Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiWASHINGTON - Despite growing recognition in the Pentagon and the intelligence community that global warming poses serious national security threats to the United States, Washington is spending 88 dollars on the military for every dollar it spends this year on climate-related programmes, according to a new study released here Thursday by the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS).
The study, entitled "Military vs. Climate Security", found that the government has budgeted 647.5 billion dollars for the defence budget in 2008 -- more than the defence budgets of the rest of the world's nations combined -- compared to 7.37 billion dollars for climate-related programmes.
Of the latter total, moreover, only 212 million dollars is devoted to helping poor countries obtain clean, renewable energy sources that do not contribute to global warming -- less than what U.S. military forces in Iraq spend each day on operations there.
"While we spare no expense to wage war, we seem to have no money to spare on averting climate disaster," said Miriam Pemberton, the report's author. "The increasingly dire warnings from climate scientists make clear that changing these federal spending priorities can't wait."
Indeed, the report comes amid unprecedented global concern that climate change could have devastating consequences for much of the earth. Hardest hit will be the world's poor countries, which have fewer resources to cope with the threats posed by global warming, including more extreme weather events, prolonged droughts, and sea-level rise, which most scientists believe are inevitable if the world fails to quickly stabilise and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
That concern was underlined last month when the Nobel Committee awarded its annual peace prize to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the network of thousands of scientists whose warnings about the reality and impact of global warming have becoming increasingly urgent over the past 15 years, and former Vice President Al Gore, whose 2006 documentary film, "An Inconvenient Truth", significantly boosted popular consciousness of the threat, especially in the U.S.
In his acceptance speech in Oslo, Gore called on the nations of the world to mobilise to avert climate disaster "with a sense of urgency and shared resolve that has previously been seen only when nations have mobilised for war."
The martial analogy has been taken up by the Pentagon and the intelligence community, which have produced several reports about the national security consequences of changes in the world's climate.
Last May, a group of retired generals and admirals issued their own report, "National Security and the Threat of Climate Change", which found, among other things, that the consequences of warming were likely to promote inter-state conflict over vital resources, such as fresh water; political turmoil and extremism within nations; food shortages and mass migrations.
"Climate change acts as a threat multiplier for instability in the most volatile regions of the world," according to the report.
Despite these warnings, the Bush administration, which rejected participation in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol requiring industrialised countries to reduce their emissions on the grounds that it would be too expensive, has generally failed to acknowledge the security threats climate change poses.
From its initial scepticism that climate change was actually taking place and that greenhouse emissions were an important cause, however, the administration has moved to accept the phenomenon as real and that emissions need to be reduced. At the same time, it continues to oppose the imposition of mandatory curbs, such as those required by Kyoto.
In budgetary terms, the administration has gradually increased funding for climate-related programmes in relation to military spending, according to the IPS report, which noted that the 88:1 ratio between the two this year was "an improvement, no question" over the 97:1 ratio of the previous five years during which it spent 37 billion dollars on climate programmes compared to 3.5 trillion dollars on the Pentagon.
"It is also, no question, an inadequate improvement, given the relative magnitude of these problems," noted the report. "Terrorism is a serious problem. It doesn't surround us. The effects of climate change, on the other hand, will."
In the current year, according to the report, the lion's share of climate-related spending -- nearly four billion dollars -- will be on technology development. At the same time, the Pentagon is receiving 77 billion dollars for its research and development (R&D) budget.
Despite the all-but-unanimous scientific consensus that climate change is well underway and proceeding at an accelerating rate, the second largest portion of the climate-change budget -- nearly two billion dollars -- is earmarked for a science programme designed to help resolve "the fundamental scientific uncertainties associated with climate change".
Most of those funds, the study notes, will go to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), whose director, Michael Griffin, recently told public radio that, while he did not doubt that a warming trend exists, "I am not sure it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with."
Despite warnings that climate change will create the great disruptions in the developing world, the smallest component of the climate budget -- a mere 212 million dollars -- is devoted to international assistance, according to the report. By contrast, Washington will spend nearly ten billion dollars in aid to foreign militaries.
The administration has not detailed how the climate-related international aid is being spent this year. But, in 2006 -- the last year for which it provided that information -- 90 percent of the total from that account was to be used for mitigating the effects of coal-fired plants in poor countries and promoting U.S. technologies to improve efficiency.
About eight percent of this account was allocated for programmes designed to help poor countries to deal with the impact of droughts, floods, crop and freshwater loss, severe weather and other potentially catastrophic effects of climate change.
