If you don't want kids, that's your business, but to say that we shouldn't do a thing, shouldn't lift a finger, shouldn't be open to the idea that change is constant and that we may be responsible for it, is a pretty ignorant statement.
personal attacks? whatever, nowhere did I attack you. That's when I stop this BS. You're crazy, and I'm not playing your game anymore.
First you say I'm ignorant, they refute that by saying I'm crazy?
What about anything else I said?
I'm open to ideas, just not insults or brush offs without an explanation.
You said my ideas were ignorant, and left it at that.
when I said I don't like being attacked, you called me crazy.
that's not a free exchange of Ideas.
Sorry
here's the thing. the greenhouse effect is a proven effect. no one disputes this. no one disputes that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. No one disputes that the earth is getting warmer. No one disputes that we've emitted a lot of CO2 during the same period that the earth has gotten warmer. in science there's a thing called correlation and causation. we've got correlation. anyone can make up reasons to dispute causation. but there are the facts, take what you will from it. causation is extremely hard to prove.
also, the government edits scientific papers involving climate change. don't forget that.
oh and for the person who said "what harm can there be in polluting less." Well here's the thing, CO2 and methane are the 2 biggest problems when it comes to climate change, and these aren't really pollutants so to speak. in fact EPA is not allowed to classify them as pollutants (there was a recent supreme court ruling that may have changed this but I'm not sure what effect it's had yet, I don't think any yet). CO2 in the air can't really harm a person or ecosystem DIRECTLY EXCEPT for greenhouse effects. that's why whether or not there is global warming is an issue. *pollutant-pollutants* from the usual sources are already regulated. CO2 is not. Without climate change there would be no reason to regulate CO2.
All I know is, I went to environmental management school for 2 years, and I'm pretty well convinced there's a climate change problem.
The government (Al Gore) spent billions to prove there's global warming.
and the government (GW Bush) says that global warming is a problem.
And the amount of CO2 (some people say) has been higher in the past without a severe rise in temperature.
so what if we're all so concerned about CO2, and it turns out to be something else entirely?
of course i'm a skeptic all the time, so maybe it's just me.
The government (Al Gore) spent billions to prove there's global warming.
and the government (GW Bush) says that global warming is a problem.
And the amount of CO2 (some people say) has been higher in the past without a severe rise in temperature.
so what if we're all so concerned about CO2, and it turns out to be something else entirely?
of course i'm a skeptic all the time, so maybe it's just me.
CO2 is the something we can change. if climate change is happening because of the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, then it is fault of humans burning fossil fuels and cutting down trees.
there's never been higher CO2 emitted into the atmosphere than there has been since the industrial revolution and the mass burning of fossil fuels. I've never heard that argument before.
as for the government's role: yes, the bush administration gives a lot of the correct lip service about climate change. HOWEVER, little has been done. 1) EPA is not even allowed to talk about climate change or regulate CO2 2) scientific papers are edited to reflect "uncertainty" by lawyers more than the scientists who authored them intended. 3) the kyoto protocol was not ratified and congress has yet to even propose a feasible carbon bill (and everything is watered down from anything that would actually help anyway).
i honestly don't think there's much to be skeptical about the case of climate change.
CO2 is the something we can change. if climate change is happening because of the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, then it is fault of humans burning fossil fuels and cutting down trees.
there's never been higher CO2 emitted into the atmosphere than there has been since the industrial revolution and the mass burning of fossil fuels. I've never heard that argument before.
i honestly don't think there's much to be skeptical about the case of climate change.
Earth's climate and atmosphere have varied greatly over geologic time. Our planet has mostly been much hotter and more humid than we know it to be today, and with far more carbon dioxide (the greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere than exists today. The notable exception is 300,000,000 years ago during the late Carboniferous Period, which resembles our own climate and atmosphere like no other.
Earth's climate and atmosphere have varied greatly over geologic time. Our planet has mostly been much hotter and more humid than we know it to be today, and with far more carbon dioxide (the greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere than exists today. The notable exception is 300,000,000 years ago during the late Carboniferous Period, which resembles our own climate and atmosphere like no other.
