SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: geode00 who wrote (226254)4/6/2007 8:07:58 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
An Alternative Analysis of The 9/11 Mysteries...This 90 minute documentary is worth watching (with a broadband connection)...

video.google.com

-s2@SecretsCanNotBeKeptForeEver.com



To: geode00 who wrote (226254)4/6/2007 9:08:05 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
Emissions Already Affecting Climate, Report Finds
____________________________________________________________

By ANDREW C. REVKIN
THE NEW YORK TIMES
April 6, 2007

For the first time in nearly two decades of reviewing research on global warming, the main international group studying climate change has found that heat-trapping emissions from industry and other activities are already influencing weather patterns and ecology in ways both harmful and beneficial.

But the group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said the long-term outlook, should temperatures rise 3 to 5 more degrees fahrenheit, was mainly for damaging and costly effects, ranging from the likely extinction of perhaps a fourth of the world’s species to eventual inundation of coasts and islands inhabited by hundreds of millions of people.

Particularly at risk, it said, are communities and ecosystems on the crowded shores of southern Asia and small islands, as well as ecosystems in places seeing the biggest climate changes, including the Arctic, coral reefs, and dry areas around the tropics.

The report, written by hundreds of scientists and reviewed by outside experts and government officials, warned that change is essential because decades of rising temperatures and seas are already inevitable due to the buildup of carbon dioxide and other long-lived greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

But it said that efforts to reduce emissions could reduce, delay or avoid some harmful outcomes.

Final details were completed by hundreds of scientists in Brussels early today and approved by officials from more than 100 countries. The report, focusing on measured and projected impacts of warming and possible responses, was scheduled to be posted on the Web this morning at www.ipcc.ch.

Some authors said the report removed any doubt about the urgency of acting to curb emissions of greenhouse gases.

“The warnings are clear about the scale of the projected changes to the planet,” said Bill Hare, an author of the impacts report and visiting scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Potsdam, Germany. “Essentially there’s going to be a mass extinction within the next 100 years unless climate change is limited,” added Dr. Hare, who previously worked for the environmental group Greenpeace.

“These impacts have been known for many years, and are now seen with greater clarity in this report,” he said. “That clarity is perhaps the last warning we’re going to get before we actually have to report in the next IPCC review that we’re seeing the disaster unfolding.”

James L. Connaughton, the chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said some of the findings in the report, particularly the prospect of intensifying coastal damage from rising seas, were “of great concern,” but noted the panel also foresaw benefits to agriculture in temperate regions.

Overall, he said, the analysis reinforced the importance of industrialized countries working to help developing countries cut their vulnerability to climate shocks by fostering their economic growth.

One of the most dramatic shifts in prospects laid out in the report is a projected overheating and parching of southern Europe, particularly in summer, and blossoming of northern regions.

“In Southern Europe, climate change is very likely to have negative impacts by increasing risk to health due to more frequent heat waves, reducing water availability and hydropower, endangering crop production, and increasing the frequency of wildfires,” the report said.

“In Northern Europe, climate change is likely to bring benefits in the form of reduced exposure to cold periods, increased crop yields, increased forest and Atlantic waters productivity, and augmented hydropower potential.”

But it emphasized that outsize impacts would mainly imperil communities in Africa, the crowded river deltas of southern Asia, and low islands.

It also found that if investments are made to adapt to climate and coastal changes, some disruption and damage could be held at bay.

In one section, for example, the report projects the number of people who would be flooded out of homes by rising seas by 2080 under various scenarios for warming. A midrange warming of 3.5 degrees by then could affect some 60 million additional people a year worldwide without adaptation efforts, but if investments in sea walls and other actions limiting flooding continued at the current pace, the number would drop to a few million a year.

The panel, created in 1988 and run under the auspices of the United Nations, has sometimes endured criticism for allowing governments to shape the summaries of its periodic reviews of climate science, which fill thousands of pages of reports.

But it remains, by many accounts, the closest thing to a barometer for tracking the level of scientific understanding of the causes and consequences of global warming.

The report released today on measured and projected impacts of warming follows the main science review released in February, which for the first time concluded with 90 percent confidence that emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases were the main force warming the world since 1950.

Next month, the panel is to release a report on options for limiting emissions of greenhouse gases and late in the year it is to publish a final synthesis report.