In a potentially significant advance, Bush announced during his State of the Union address Monday that he would ask Congress to authorise two billion dollars for an international climate and clean-energy fund over the next three years. But he did not indicate how that money would be allocated.
© 2008 Inter Press Service
73 Comments so far
Show AllVFHorn,
I do like your link at www.planetextinction.com
Thanks for getting us back on subject.
And on 9/11, enough has been said so we'll see and it is too late to change that now.
VFHhorn,
Sorry but most of the core which had no fire protection, but wall board, was taken out by the blast of the airliners... that is why the holes were on more than two sides of the towers including huge entrance and exit holes... huge ones you could drive an airliner through. (not pencil holes through a screen like 9/11 truth analogies.
These core beams which your videos claim were cut by explosives were cut with special torches during the cleanup.
I am a welder and have cut heavy steel like that and i know what cut steel from torches look like... that is just more lies of the Cult of 9/11 which have many different contradictory and impossible theories but never eliminate even the most dreamed up ones... they are all presented as fact even when they contradict each other.
The floors were connected to the wall beams by just bolts and rubber pads between the connection points for flexibility.
When the floor beams and the the side beams in the damaged area's warped there was nothing much holding up the top of the towers above the huge holes. Of course most of the fuel was burned in the initial impact but plenty fell down the elevator shafts which caused secondary explosions at the bottom just like when a smaller plane hit the Empire State building in the 40's ( Much stronger tower but falling fuel caused secondary explosions in the lobby there too)
The fires in the damaged parts of the towers were very visible and offices burn like crazy... look at all the paper that was flying. it takes only 1000 degrees for construction steel to begin to fail and no it doesn't have to have all sides fail at the same time ... when it is time to go it goes....
The sides of the towers weren't built so that they could tip over (are you kidding?) the corners of a tip over would have to support the whole top of the building to do that! The Towers aren't a solid object which it would nearly have to be to support the kind of tip in your imagination... but there was a considerable tip because of course the towers did fail first at the weakest side but the middle was very weak...you can see that from the films. if you want to weaken a tower just fly an airliner into it, no really, it works.
Your imagination is just your imagination and you just can't accept the reality of something you have never seen before.
You are correct that the designers said that it should have taken the hit of the airplanes but what they said right after that and was censored from your "9/11 truth" videos was that they then added that what they didn't plan for was the fires after a plane hits...This is what you always miss ..it is either just a fire (fire doesn't melt steel!) or the impact was like a pencil going through a screen (nonsense).
I have already studied most of your links before I have made up my mind so it is your turn now and you should study http://www.debunking911.com/ and after that tell me what you think. If I was a clever Bush supporter and wanted a cover up of the real truth of the funding of the hijackers by Bush allies, I would send 9/11 truth videos free to everybody because they don't even believe that there were any hijackers and some of them don't believe there were any airliners... is there anything in your 9/11 truth videos that you don't believe?
I have studied your claims for years now and have concluded millions have been takin in by not so clever propaganda... which appears to help get Bush off the hook because They concentrate on the nutty stuff instead of the proven truth... look what they did for Rosey. So if you want to keep this up, please at least give us some new information that hasn't already been debunked.
I drove out to upstate PA today to visit my son. It was odd seeing almost no snow, but signs of freezing rain in the ski areas. I almost got rear ended by a huge weaving SUV on the turnpike, in the right lane with the cruise set at 65. He must have been going 100. You can see the cooling tower plume from TMI 1 near where the turnpike crosses the Susquehanna. My exit is Willow Grove, near where the PA Air National Guard keeps the "Warthogs" - those indestructible slow flying tank like jets with machine guns that did so much damage to Saddam's forces.
I can't remember a simple Sunday drive ever before bringing home so many examples of what is happening to our world, flawed solutions, and the waste and destruction we create.
Nice to see that you use your own mind, lizard. It's always good to see someone do that. I try to use my own mind, too. It's just that I must not have the education that you have, so I can't find the flaws in the arguments posed by the 99% of climate scientists who say that global warming is both real and caused by man.
I wish I had the education that you do and was as smart as you are. Oh well, I guess I'll have to trust those climate scientists, after all. Better them than the politicians, I guess.
Yes Coco I know I am practically a lone voice on this. Oh Well, I was never one to follow the crowd.