Current arguments for global warming seem to start with the theory that the earth is as it was, and as it should be. That's where I have a problem.
no one disputes that the earth's climate changes over time. that is a fact and everyone agrees with it. You are wrong to say that arguments for climate change start with the theory that the earth was as it should be.If this is the argument you've been hearing then it is from someone who has no idea what they are talking about. No climate scientist would ever claim that the earth's climates do not vary over time. the issue is the impact of human activity on messing up the earth's natural climate cycles. the climate is changing faster than it usually does, and it correlates with the industrial period. given that time correlation, and the fact that if you burn fossil fuels CO2 is released, and given that we've burned sooooo much more fossil fuel in the industrial period than ever before, and given that CO2 is proven to cause a greenhouse effect, the correlation seems pretty strong. Again, causation...difficult to prove, sometimes you never can prove causation. Extent? also difficult to show without causation, but science is getting closer and closer to measuring the extent of human activity on climate change. And the VAST majority of researchers in the field agree that the evidence suggests that human fossil fuel activity does have an effect on climate change.
no one disputes that the earth's climate changes over time. that is a fact and everyone agrees with it. You are wrong to say that arguments for climate change start with the theory that the earth was as it should be.If this is the argument you've been hearing then it is from someone who has no idea what they are talking about. No climate scientist would ever claim that the earth's climates do not vary over time. the issue is the impact of human activity on messing up the earth's natural climate cycles. the climate is changing faster than it usually does, and it correlates with the industrial period. given that time correlation, and the fact that if you burn fossil fuels CO2 is released, and given that we've burned sooooo much more fossil fuel in the industrial period than ever before, and given that CO2 is proven to cause a greenhouse effect, the correlation seems pretty strong. Again, causation...difficult to prove, sometimes you never can prove causation. Extent? also difficult to show without causation, but science is getting closer and closer to measuring the extent of human activity on climate change. And the VAST majority of researchers in the field agree that the evidence suggests that human fossil fuel activity does have an effect on climate change.
But CO2 levels have been much higher, and the Earth is still here.
If the earth is changing that radically, how do we think we can stop it? It will outlast us.
So we can keep worrying, or we can be happy with our lives, and hope that the Earth doesn't kill us off before we can have some fun.
But CO2 levels have been much higher, and the Earth is still here.
If the earth is changing that radically, how do we think we can stop it? It will outlast us.
So we can keep worrying, or we can be happy with our lives, and hope that the Earth doesn't kill us off before we can have some fun.
I've never heard that CO2 levels have been higher, but if they have, it hasn't been the fault of humans. this time, it is the fault of humans. no question. (the co2 levels, not climate change, that is the question we are discussing). If it is OUR FAULT then yes, we should keep worrying. because it will impact us and everything else on the planet. even you don't count the impact on of climate change on humans, the impact on everything else is huge. and we do not have the right to do that, we are just one species in a much bigger system.
we can't stop it now. but we can SLOW IT DOWN. we can change our destructive practices and HOPEFULLY there is still time to mitigate the problem. it's all about MITIGATION. If it's our fault then it is our responsibility to help. there will still be people on this planet 100, 200, etc. years from now. how we behave in response to human-induced climate change determines if those people will be miserable and suffering from droughts, famines, whathaveyou, or if they have the opportunity to recognize the same animal species we do, or if their economies have completely crumbled or if they are living the same or better lives than we are. what we do NOW changes the future.
Earth's climate and atmosphere have varied greatly over geologic time. Our planet has mostly been much hotter and more humid than we know it to be today, and with far more carbon dioxide (the greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere than exists today. The notable exception is 300,000,000 years ago during the late Carboniferous Period, which resembles our own climate and atmosphere like no other.
Current arguments for global warming seem to start with the theory that the earth is as it was, and as it should be. That's where I have a problem.
Okay, now I've been forced to qoute myself. See? Up there?
It says that the earth is usually hotter and more humid with more CO2.
Follow the link and debunk it if you want. But it's up there, it says it.
Okay, now I've been forced to qoute myself. See? Up there?
It says that the earth is usually hotter and more humid with more CO2.
Follow the link and debunk it if you want. But it's up there, it says it.
dude, I looked at that already and there's no source on it. I don't even bother to read stuff that isn't sourced.
dude, I looked at that already and there's no source on it. I don't even bother to read stuff that isn't sourced.
