administration has consistently misrepresented the findings of the National Academy of Sciences, government scientists, and the expert community at large. Thus in June 2003, the White House demanded extensive changes in the treatment of climate change in a major report by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). To avoid issuing a scientifically indefensible report, EPA officials eviscerated the discussion of climate change and its consequences.

More: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1320 [Broken]
Many of the signatories are highly respected in their fields:
Signers of the scientists' statement on scientific integrity include 49 Nobel laureates, 63 National Medal of Science recipients, and 154 members of the National Academies. Reference: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1335 [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The reason why the US seek to replace Kyoto-style emission limits is that they refused to try it. The reason the UK seek to replace Kyoto-style emission limits is that they tried it and failed, and then tried to cover it up. Just sounds like the environment is being put on the back burner to me... no doubt releasing more CO2 of its own.
 
279
0
Amen to getting science back into policymaking! I've heard one case after another of non-scientists being put into advisory roles on many issues related to the environment.
 

alexandra

pattylou said:
Amen to getting science back into policymaking! I've heard one case after another of non-scientists being put into advisory roles on many issues related to the environment.
Here are some specific examples identified by the Union of Concerned Scientists ( http://www.ucsusa.org/index.cfm [Broken] )
In conjunction with the scientists' statement on scientific integrity, the Union of Concerned Scientists released two reports detailing multiple examples of the Bush administration's unprecedented manipulation, distortion, and suppression of government science....

Science Advisory Committees

Fogarty International Center Advisory Board: Qualified scientists, including a Nobel Laureate, were rejected after being subjected to political litmust tests.

President's Council on Bioethics: Two leading scientists were dismissed from the panel because of dissenting opinions on the ethics of biomedical research.

Arms Control Panel: A scientific committee that advised the State Department on matters of arms control was dismissed and never reappointed.

Army Science Board: An engineer was rejected from a panel because of a contribution to John McCain's 2000 presidential bid.

National Nuclear Security Administration Panel: A committee set up to advise the administration on scientific issues regarding the maintenance nation's nuclear weapons stockpile and the design and testing of new nuclear warheads was dismissed.

NIH: Drug Abuse Panel: Potential panel members were asked if they voted for President Bush.

Lead Poisoning Prevention Panel: Staff-recommended scientists are rejected from a panel considering acceptable levels of lead in drinking water and replaced by appointees with financial ties to the lead industry.

Workplace Safety Panel: Well-qualified scientists were rejected from a panel that evaluates grants for workplace injuries because of their support for a workplace ergonomics standard.

Reproductive Health Advisory Committee: An underqualified nominee was suggested as chair of an FDA committee on reproductive health despite scant credentials and highly partisan political views.

Reference: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1398 [Broken] (More details about each issue can be obtained by clicking on links from this page)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

alexandra

An unequivocal statement from a reputable source that there is solid evidence that action must be taken NOW:
Lord May of Oxford, President of the UK's academy of science, the Royal Society, believes opening a dialogue on climate change is not nearly enough.

"At the heart of the communiqué is a disappointing failure by the leaders of the G8 unequivocally to recognise the urgency with which we must be addressing the global threat of climate change," he said.

"Make no mistake, the science already justifies reversing - not merely slowing - the global growth of greenhouse gas emissions. Further delays will make the G8's avowed commitment in this communiqué to avoid dangerous impacts of climate change extremely difficult. More: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4664549.stm
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,851
5,042
That action needs to be taken now is an easy, yet utterly useless thing to say. What is difficult about this issue is figuring out precisly what action needs to be taken and who needs to be taking it.
 
38
165
Those in power

Sadly to say there is little that can be done until the government and the big energy companies stop filtering science and ethics through their wallets.

I see Bush's suggestion that we need to start building nuclear power plants as a ploy. The American people as a whole are afraid of nuclear anything. Both Bush and the energy companies are aware of this fear.

The American general public doesn't seem to react to anything unless they can be convinced that there is a "grave and gathering danger". Ultimately the path we must take is to somehow convince the public that this new "grave and gathering danger" exists, and that this one is real.
 