I am open to proof. I just haven't found any about a demolition... but as far as the cover-up of who really funded the hijackers the continuing cover up which is an "inside job" in itself isl tied to the Bush crime family. They both were set up in business from illegal Saudi and bin Laden money.
That is one reason why they tried to blame Iraq for 9/11.
JIM GLOVER
'most folks have already made up their minds'..........
i've just done a search on 'yahoo' for debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories and 9/11 conspiracy theories. and yes, the folks seem to have made up their minds.......debunking had a hit of 807,000 sites related to this topic, whilst conspiracy theories had a hit of 12,900,000.
Yes coco,
IF all you believe is what the 9/11 movement tells us, you are missing a lot.
The fire dept. helicopters job was to see as much as they can . There were huge holes blown on at least 3 sides or maybe all four of the towers.
Smoke blows where the wind blows it . if you see the aerial view, the smoke was being blown South I think.
If you look at other films, you will see many things that are not shown on the Truth9/11 videos.
Another thing that lizard and others don't mention about building 7 is that the fire was constantly being fueled by gravity fed huge stores of fuel oil for emergency generators and that fire went on and was constantly fed until it went down many hours after the towers fell and after most of that smoke and debris from the towers had started to settle.
When they say that no skyscraper building ever collapsed from fire on the same day and that is proof of demolition they forget to mention that no skyscraper on fire as flimsily built as the towers was ever hit by 500 mph Airliners before the fire like the towers were. This was a huge first time in history tragedy and they are saying "hey this can't be because it never happened before like this!"...Well duh. They want you to believe and imply with that narrow comment that it is all a matter of fire alone. ... I would have to ask how many buildings that did not collapse from fire were hit by airliners and sustained heavy damage from the airliners.... in both cases the towers and building 7 there was a combination of heavy damage to the physical strength and structure and the fires that could not be put out ...so if it was just a normal fire in both cases the buildings would have not fallen but it was a hell of a lot more than fire. Huge fires set off with the biggest explosions ever seen in any skyscraper from the airliners. Building 7 sustained heavy damage on the other side of the clip that they show over and over and it wasn't just an ordinary fire...it was fed by huge stores of fuel oil in many huge tanks and it only takes 1000 degrees for structural steel to soften and warp which usually means that if the fire is not put out and not an ordinary fire but being fed and getting hotter and hotter... well we see what can happen.
Most of these questions are explored in the links above and since you are interested you should study them all and then you wont be missing as much as you will if you just think the different theories of the 9'11 truth movement tells what is missing.
I wouldn't have gone as deep into this if lizard had not brought it up as an indication of his scientist credentials.
Most folks have already made up their minds and we are free to believe what we want.
If anyone has some facts to add about this and Global Warming, I am ready to listen and learn.
CoCo IF all you believe is what the 9/'11 movement tells you you are missing a lot Yes.
Smoke blows where the wind blows it . if you see the airial view the smoke was being blown South I think.
If you look at other films, you will see many things that are not shown on the Truth9/11 videos.
anotheer thing that lizard and others dont mention about building 7 is that the fire was constanly being fed by gravety fed huge stores of fuel oil for emergency generators and that fire went on for many hours after the towers fell and after most of that smoke and debris had started to settle.
when they say that no skyscraper building ever collapsed from fire on the same day ... I would have to ask how many buildings that did not collapse from fire were hit by airliners and sutained heavey damage from the airliners.... in both cases the towers and building 7 there was a combination of heavy damage to the physical streenth and structure and the fires that could not be put out ...so if iit was just a normal fire in bothe casees the buildings would have not fallin and the fires wouold have been probably been put out and wouldn't have geen such huge fires det off witth the biggest explosions ever seen...from the airliners..put out. buildin 7 sutained heavey damage on the other side of the clip that they show over and over and it wasn/t just an ordinary fire...it was fed by guel oil am d it only takes 1000 degress for stuctual steeel to soften and warp wich usually means that if the fire is not put out
I do not have them her to prove that for you but just wath
The hiliocopters joob waas to see as much as they can . There werd huge holes on at least 3 sides of the towers...
TIBERIAS BOND
'the blind faith in militarism as a platform for peace'. it's not my faith, blind or otherwise....................
The US of I is only as rich as the cheap oil that used to drive it, and the US dollar that used to buy it. As the oil goes away, the occupation cannot afford to stay. Unless the oil corporations pay the bill, congress will have an empty till. As Oil and Food costs the earth, many will die when healthy food has a dearth. With global warming marching out of sight, the climate change overcomes even military might.