Ok, I just skimmed it, and I don't see your point, even if this is from a credible source. I just told you that everyone agrees the climate changes over time natural, and that higher levels of carbon create a greenhouse effect, making the earth warmer. that just reinforced the greenhouse theory. I said I had never HEARD that there were higher carbon levels in history, but that could be true. But the difference is that NOW IT IS OUR FAULT that there is a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere. we've put it there, and therefore, the earth has not been allowed to stay it's usual climate course, whatever that may be. we've forced it to do something or have sped up it's rate of change.
Over the past 750,000 years of Earth's history, Ice Ages have occurred at regular intervals, of approximately 100,000 years each.
Courtesy of Illinois State Museum
A graph accompanies, but doesn't copy, so.
Also:
Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical
Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. "First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!" Paldor told EPW on December 4, 2007. "Second, our ability to make realizable (or even sensible) future forecasts are greatly exaggerated relied upon by the IPCC. This is true both for the numerical modeling efforts (the same models that yield abysmal 3-day forecasts are greatly simplified and run for 100 years!)," Paldor explained. "Third, the rise in atmospheric CO2 is much smaller (by about 50%) than that expected from the anthropogenic activity (burning of fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas), which implies that the missing amount of CO2 is (most probably) absorbed by the ocean. The oceanic response to increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere might be much slower than that of the atmosphere (and is presently very poorly understood). It is quite possible that after an ‘adjustment time' the ocean (which contains far more CO2 than the atmosphere) will simply increase its biological activity and absorb the CO2 from the atmosphere (i.e. the atmospheric CO2 concentration will decrease)," he added. "Fourth, the inventory of fossil fuels is fairly limited and in one generation we will run out of oil. Coal and natural gas might take 100-200 years but with no oil their consumption will increase so they probably won't last as long. The real alternative that presently available to humanity is nuclear power (that can easily produce electricity for domestic and industrial usage and for transportation when our vehicles are reverted to run on electricity). The technology for this exists today and can replace our dependence on fossil fuel in a decade! This has to be made known to the general public who is unaware of the alternative for taking action to lower the anthropogenic spewing of CO2. This transformation to nuclear energy will probably rake place when oil reserves dwindle regardless of the CO2 situation," he wrote. Paldor also noted the pressure for scientists to bow to the UN IPCC view of climate change. "Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media," he concluded.
The nuclear power talked about in the above post in the wrong type. More Nuke waste will not solve anything just create even more problems. If we go that direction it needs to be done with the US develop method of Fast Breader Reactors. And needs to be freelly giving to the world.
edit to add:
that it is Clintons fault that the Fast Breader program was cancled. Even though it was proven to work. Him and the NRDC who was headed at the time by former Nuke worker forgot his name.
I hate quotations. Tell me what you know.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson~
Ok, I just skimmed it, and I don't see your point, even if this is from a credible source. I just told you that everyone agrees the climate changes over time natural, and that higher levels of carbon create a greenhouse effect, making the earth warmer. that just reinforced the greenhouse theory. I said I had never HEARD that there were higher carbon levels in history, but that could be true. But the difference is that NOW IT IS OUR FAULT that there is a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere. we've put it there, and therefore, the earth has not been allowed to stay it's usual climate course, whatever that may be. we've forced it to do something or have sped up it's rate of change.
save it ... the reality is that there is plenty of credible information on "man's" impact on the climate ... even skeptics who choose to read everything will see that ... you can't do anything about people who only google articles that lay skepticism ...
the only fact you need to point out is that no article by any climate skeptic ever gets peer-reviewed or makes it into any significant journal ... they are all posted as op-ed pieces with ties to all these PR firms related to the oil industry ...
Blizzards cause $7.5B in damages in China
Email story
Print
Choose text size
Report typo or correction
Feb 01, 2008 10:49 AM
CHRISTOPHER BODEEN
The Associated Press
BEIJING–Three weeks of crippling snow storms across China have inflicted $7.5 billion in damages, the government said Friday, as it announced a $700 million relief fund for farmers.
The freakish weather – the country's worst in five decades – has paralyzed China's densely populated central and eastern regions just as tens of millions of travelers were seeking to board trains and buses to return home for this month's Lunar New Year.