Last edited:

Pengwuino

Gold Member
4,854
14
Of course, every single thing no matter what it is has to be controlled by this "big energy" entity and no matter what Bush does, its a ploy and a lie. There must be some sort of underground handbook that dictates how all issues must be blamed on Bush.
 
38
165
Penqwuino
It is fact that the Bush family is tied to big energy more closely than any other first family in history. For the most part every politician in the last 15 or 20 years carries some blame because they chose to look the other way, but right now GW is the go to guy if anything is to be done.

That underground handbook you mention is probably the same one used to Bash Bill and Hillary. Only the names have been changed to protect the innocent :smile:
 
Last edited:

Pengwuino

Gold Member
4,854
14
Any proof of that not on a geocities website or accompanied by "9/11 destroyed by C4" pages? And of course, why its relevant woudl be a great accompanying fact.
 
Pengwuino said:
Of course, every single thing no matter what it is has to be controlled by this "big energy" entity and no matter what Bush does, its a ploy and a lie. There must be some sort of underground handbook that dictates how all issues must be blamed on Bush.
Conversely, there seems to be a republican mental filter that blocks the obvious.

Bush Jr, Bush Sr, Cheney, Halliburton/convicted, Enron, Bandar Bin Sultan/al Qieda, seem to be blocked.

The words come out of Bush's mouth WMD, humanitarian, free the people, not about oil and republicans believe it however what we see is.

1) oil ministry seized.
2) Hospitals ignored
3) infrastructure ignored
4) Weapons caches ignored
5) Ministry of defense ignored (Where you'd expect to find documentation on WMD)
6) Any and all reports from govenment agencies disputing the WMD/al Qieda connection ignored and contradicted up until and including last weeks speech from Bush.​

Come on, thiat isn't a conspiracy theory. Those are all facts.

You even have Bandar admitting state funding of terrorism on Meet the Press which was an excuse for invasion og Iraq and the fact that 14 of the 19 terrorists on 9/11 were Saudi:

NBC NEWS MEET THE PRESS said:
MR. RUSSERT: Prince, the former general consul to the Department of Treasury, David Aufhauser...

PRINCE BANDAR: Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: ...a professional, a lawyer, testifying under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Question: "With regard to the trail of money ... and whether it leads in some cases to Saudi Arabia?" Aufhauser: "In many cases it is the epicenter." Question: "And does that trail of money also show money going to al Qaeda?" Aufhauser: "Yes." "Is the money from Saudi Arabia a significant source of funding for terrorism generally?" Aufhauser: "Yes. Principally al Qaeda but many other recipients as well."

This was the scene in April 2002, when your king, a state-sponsored telethon--and look at these pictures--raised over $92 million and the money was "for Palestinian martyrs"...

PRINCE BANDAR: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: ...suicide bombers who blew up Israeli children, school buses, restaurants. Here's the Treasury Department of the United States saying that Saudi money is funding al-Qaeda. You're having telethons raising money for Palestine suicide bombers, and you sit here and say, "How could people say these terrible things about us?"

PRINCE BANDAR: Yes, I say that very easily because nothing stands still. If you are saying before 9/11 we didn't have our thing together, yes, but nor did you. Look what 9/11 is showing. However, since...

MR. RUSSERT: This was April of 2003.

PRINCE BANDAR: I understand. Since then, since 9/11, when after we recovered from the shock, we looked at all our procedures, and we have come through and we're proud of it.


Full Transcript
I'd be more worried about the conspiracy of silence and denial.
 
Last edited:

Pengwuino

Gold Member
4,854
14
That seems weird because lets see... oh yes, Cheney doesnt make a cent out of halliburton contracts. Oh and again wait, did Halliburton get a no-bid contract under Clinton? Well might as well look around the balkins for a certain military base built by them.

Enron execs TRIED under Bush Jr. Yah... wooo, huge energy connection there. Nevermind most of the illegal stuff happened under Clinton. Do you democrats even think about what you say? Or is it just denial as usual.

And exactly why wouldnt you seize the oil ministry? The lifeblood of the iraqi economy should be ignored? Ever check UNICEF and UN reports on the numberous hospitals rebuilt after the US forces took over? I didnt think so...