JIM GLOVER
'the fire fighters were up in the helicopters after the first tower fell and were looking into the huge holes' etc. how could they see anything with all that smoke and dust and everything billowing around? am i missing something here?
I will just add that we do agree that we need a new investigation and I hope we can get both of our views heard...
We'll See.
Please, all of you, we are all on the same side. The ones to worry about don't frequent this site. You are going to have trouble finding someone to hate here. We are all on the same side! Sometimes I don't like that.
Mr.Glover: I have read your reference. It is worthless propaganda. I am sorry to be so uncooperative but this claim is not new to me and it does not impress me at all. Notice that after mentioning that someone claimed to have "pulled" the building, this fact is totally ignored. If something falls on a building it will not cause it to fall at free fall speed and in its footprint. Not possible. If it were possible, demolitions would be carried out by setting a really hot fire in the middle of the building. It isn't done because COMMON SENSE says it won't work. And it won't.
Mr.Glover: If you think building seven was not demolished, even after it was acknowledged on national television by the ones who "pulled" it, I just don't know what to say. The only steel framed building to ever have collapsed in the history of the world where those three buildings. They collapsed in free fall time and in their footprints! Did I misunderstand your post?
Mr. Glover, this isn't difficult, it is common sense. Firefighters with experience, architects and engineers agree the building should have bent, crumbled and partially collapsed. What actually happened can only happen by demolition. Period. Physics.
KEN: I like your post. It makes perfect sense to me.
Catch: I don't believe it is as you say. CO2 could be rising due to the warming itself, or indeed due to human activity. Logically, increased CO2 should increase warming. My problem is that during a period of 10 years in the 40's CO2 was rising markedly while temperatures dropped. I don't understand how that fits. During that same time solar activity dropped also. All I have against that is your assertion, which I have heard before, that solar output can only account for part of the rise. I believe this is a sign that nobody really knows what is going on.
It hardly matters, consuming fossil fuels is a terrible, terrible idea. These resources should not be destroyed, they should be used to create organic polymers and we should be well on our way to an electrical society. Those who think I am advocating consuming oil have no reason to think that since I have said no such thing. Gasoline should be twice as expensive as it is now and the price of gasoline should reflect the consequences of using gasoline. Global warming does not worry me at all, pollution worries me a lot. I am a lot more concerned with the areas in the Gulf where nothing lives. I care about fertilizer run-off and using food to fuel cars! I care about living in soot and noxious gases. I will accept that global warming is man made when it makes sense to me. Explain to me why Venus and Mars are warming up, and please don't tell me its because they have a lot of CO2, that is inane. It is also not seasonal variation.
I understand that this is a powerful tool to force people to curb pollution, but the ends justifies the means is BUSH philosophy!
I would also like to see an official investigation of 9/11.
What is missing in the truth movements demolition smoke screen is that the money to pay the hijackers who were getting flying lessons from CIA drug running connected flight schools down here in Florida were getting Saudi money funneled through Pakistan's CIA.
before 9/11, Bush took the FBI off the bin laden saudi connections because him and his daddy were financed illegally by these same folks.
Now the cover-up of that is pretty easy because the truth movement doesn't believe the hijackers even existed.
my good friend down in Venice was almost dragged into the plot when Atta, the ring leader, tried to buy a car from her.
Yes, lets have a real investigation and you will get much more than you think you already know.
OK Lizard,
Now you want us to believe that building 7 was a demolition which suggests that you are a scientist?
Please explain... but if you don't want to keep acting like a lizard instead of a warm blooded person, read the scientific facts first at http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
Then you won't have to keep looking at the same edited film clip, from only the one side of the building, which cut out the penhouse toppling backwards on the other side that was gutted from the burning tower that fell onto much of it.
Then ask yourself why would scientists edit out that part?
There are many who are not afraid to speak truth to power and who have the integrity and courage to confront those who deceive.
In fact, if you are interested, see this link below about 25 former military officers who have "severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and called for a new investigation".
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_080112_twenty_five_u_s_...
Mr lizard, They did not fall in their foot print, because they destroyed every building next to it in the complex.
You don't sound like you looked at anything but the same old truth 9/11 videos...