The storms have killed at least 60 people, closed roads, disabled the rail system, destroyed crops and exacerbated a coal shortage, forcing power plants to shut down and factories to cut production.
At a news conference to discuss the government's response to the storms, Zou Ming, deputy director of the Ministry of Civil Affairs, said the storms had caused $7.5 billion in damages.
As the toll of the damage became clear, the central bank announced on its Web site it would "urgently create a 5 billion yuan ($700 million) farm support account, focusing on helping disaster lending by small institutions in disaster areas.''
Commercial banks were ordered to "create a seasonal lending plan as soon as possible" to help farmers in disaster areas, it said.
Regions hit by the storms provide the bulk of China's winter fruit and vegetables, and Chen Xiwen, a top agricultural official, said Thursday the impact of the weather on produce in some places had been "catastrophic.''
Train service was returning to normal, but hundreds of thousands of travelers remained stranded Friday in Guangzhou, where the transport meltdown wreaked the most havoc, as the city's millions of migrant workers tried to leave for the New Year's holiday.
Officials kept would-be travelers father away from the station in Guangzhou, the capital of Guangdong in southern China, apparently for safety reasons. Most were massed on six-lane streets that have been closed to traffic.
The government has been urging them to cancel their travel plans. Some such as Hu Jiansing, a 25-year-old plastics factory worker, were taking a wait-and-see attitude.
"I decided I would come and check out the situation first, and then decide whether I will refund my ticket and try to go home later," said Hu, who hopes to go to Hubei in central China.
Over the course of this week, a total of 5.8 million passengers were stranded throughout the railway system, said Zhao Chunlei, deputy director of the Regulation Department of the Ministry of Railways.
The transport delays have also caused a severe coal shortage, and Zhao told reporters the railways would focus on delivering coal and restoring the capacity of trunk lines over the next 10 days.
The shortage of coal, used to fuel three-quarters of China's electricity supply, caused widespread blackouts.
"The power grid network has also been greatly damaged," said Zou of the Ministry of Civil Affairs.
Huge cities have plunged into darkness, with parts of Chenzhou, a city of 1.2 million in central Hunan province, without power for eight days.
Photos posted on the Xinhua News Agency's Web site and taken Thursday night showed blocks of buildings plunged into darkness, their rooftops covered in snow. The only lights were those of trucks on the street.
State-run radio said Chenzhou was like a "deserted island,'' with its shops closed and goods scarce. Fire trucks were distributing water to residents because pumps stopped working, China Central Television said. It said reserves of diesel fuel in the city would run out in seven days and rice in five.
The power shortages have been blamed on a government freeze imposed on electricity prices in September in an effort to cool inflation. The freeze prompted utilities to curb losses by purchasing less coal, the price of which has risen to record highs in recent weeks.
The storm's effects are likely to do little long-term damage to China's overall economy. But they have cast a spotlight on the weaknesses of the country's infrastructure, which has failed to keep up with growth that has topped 10 percent for five straight years, hitting 11.2 percent in 2007.
Chinese stocks fell Friday on worries over the impact of disruptions caused by the severe weather.
Zhu Hongren, deputy director of the National Development and Reform Commission – the country's top economic planning body – said the disaster had taken a toll on China's economy, but that it would be only short term.
"The economic fundamentals of the Chinese economy are still sound, and I believe the momentum of fairly rapid and steady growth of the Chinese economy will continue," he said.
But more bad weather was forecast, with snow still falling in four central and eastern provinces
Skepticism with regards to global warming is a healthy phenomenon ... But burying one's head in the sand is not. Even if the data are somewhat inconclusive (and I don't believe they are, but OK), acting now to prevent global warming does not strike me as a bad idea. There is nothing to lose (climatalogically-speaking) and quite possibly a lot to gain.
Skepticism with regards to global warming is a healthy phenomenon ... But burying one's head in the sand is not. Even if the data are somewhat inconclusive (and I don't believe they are, but OK), acting now to prevent global warming does not strike me as a bad idea. There is nothing to lose (climatalogically-speaking) and quite possibly a lot to gain.
hallelujah!!
too bad - Harper is fast tracking all oil sands projects without the proper EA's being done ...
Comments
First you say I'm ignorant, they refute that by saying I'm crazy?