October 6th, 2003, power distributions reach pre-war levels
All colleges and education institutions are open
As of october 1st, 2003, 1500 schools renovated
All hospitals are open along with 1200 clinics
22 million vaccinations

need i go on?

Lets turn this into another iraq sucks/bush sucks thread :grumpy:
 
Last edited:
Pengwuino said:
That seems weird because lets see... oh yes, Cheney doesnt make a cent out of halliburton contracts.
D'ja think he might return to his old job on severance from his current one?

Pengwuino said:
Oh and again wait, did Halliburton get a no-bid contract under Clinton? Well might as well look around the balkins for a certain military base built by them.
I don't know. Were they charged with criminal overbilling then too?

Pengwuino said:
Enron execs TRIED under Bush Jr. Yah... wooo, huge energy connection there. Nevermind most of the illegal stuff happened under Clinton. Do you democrats even think about what you say? Or is it just denial as usual.
You assume I care about Clinton. Enron paid into both parties according to the contributions disclosure. They bought influence either way but it was BUSH who allowed them to hire the regulator of their industry from an office in the white house.

Pengwuino said:
And exactly why wouldnt you seize the oil ministry? The lifeblood of the iraqi economy should be ignored? Ever check UNICEF and UN reports on the numberous hospitals rebuilt after the US forces took over? I didnt think so...
You cause me to question your intelligence. What does an office have to do with the production of oil and why should it concern you if you were there for the WMD? Why were you not in the science ministry or the defence ministry

Pengwuino said:
October 6th, 2003, power distributions reach pre-war levels
All colleges and education institutions are open
As of october 1st, 2003, 1500 schools renovated
All hospitals are open along with 1200 clinics
22 million vaccinations

need i go on?
And this has what to do with the people who died when the local hospitals were robbed of supplies while the US military was guarding some receipts in the oil ministry?

Pengwuino said:
Lets turn this into another iraq sucks/bush sucks thread :grumpy:
Don't post absurd statements unless you want responses then.

What you are essentially saying is that it is okay for you to have your opinion but not the rest of us to have them?

Oh, and oil is not the life's blood of any country.

PEOPLE are the life's blood of any country.

By making that statement, you infer what it is that motivated you in your support of your armed forces protecting the oil ministry while the hospitals were looted.
 

Pengwuino

Gold Member
4,854
14
Wow that was rather hilarious to read.

"They did they protect the oil ministry"
"because its how the economies run..."
"why does an office building matter?"

You seem to ask me why they did protect a building by implying that it is of extreme importance and then you say "oh well its not important!"

Lets see what else... oh yes, you dodged the fact that they were taken down under this administration... thats rather typical.

Oh there we go.
You go "they iddnt protect the infrastructure"
I go "oh wait, heres a bunch of infrastructure they did protect"
then you go "Well well what about a few people who died! yah, see, people shouldnt die when there being invaded"

You amaze me to no end. Shouldnt you be posting at the DU?
 
Last edited:

alexandra

The Smoking Man said:
What you are essentially saying is that it is okay for you to have your opinion but not the rest of us to have them?
Not if it questions the status quo, TSM. We have to all agree with the powers that be, all the time - then we can express our opinions. An interesting way of working through the pressing issues that we face in these very dangerous times, don't you think? :rolleyes:
 
Pengwuino said:
Wow that was rather hilarious to read.

"They did they protect the oil ministry"
"because its how the economies run..."
"why does an office building matter?"

You seem to ask me why they did protect a building by implying that it is of extreme importance and then you say "oh well its not important!"

Lets see what else... oh yes, you dodged the fact that they were taken down under this administration... thats rather typical.

Oh there we go.
You go "they iddnt protect the infrastructure"
I go "oh wait, heres a bunch of infrastructure they did protect"
then you go "Well well what about a few people who died! yah, see, people shouldnt die when there being invaded"

You amaze me to no end. Shouldnt you be posting at the DU?
You should be amazed too!

Infrastructure is not oil.

What you presuppose to be infrastructure is absurd.