The fire fighters were up in the helicopters after the first tower fell and were looking into the huge holes caused by the Airliners and reported that the beams were getting red hot and bending and that the tower was ready to fall and get everybody out...Same with building seven the firemen told their guys to pull out because they knew it was going to go and they lost to many already and the fire chief called the owner and told him that... Yes it sounds like he said "pull it"... in the stress of the moment he could have meant' "Pull Out" but you think that the fire chief and the owner would be that stupid to say that if they had wired the building for Demolition..... You got to be kidding and contrary to the lies of your 9/11 speculation "Pull it" is not a term used in Demolition,,,but it probably is used now. I even said "pull it" to take down a web site that was about me but would not include any political information..
I have studied all the stuff that you repeat but you won't study http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm before you repeat the same misinformation everyone here has probably heard for years now.
Both the towers and building 7 were built on the cheap and had no good fire protection in the construction (lots of steel and little concrete) The old Empire state building might have stood. Read up on how they were constructed from other than your truth sites.... and If you knew anything about steel construction you would know that Steel begins to fail and warp under normal stress when it reaches only 1000 degrees F.
Most of the towers weight was designed to bear on the sides but you can see that the airliners put such large holes in the sides that much of the support on the sides was gone... it is a miracle that they stood as long as they did so thousands could escape. Look at the photo on http://www.debunking911.com/ now that is tipping not a in the footprint demolition.. The towers started to fall from the top down right at the exact weakened holes from the airliners.
There was no space for any demolition spots left in those holes and if there were, the damage would have either blown them up on impact or destroyed the wires connecting the charges.
Your just repeating the same distortions of the facts from your 9/11 dvd's and they are mostly bunk.
Your guessing about what should have happened when we can see what happened with our own eyes.
I see i won't change your mind because you claim you are a scientist ... and I find everything you push here about 9/11 and Global warming to be unscientific at best.
For a self described scientist you have little common sense and lots to learn.
culture!
wars will go one forever but the truth will end.
the truth is that you cannot end war with truth it's neverending.
Is there any doubt that the entire future destiny of man is entangled with either succumbing to global militarism or confronting it? Are any of the US presidential candidates serious about ending the "War on Terror?" What about the rest of the World's leaders? Why is the ill logic of the War on Terror even tolerated in the 21st century? Under what mass hypnosis are we all under the spell of?
I awoke from the spell some time ago, but I am not free. To be awake or conscious in the 21st Century is to be acutely aware of the state of crisis that we are all in, nothing more. How deeply it impacts you and what actions you take, are a measure of your ability to empathize with the sorrow and struggle of others and how far along on your own personal journey you are. Success is not guaranteed. You must earn each morsel of truth and understanding, and it is not easy. For the most part, as "evolved beings", we are failing. Example, this article touches upon the massive human investment in death and destruction, the blind faith in Militarism as a platform for peace. "War becomes perpetual when it becomes the rationale for peace".
Perhaps there is no salvation, except for to save our own "souls" through the practice of impeccability (whatever that means for each of us, the depth of that, also a measure of one's own journey). Truth to one's self, leading inevitably "home."
How does one become true to one's own journey? That too, must be earned by each one of us.
How do we course correct when we have gone astray? What guides us, keeps us centered, keeps us sane? Are we so sure that we are sane, or have we succumbed to the temptation to shirk that responsibility in such matters?
Sanity is to be terrified by the topics and discussions of articles like this and others that appear in CD. It is a healthy response to be frightened by the implications of Militarism unbound, because we know that the costs, financial and otherwise, are profound and of the deepest consequence.
I have no answers; the "big picture" evades me. I do not know the outcome.
I have one point of reference to share. I do so because it was the trigger for my own awakening. It is the only thing that I can imagine as a tool, like a compass through all the divertive lies that keep us spinning in circles. All I can do is share, I cannot convince.
The War on Terror has been spawned by the events of 9/11. Rampant militarism within the US has been unleashed upon the world because of that excuse. The future of all mankind has been hijacked by the so-called response to those attacks. Instead of the age of communication being used to create a utopian world of sharing and giving (based upon understanding that cultural differences are irrelevant, we are all children of the earth, brothers and sisters in the possibility harmony with all things), it is used to broadcast lies of extreme paranoia.
How do you fight a war based on lies? The answer, obviously is with the truth. What is the truth? The total truth, I do not know.
I do know only the tip of the iceberg; the physicality of the collapse of the twin towers (and building 7) must have been by controlled demolition. There is no other possible explanation. I can't convince you of this fact in this short note, you must earn it for yourself. If you are educated enough, but still cannot "see it", then that is a measure of the path you are on, the choices you are making.