What about anything else I said?
I'm open to ideas, just not insults or brush offs without an explanation.
You said my ideas were ignorant, and left it at that.
when I said I don't like being attacked, you called me crazy.
that's not a free exchange of Ideas.
Sorry
The government (Al Gore) spent billions to prove there's global warming.
and the government (GW Bush) says that global warming is a problem.
And the amount of CO2 (some people say) has been higher in the past without a severe rise in temperature.
so what if we're all so concerned about CO2, and it turns out to be something else entirely?
of course i'm a skeptic all the time, so maybe it's just me.
CO2 is the something we can change. if climate change is happening because of the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, then it is fault of humans burning fossil fuels and cutting down trees.
there's never been higher CO2 emitted into the atmosphere than there has been since the industrial revolution and the mass burning of fossil fuels. I've never heard that argument before.
as for the government's role: yes, the bush administration gives a lot of the correct lip service about climate change. HOWEVER, little has been done. 1) EPA is not even allowed to talk about climate change or regulate CO2 2) scientific papers are edited to reflect "uncertainty" by lawyers more than the scientists who authored them intended. 3) the kyoto protocol was not ratified and congress has yet to even propose a feasible carbon bill (and everything is watered down from anything that would actually help anyway).
i honestly don't think there's much to be skeptical about the case of climate change.
Earth's climate and atmosphere have varied greatly over geologic time. Our planet has mostly been much hotter and more humid than we know it to be today, and with far more carbon dioxide (the greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere than exists today. The notable exception is 300,000,000 years ago during the late Carboniferous Period, which resembles our own climate and atmosphere like no other.
I found this here:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
feel free to bash it, if you need to.
Current arguments for global warming seem to start with the theory that the earth is as it was, and as it should be. That's where I have a problem.
no one disputes that the earth's climate changes over time. that is a fact and everyone agrees with it. You are wrong to say that arguments for climate change start with the theory that the earth was as it should be.If this is the argument you've been hearing then it is from someone who has no idea what they are talking about. No climate scientist would ever claim that the earth's climates do not vary over time. the issue is the impact of human activity on messing up the earth's natural climate cycles. the climate is changing faster than it usually does, and it correlates with the industrial period. given that time correlation, and the fact that if you burn fossil fuels CO2 is released, and given that we've burned sooooo much more fossil fuel in the industrial period than ever before, and given that CO2 is proven to cause a greenhouse effect, the correlation seems pretty strong. Again, causation...difficult to prove, sometimes you never can prove causation. Extent? also difficult to show without causation, but science is getting closer and closer to measuring the extent of human activity on climate change. And the VAST majority of researchers in the field agree that the evidence suggests that human fossil fuel activity does have an effect on climate change.
But CO2 levels have been much higher, and the Earth is still here.
If the earth is changing that radically, how do we think we can stop it? It will outlast us.
So we can keep worrying, or we can be happy with our lives, and hope that the Earth doesn't kill us off before we can have some fun.
I've never heard that CO2 levels have been higher, but if they have, it hasn't been the fault of humans. this time, it is the fault of humans. no question. (the co2 levels, not climate change, that is the question we are discussing). If it is OUR FAULT then yes, we should keep worrying. because it will impact us and everything else on the planet. even you don't count the impact on of climate change on humans, the impact on everything else is huge. and we do not have the right to do that, we are just one species in a much bigger system.
we can't stop it now. but we can SLOW IT DOWN. we can change our destructive practices and HOPEFULLY there is still time to mitigate the problem. it's all about MITIGATION. If it's our fault then it is our responsibility to help. there will still be people on this planet 100, 200, etc. years from now. how we behave in response to human-induced climate change determines if those people will be miserable and suffering from droughts, famines, whathaveyou, or if they have the opportunity to recognize the same animal species we do, or if their economies have completely crumbled or if they are living the same or better lives than we are. what we do NOW changes the future.
Okay, now I've been forced to qoute myself. See? Up there?
It says that the earth is usually hotter and more humid with more CO2.
Follow the link and debunk it if you want. But it's up there, it says it.
dude, I looked at that already and there's no source on it. I don't even bother to read stuff that isn't sourced.