Infrastructure is what a population needs to survive ... to cling to life.

You have just equated the future earnings of a country being delayed by failing to protecting paperwork to the wanton ransacking of hospitals and the denial of clean water and electricity to a population.

Let's put it this way to see if you can gain what we in the 'real world' call perspective ... infrastrucure is what human rights organizations ship to a populace when they are in distress. I don't particularly think they ship paperwork to the starving, the wounded, the ill and the dehydrated. Nor do they ship crude oil.

Then, when seeking WMD which is what was said to the UN by way of the first of many excuses, you don't wage a pitched battle and protect the Oil Ministry. You go for research facilities and departments of defense. These are the places where you will find battle plans and records as to weapons caches especially when you have men on the ground who are still vulnerable to attack.

What you have just done is to call not even OIL 'the essentials for survival' (infrastructure) but the paperwork over previous transactions. You just declared PAPERWORK in the oil ministry more important than well stocked hospitals used to tend to the sick and the wounded.

You have in fact confirmed the perverse notion of a sad set of national leaders currently residing in the USA that OIL was the reason for the invasion and the people were not even close to the top of the list as a priority.

A nation concerned with the liberation and well being of a people first ensures their survival before they ensure their wealth ... after all, what one single person stood a better chance of survival in all of Iraq knowing that the oil ministry was safe.

Your post was in fact so absurd, it is hard to believe you are not a troll.

After all, when faced with the maintenance of a hospital on a battlefield or a government office maintaining records, who in their right mind chooses an office?
 
Last edited:
alexandra said:
Not if it questions the status quo, TSM. We have to all agree with the powers that be, all the time - then we can express our opinions. An interesting way of working through the pressing issues that we face in these very dangerous times, don't you think? :rolleyes:
You can't see me right now but I have my comb under my nose, my arm in the air and I am goose stepping around my living room.
:eek:
 

Pengwuino

Gold Member
4,854
14
Are you dense or just absolutely un-educated on the facts of Iraq?

Guess what PAYS for the stuff that country uses? Guess... come on, this should be really easy.

The way you spout illogical ideolog lines makes me think your an uninformed troll. I've seen many in my day...
 
Pengwuino said:
Are you dense or just absolutely un-educated on the facts of Iraq?

Guess what PAYS for the stuff that country uses? Guess... come on, this should be really easy.

The way you spout illogical ideolog lines makes me think your an uninformed troll. I've seen many in my day...
No doubt shaving is a beatch.
 
Pengwuino said:
Are you dense or just absolutely un-educated on the facts of Iraq?

Guess what PAYS for the stuff that country uses? Guess... come on, this should be really easy.

The way you spout illogical ideolog lines makes me think your an uninformed troll. I've seen many in my day...
Are you telling me that paperwork 'pays for infrastructure'?

Are you trying to equate the protection of a building in Baghdad with the protection of an oil field?

Are you going to tell me that the soldiers all ran around with an armload of invoices to the dead and dying or presented them with stock options in lieu of morphine?

Do you know the difference between a battle and reconstruction and when each occurs?

I can see why the USA has a problem winning the 'hearts and minds' when you clearly demonstrate posession of neither.
 
Pengwuino said:
The way you spout illogical ideolog lines makes me think your an uninformed troll. I've seen many in my day...
Troll away ... This is how uninformed I am.

Where do you get your information... Limbaugh, Hannity... Or maybe just Faux News?

[PLAIN said:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/04/12/MN304117.DTL]HOSPITALS[/PLAIN] [Broken] RANSACKED

But with hospitals being ransacked and many Baghdadis wary of being on the streets, the resumption of normal life and services appeared remote.

The mayhem started Wednesday, the day after U.S. troops rolled into central Baghdad. Poor residents from Saddam City, a mostly Shiite area to the east, started breaking into government offices and houses of top officials of the Hussein regime and carting off furniture and equipment.

By late Friday, looters had hit:

-- The Iraqi Museum, and the Saddam Arts Center.

-- Many hospitals.

-- Nearly all government ministries, businesses and headquarters.

-- All state-owned supermarkets.