Sherlock Holmes' most famous quote, "Once you have eliminated the impossible, what remains, NO MATTER HOW IMPROBABLE, must be the truth." is the detective's creed and we must all live by it. In this age of lies about lies, we must all be "detectives" for our own sake of sanity. I agree with the poster who states that he trusts no one. Like that person, I trust only myself and very few others. In terms of leaders in the world, only those who place seeking the truth of 9/11 as the top of their list do I even consider as sincere.
To argue the petty details of the Iraq war is to be sucked into the lie that there is any legitimate reason for ANY aspect of the WOT. In fact, militarism itself is obsolete. That is why 9/11 had to occur.
The WOT is code for WW111. That is what must be the conclusion of us all when we are all threatened by unwarranted suspicion of being a potential terrorist. "Pre-emptive war" is simply code for "Aggressive war", and we (the US government and its hypnotized subjects) have declared it upon the world.
Profits for war, tied into the petroleum based weapons industry, have created a paradigm of perpetual aggression and domination as "the only game in town."
"The last oil on earth will be used fighting for the last oil on earth."
It is an utter waste, a tragedy of global proportions and the legacy of the human drama unfolding before our eyes. Are we too late to save ourselves from this fate?
Read the variety of articles in CD and make the connections to the WOT. Can anyone say that any meaningful action will be taken to remedy global warming when the WOT dominates the resources of the planet, controlled by the very murderous instigators and profiteers of war? Record oil profits, icecaps melting at record speeds, mass extinctions, nuclear waste including depleted uranium poisoning the planet for eons to come, economic ruin for the middleclass, wonton disregard for human rights, genocide… the list goes on and on. All of these are connected. All of these are corrupted by the WOT, good intentions and the assumptions of a level playing field made a mockery.
Impeachment of GWB is a fool's goal when attempted within the corrupt system of government that we are now subject to. The evidence provided in the videotapes documenting the collapse of the WTC and Building 7 alone is concrete evidence of controlled demolition. By extrapolation of its implications, the evidence leads directly to the US government and US Military combined. It is enough to immediately arrest the entire Bush regime on suspicion of treason and murder. (Independent investigation to follow with the immediate freeze and re-evaluation of every law passed during the entire span of the Bush rein of power.) Therefore, impeachment, and not immediate arrest, is merely another smoke screen to perpetuate the prevailing system of control.
Is it possible to open enough people's eyes to the scope of treachery that we are now facing to make any difference whatsoever? 935 lies leading us into the Iraq quagmire are nothing compared to the big lie that feeds the global scale and misassuptions of the WOT.
If it is indeed too late to avert catastrophe and extinction, I at least want to know that in my final days on earth, my eyes have become open and that I now face my real enemies and forgive my real friends.
Scientists of the world must unite, not to tell us about global warming, but to officially refute the impossibility of the WTC and building 7 collapses as portrayed by the US government and MSM. Perhaps then, we may have a chance at a future worth living.
It looks like America's children, elderly and ill need not worry about climate change. We need only worry about the price of George Bush's Kool-Aid.
The Bush budget to be submitted Monday would cut the budget for the Health and Human Services Department by $2 billion, or 3 percent. By contrast, the Pentagon would get a $35 billion increase to $515 billion for core programs, with war costs additional.
Lizard's comments represent the opinions of a tiny, marginalized group of so-called researchers, most employed as consultants by Big Oil, or religious nuts. The only way present CO2 (and methane, which unlike water vapor, is significant) levels can have been attained on Earth is through human activity. And the only way the observed global temperature increase can have been attained is through trapping of heat in the atmosphere by these gases. Water vapor, while indeed acting as a greenhouse gas, has not increased and is not the issue. This is, at its heart, basic physics and carbon budgets. The solar fluctuation is very well researched, and can account for only 10-15% of the present increase. None of these issues remain in question. I simply cannot understand the motives of the naysayers. Simple willful ignorance, or an inability to accept the reality of what we're doing to the planet?
Or war will kill us or climate change will kill us. Two out of two...not bad, eh?
Can we figure out what percentage of our carbon budget is devoted to these wars?
If we spent 10% of the more than $100 billion dollars per year that we have spent in Iraq for the last 5 years on biomass gasification facilities to turn straw and corn stalks into fuel, we would not need any middle east oil.
Where are our priorities??