Ok, I just skimmed it, and I don't see your point, even if this is from a credible source. I just told you that everyone agrees the climate changes over time natural, and that higher levels of carbon create a greenhouse effect, making the earth warmer. that just reinforced the greenhouse theory. I said I had never HEARD that there were higher carbon levels in history, but that could be true. But the difference is that NOW IT IS OUR FAULT that there is a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere. we've put it there, and therefore, the earth has not been allowed to stay it's usual climate course, whatever that may be. we've forced it to do something or have sped up it's rate of change.
Courtesy of Illinois State Museum
A graph accompanies, but doesn't copy, so.
Also:
Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical
Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. "First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!" Paldor told EPW on December 4, 2007. "Second, our ability to make realizable (or even sensible) future forecasts are greatly exaggerated relied upon by the IPCC. This is true both for the numerical modeling efforts (the same models that yield abysmal 3-day forecasts are greatly simplified and run for 100 years!)," Paldor explained. "Third, the rise in atmospheric CO2 is much smaller (by about 50%) than that expected from the anthropogenic activity (burning of fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas), which implies that the missing amount of CO2 is (most probably) absorbed by the ocean. The oceanic response to increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere might be much slower than that of the atmosphere (and is presently very poorly understood). It is quite possible that after an ‘adjustment time' the ocean (which contains far more CO2 than the atmosphere) will simply increase its biological activity and absorb the CO2 from the atmosphere (i.e. the atmospheric CO2 concentration will decrease)," he added. "Fourth, the inventory of fossil fuels is fairly limited and in one generation we will run out of oil. Coal and natural gas might take 100-200 years but with no oil their consumption will increase so they probably won't last as long. The real alternative that presently available to humanity is nuclear power (that can easily produce electricity for domestic and industrial usage and for transportation when our vehicles are reverted to run on electricity). The technology for this exists today and can replace our dependence on fossil fuel in a decade! This has to be made known to the general public who is unaware of the alternative for taking action to lower the anthropogenic spewing of CO2. This transformation to nuclear energy will probably rake place when oil reserves dwindle regardless of the CO2 situation," he wrote. Paldor also noted the pressure for scientists to bow to the UN IPCC view of climate change. "Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media," he concluded.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
The nuclear power talked about in the above post in the wrong type. More Nuke waste will not solve anything just create even more problems. If we go that direction it needs to be done with the US develop method of Fast Breader Reactors. And needs to be freelly giving to the world.
edit to add:
that it is Clintons fault that the Fast Breader program was cancled. Even though it was proven to work. Him and the NRDC who was headed at the time by former Nuke worker forgot his name.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson~
The Tie-Dye Lady is HOT!!!
save it ... the reality is that there is plenty of credible information on "man's" impact on the climate ... even skeptics who choose to read everything will see that ... you can't do anything about people who only google articles that lay skepticism ...
the only fact you need to point out is that no article by any climate skeptic ever gets peer-reviewed or makes it into any significant journal ... they are all posted as op-ed pieces with ties to all these PR firms related to the oil industry ...
Blizzards cause $7.5B in damages in China
Email story
Print
Choose text size
Report typo or correction
Feb 01, 2008 10:49 AM
CHRISTOPHER BODEEN
The Associated Press
BEIJING–Three weeks of crippling snow storms across China have inflicted $7.5 billion in damages, the government said Friday, as it announced a $700 million relief fund for farmers.
The freakish weather – the country's worst in five decades – has paralyzed China's densely populated central and eastern regions just as tens of millions of travelers were seeking to board trains and buses to return home for this month's Lunar New Year.
The storms have killed at least 60 people, closed roads, disabled the rail system, destroyed crops and exacerbated a coal shortage, forcing power plants to shut down and factories to cut production.
At a news conference to discuss the government's response to the storms, Zou Ming, deputy director of the Ministry of Civil Affairs, said the storms had caused $7.5 billion in damages.
As the toll of the damage became clear, the central bank announced on its Web site it would "urgently create a 5 billion yuan ($700 million) farm support account, focusing on helping disaster lending by small institutions in disaster areas.''
Commercial banks were ordered to "create a seasonal lending plan as soon as possible" to help farmers in disaster areas, it said.