-- Most public universities, including the engineering and nursing colleges.


-- Many embassies, including those of Germany, Finland, South Korea, China, Jordan and Turkey, the French cultural center and the headquarters of UNICEF.

-- Most state-owned factories, including Baghdad plants that make auto batteries, electronics and electrical gear.

-- Three five-star hotels: the Al-Rashid, the Al-Mansour and the Babel.

In some neighborhoods, residents erected street barricades of tiles, huge rocks and sandbags to keep looters out. In others, they started creating their own vigilante forces.

Gunbattles broke out between packs of looters and people defending their property, and the city's hospitals on Friday took in more casualties from rioting and looting than from the war.
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030411-093717-2633r said:
U.S. and British forces in Iraq have been accused of breaching the Geneva Conventions by failing to protect hospitals in Baghdad from looters, the United Nations has claimed.

The U.N. office of the humanitarian coordinator for Iraq said one of Baghdad's biggest hospitals, al-Kindi, had been ransacked and access to medical centers was almost impossible because of the "breakdown of law and order."
[PLAIN said:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/04/11/MN278979.DTL]HOSPITALS[/PLAIN] [Broken] LOOTED

One of Baghdad's principal medical centers, the al-Kindi hospital, was also a target. After three weeks of American bombing, the wards were filled with civilians suffering from blast and shrapnel wounds, and its morgue filled, too, with those killed in the conflict. Yet on Thursday the hospital took the full brunt of the looting.

Nada Doumani, an official of the International Committee of the Red Cross, said the sprawling hospital complex had lost beds, electrical fittings and other equipment, exacerbating the crisis already afflicting all of Baghdad's medical centers.

"Security in the city is very bad, and people are not daring to go to the hospitals," Doumani told Reuters. "Small hospitals have closed their doors, and big hospitals are inaccessible."

At one hospital, looters disconnected air-conditioning units and drove them away in trucks, according to Roland Huguenin-Benjamin, a spokesman for the International Committee of the Red Cross.

"What kind of sense of rebuilding a country can you have if people are removing air conditioners from hospitals?" Huguenin-Benjamin said. "It has been an ugly 48 hours."
[PLAIN said:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,934680,00.html]And[/PLAIN] [Broken] this morning the international development secretary, Clare Short, called on the military to make a "massively bigger effort" to end looting and chaos in Iraq.

Hospitals have been ransacked as the jubilation which marked coalition victories has turned to lawlessness.

"The coalition forces seem to be unable to restrain the looters or impose any sort of controls on the mobs that now govern the streets," the UNOHCI said in a statement.

"This inaction by the occupying powers is in violation of the Geneva conventions, which explicitly state that medical establishments must be protected, that the wounded and sick must be the object of particular protection and respect, and that hospital personnel must be protected and must be free to carry on their duties."

It added: "This situation not only endangers the lives of the war wounded, but of all patients who need regular treatment, such as dialysis in city's hospitals."


The organisation, which has no personnel in Iraq, said it was given an assessment of the situation in Baghdad yesterday by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) who has a media liaison officer in the capital.

"The picture he painted over the phone can be summed up in two words: anarchy and chaos. There is no law and no order at the moment in Baghdad," said the UNOHCI.

But despite the bleak picture the ICRC has resumed its visits to hospitals in Baghdad saying the security situation was still "volatile".

A UNOHCI spokeswoman based in the Jordanian capital Amman said as soon as it could guarantee the security of its staff it would be sending humanitarian aid into Iraq.

Ms Short, speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, said that "there must be a much bigger effort to stop this looting and violence".

She said: "We had looting in Basra, but it is a lot better in Basra now. But we need a massively bigger effort.

"It should focus on hospitals. There were lots of injured people. The Red Cross can't get through. There isn't water, there isn't power, they are running out of drugs. It is an absolute priority to make the hospitals safer."
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Related Threads for: In the meantime, what about climate change?

Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
499
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
129
Views
14K
  • Poll
  • Posted
5 6 7
Replies
157
Views
23K
  • Posted
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • Posted
2
Replies
30
Views
7K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top