What is the difference between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton? A lot more than most think. It lies in their actions and their records, which speak far louder than their similar policy platforms. Place your vote and see the commentary: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/2/0181/84501/394/448113
The recurrent theme of the necessity for meat reduction as a means of saving the biosphere seems to interpose in the most unlikely of discussions. There is no real shortage of agricultural land on this planet and the current acreage being utilized for crop production could easily feed double and possibly triple the world's current population. The problem is in how that land is being utilized, since half of it is growing crops for making war materials. Get rid of the wars and there will be less need to waste such land. Of course, to stop wars it will first be necessary to get rid of the U.S.A. because that consortium of evil scumbags are the leading cause of war on this planet.
After the U.S.A. is nothing but a shameful memory, like the Nazis, the rest of the countries on this planet will see the light and fall in line and be good little boys and girls, ...or else.
Even if global warming is a myth, it ought to be clear that this country cannot pursue a policy of perpetual war for perpetual peace forever. Something's got to give---either this country will suffer a real military defeat, or it will collapse economically, or both.
A perfect legacy, not just for Bush II, but also for the Democrats who refused to rein him in somehow for fear of looking "defeatist" and "unpatriotic", and losing their majority.
Old George Wallace was right---there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the Repubs and the Demos.
But Obama fans, Barack is going to increase the military budget (and the size of the army).
Gee, I thought he was the "change" candidate?
When will you the light?
I've read literature from scientists saying: We need to burn more fossil fuels because there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature and higher CO2 concentration facilitates plant growth (Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (2007) 12, 79-90. (In my opinion, these scientist aren't very intelligent because they must be ludicrously oblivious to all the other effects of fossil fuel consumption independent of possible climate effects such as moutain top removal and conflict in the middle east...)
I've read literature from scientist saying: Temperature and CO2 concentration have correlated very closely over the past 300,000 years (Understanding and Responding to Climate Change, Highlights of National Acedemies Reports).
Both of these cited reports contain numerous fancy charts and graphs backing up the conclusions reached. The bottom line is data can be presented and analyzed in many different ways and often contradictory conclusions reached. We will never know for sure the objectivity of whomever is presenting the data and there will always be uncertainty when it comes to cause and effect in very complicated systems such as weather.
But we do know this because it is happening.
1. It is getting warmer.
2. All over the planet (planet earth that is) topsoil, fresh water basins, fisheries, rain forest, coral reefs, etc. are threatened and in collapse.
3. Humanity is "out of balance" with the planets ecosystems that support humanity.
4. Using funds, time, effort, and resources on war will not help bring about remedy (I will argue this point to my grave...).
So the question boils down to: Is humanity always going to remain subject to the whims of a very small minority who seem to have no empathy for others, or our we collectively capable of achieving something better?
As others have said at CD repeatedly - there is enough for man's need but not enough for man's greed. I concur. I think there is "plenty to go around", but it requires a bit of empathy --- plus, those who are hoarding may need to be relieved of most of their possessions (preferably by their own volition).
But of course, therein lies the quandary, because there are a few who think they are pulling all the strings and always will be and who actively resist or are simply unable to recognize better ways. For the sake of us all, these few need to learn - one way or the other, or they need to be disabled and subsumed because they are blocking progress and jeopardizing all of us as well as ALL of the children yet to be born. Seems that way to me. Time is of the essence and I pray for humanity.
Plus, I'm starting my own garden in earnest, refraining from consumption in all ways possible including meat consumption, trying to get more involved locally, and trying to stay informed and educated. I won't deny sometimes it is a bit depressing to witness what seems to be going down, but regardless I plan on doing my part as best I can because I refuse to give up my hope for a better future and I refuse to give in to those sick few who lack the basic understanding that we are all related.
Thanks Common Dreams for the opportunity to get this off my chest.
Peace,
Ken
Squareroot: Thank you. I have no dispute with anything you have said. I am open to explanations. Why did CO2 rise in a smooth exponential curve at a time when the temperature was not rising (10 years). Why does the earth temperature correlate so well with solar output during that same time?
Mr.Pickwick: Learn to be nice. Unnice people are prone to war.
Jeez! People on the internet pretending to be scientists who don't understand that pollutants are passive atmospheric inhabitants and that water vapor is a recycling activator of weather phenomenon! Whew! Those self-proclaimed "scientists" must be the same type of poseurs who work for NASA who can explain the universe in ten easy lessons. Like the very same NASA scientists whose faulty calculations are the sole factor in all of the lost satellites and spacecraft that have reached orbit. Whooowhoo! Aren't we so lucky to have so many "scientists" around! Let's hope those right smart dudes stick around to explain how far a photon can travel from a star before it exhausts it's expendable energy so we can move on from there and understand all that "big bang" baby talk. Oooo! Do I ever like it when the smart guys come out to play!