To: geode00 who wrote (226254)4/6/2007 6:42:04 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 281500
 
Bushies remember they can't recall
______________________________________________________________

By MARIANNE MEANS
SYNDICATED COLUMNIST
April 4, 2007

WASHINGTON -- The oldest legal dodge in the political witness testimony game is to simply say, "I can't remember." The Bush administration did not invent this hoary old practice, but his chosen few have certainly elevated the claim of bad memory to new extremes. This transparent verbal duck has become so blatant that it is a major factor in the Bush presidency's collapse of credibility.

What the president and his minions say seldom seems relevant to what really is going on. It's the political equivalent of "Upstairs, Downstairs." Pleading memory loss, of course, avoids the alternate pitfalls of perjury under oath, which carries severe legal consequences, or telling embarrassing truths, which is not illegal but may be punishable by social ostracism and loss of employment.

One of the sharpest impressions from the Watergate crimes in the 1970s was President Nixon's private advice to key aides, preserved on tape, that "You can always say you can't recall." (He became an unindicted co-conspirator and they went to jail anyway.) Bush officials, unaccustomed to tough questions from lawmakers and the voters about shadowy dealings in the six years Republicans controlled Capitol Hill, have suddenly been exposed to the sunlight of public scrutiny. For three months, GOP biggies have hid behind astonishing gaps of memory to weasel out of accountability for their actions. This would be silly were it not so serious. Public policy is, after all, at stake. At its annual banquet the Gridiron Club -- that venerable, elite Washington journalist's organization -- ridiculed the whole fibbing culture with singers representing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and ex-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in a political version of "I Remember it Well."

Rumsfeld sings, "Was there a war? Do you recall?" Rice replies, "I'm pretty sure." Rumsfeld continues, "We planned it all." Rice: "Ah yes, I remember it well." Rumsfeld: "They welcomed us, with open arms." Rice: "They opened fire! They set off bombs!" Rumsfeld concedes, "Oh, right. I remember it well." The song brought down the house. Even Republican-inclined guests laughed heartily.

The White House is trying to protect its key advisers from the spectacle that sank Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby with a guilty verdict for perjury and obstruction of justice. The jury didn't believe his claim that he didn't remember anything well -- or much of anything at all.

That's why the president is demanding that key advisers will not testify before Congress under oath or provide recorded transcripts. It's virtually an admission that there is much to hide.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales apparently can barely remember what day it is and what room he's in. Asked to describe under oath his role in the arbitrary mid-term firings of eight U.S. attorneys, he testified that he was not in the loop on any discussions about what was going on. "I don't recall being involved."

Justice Department e-mails, however, contradict that innocent pose. Gonzales' former chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson, recalled events differently, claiming that Gonzales had been clued in all along. Despite an effort to assume some blame, Sampson too had trouble with his memory. He used the phrase "I don't remember" 122 times, by media count. In particular, he claimed "I don't remember" when asked about the scope of White House aide Karl Rove's participation.

One way out of this witness pickle is to take the Fifth Amendment, exercising the constitutional right to remain silent under questioning. Everyone is free to do that, but it is not something that the innocent usually do. It's what Justice Department counsel Monica Goodling did -- and guess what? Surprise, surprise! She was not fired.

Then there is the case of General Services Administration chief Lurita Doan, called to Congress to explain a no-bid contract to a business associate, a dispute with a technology company -- and, most important, a videoconference with top GOP political appointees in which attendees said she urged them to find ways to target Democrats and help Republicans in 2008.

The chief presenter of a 28-page partisan pitch at this meeting was J. Scott Jennings, Rove's deputy. Yet Doan insisted, "I honestly don't have a recollection of the presentation at all." Nor did she remember "actually saying" that participants should help "our candidates." Doan may have developed her bad memory when exposed as facing a probable violation of the Hatch Act, which prohibits political activity by government employees and carries penalties.

Memory lapses are not confined to Republicans, of course. They just happen to be the ones who have the most mistakes to explain these days. Democrats have been denied power in Washington so long they haven't had time to get into big trouble yet. After 2008, perhaps their turn will come.

*Marianne Means is a Washington, D.C., columnist with Hearst Newspapers. Copyright 2007 Hearst Newspapers. She can be reached at 202-263-6400 or means@hearstdc.com.