Regions hit by the storms provide the bulk of China's winter fruit and vegetables, and Chen Xiwen, a top agricultural official, said Thursday the impact of the weather on produce in some places had been "catastrophic.''
Train service was returning to normal, but hundreds of thousands of travelers remained stranded Friday in Guangzhou, where the transport meltdown wreaked the most havoc, as the city's millions of migrant workers tried to leave for the New Year's holiday.
Officials kept would-be travelers father away from the station in Guangzhou, the capital of Guangdong in southern China, apparently for safety reasons. Most were massed on six-lane streets that have been closed to traffic.
The government has been urging them to cancel their travel plans. Some such as Hu Jiansing, a 25-year-old plastics factory worker, were taking a wait-and-see attitude.
"I decided I would come and check out the situation first, and then decide whether I will refund my ticket and try to go home later," said Hu, who hopes to go to Hubei in central China.
Over the course of this week, a total of 5.8 million passengers were stranded throughout the railway system, said Zhao Chunlei, deputy director of the Regulation Department of the Ministry of Railways.
The transport delays have also caused a severe coal shortage, and Zhao told reporters the railways would focus on delivering coal and restoring the capacity of trunk lines over the next 10 days.
The shortage of coal, used to fuel three-quarters of China's electricity supply, caused widespread blackouts.
"The power grid network has also been greatly damaged," said Zou of the Ministry of Civil Affairs.
Huge cities have plunged into darkness, with parts of Chenzhou, a city of 1.2 million in central Hunan province, without power for eight days.
Photos posted on the Xinhua News Agency's Web site and taken Thursday night showed blocks of buildings plunged into darkness, their rooftops covered in snow. The only lights were those of trucks on the street.
State-run radio said Chenzhou was like a "deserted island,'' with its shops closed and goods scarce. Fire trucks were distributing water to residents because pumps stopped working, China Central Television said. It said reserves of diesel fuel in the city would run out in seven days and rice in five.
The power shortages have been blamed on a government freeze imposed on electricity prices in September in an effort to cool inflation. The freeze prompted utilities to curb losses by purchasing less coal, the price of which has risen to record highs in recent weeks.
The storm's effects are likely to do little long-term damage to China's overall economy. But they have cast a spotlight on the weaknesses of the country's infrastructure, which has failed to keep up with growth that has topped 10 percent for five straight years, hitting 11.2 percent in 2007.
Chinese stocks fell Friday on worries over the impact of disruptions caused by the severe weather.
Zhu Hongren, deputy director of the National Development and Reform Commission – the country's top economic planning body – said the disaster had taken a toll on China's economy, but that it would be only short term.
"The economic fundamentals of the Chinese economy are still sound, and I believe the momentum of fairly rapid and steady growth of the Chinese economy will continue," he said.
But more bad weather was forecast, with snow still falling in four central and eastern provinces
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289
- 8/28/98
- 9/2/00
- 4/28/03, 5/3/03, 7/3/03, 7/5/03, 7/6/03, 7/9/03, 7/11/03, 7/12/03, 7/14/03
- 9/28/04, 9/29/04, 10/1/04, 10/2/04
- 9/11/05, 9/12/05, 9/13/05, 9/30/05, 10/1/05, 10/3/05
- 5/12/06, 5/13/06, 5/27/06, 5/28/06, 5/30/06, 6/1/06, 6/3/06, 6/23/06, 7/22/06, 7/23/06, 12/2/06, 12/9/06
- 8/2/07, 8/5/07
- 6/19/08, 6/20/08, 6/22/08, 6/24/08, 6/25/08, 6/27/08, 6/28/08, 6/30/08, 7/1/08
- 8/23/09, 8/24/09, 9/21/09, 9/22/09, 10/27/09, 10/28/09, 10/30/09, 10/31/09
- 5/15/10, 5/17/10, 5/18/10, 5/20/10, 5/21/10, 10/23/10, 10/24/10
- 9/11/11, 9/12/11
- 10/18/13, 10/21/13, 10/22/13, 11/30/13, 12/4/13
hallelujah!!
too bad - Harper is fast tracking all oil sands projects without the proper EA's being done ...
What's the background on these publications before I even begin to find anything in these articles credible?
It is a shame when Op-ed peices are cited and peer reviewed scientific publications are not.