Go get him, squareroot, it's time to stop being polite to these people who trot out tired old discredited denier nonsense with the air of someone uncovering a truth that has somehow evaded all the world's scientists for the last century. They make me want to puke . By the way, lizard's brain, I'm a scientist. I was going to say "also a scientist", but I find it impossible to believe that a real scientist of any kind could trot out the nonsesne you have exhibited here. Go and do some reading if you really do have scientific training, then come back, say you are sorry, and join the rest of the real scientists in trying to save this desperately threatened planet. Otherwise get out of our way. Now.
Sorry to pick on you lizard, but this:
"I have seen nothing but correlational data and showing a poor correlation at that."
is bizarre. Svante Arrhenius gave you more to go on that that a century ago, by working out from simple radiation physics that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere should increase global mean temp.
Oh, and this: CO2 is not a major greenhouse gas, water vapor is." Tell me about that! Americans have been made to believe that they can control the world, now they are being made to believe they can control the climate.
Yes, H20 is the largest absorber of long-wave radiation (removing all water vapour from the atmosphere would reduce absorption by 66%; removing all CO2 would reduce it by 85% - calculations by Gavin Schmidt of the NASA GISS). As you would remind us, however, correlation ≠causation: water vapour might be a climate forcing, or simply a feedback to it.
If water vapour is a climate forcing agent, then altering atmospheric concentrations independently should cause sustained changes in temperature. But when the GISS GCM was used to simulate the complete instantaneous removal of water vapour from the atmosphere, it sprang back to 99% of original value within 50 days. And as Gavin pointed out (at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142), this was not a built-in assumption of the model, but a result of it.
Water vapour has an atmospheric residence time of about 10 days; CO2 of about 100 years. Unlike water vapour, CO2 persists long enough to cause feedbacks in other parts of the climate system. For instance, a small increase in CO2 causes a small but *persistent* increase in long-wave radiation trapping, and as the saturated water vapour content of air varies closely with temperature, the water vapour content rapidly increases to a new equilibrium (contributing greatly to the additional greenhouse effect), which can then cause knock-on changes in e.g. vegetation or permafrost which cause more release of GHGs. Water vapour simply doesn't hang around long enough to do this.
As a scientist I'm sure this makes sense to you.
"Tell me about that! Americans have been made to believe that they can control the world, now they are being made to believe they can control the climate."
"Control" implies too great a degree of deliberate action. "Destabilise" would be a better choice of word.
lizard,
"Global warming is a solar system phenomenon unrelated to human activity."
Not according to this review:
Lockwood M, Fröhlich C. Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature. Proceedings of the Royal Society A 2007; http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2007.1880 [accessed yesterday]
These are two experts on solar terrestrial physics (i.e. how the Sun affects our climate), and after ploughing through the relevant primary literature, they appear to disagree with you. In fact, they reckon that "over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures."
The people who believe in global warming caused by human induced pollution are like children who believe in the corporate government's evil mascot, Santa Claus. They believe because they have been, and continue to be, inundated with the propaganda until it becomes real for them.
Haven't you ever wondered why the corporate media's weather channels and other weather forecasters only show immitation fog overlaid on facsimile maps, or, at best, play a split second clip of the recorded cloud cover over any given region? They have had dozens of weather satelites for decades and back then, when they first had total coverage, they used to show real atmosphere, but not anymore. Certainly, the price of such coverage could only have been drastically reduced with the new and higher tech, so, what are they hiding?
Close observers have a good idea of why it is that the corporate governments continue to spend outlandish amounts on their militaries while letting their civilian infrastructure corrode to the point of collapse. Those close observers also know that the fact the U.S. military maintained an operation "blue book" for over a decade is a government confirmation of what they were trying to discredit but were too stupid to know how to go about it. If you get caught up in the "climate change", "war on terror" nonsense then you will not be in the real conversation, because the corporate governments will always find a new bogey man if those don't work or if they wear out.
No surprise that war propagation dwarfs warming mitigation in the US budget. The capitalists want to expand both wars and warming. The capitalists need both, and then some, to grow the economy, which must grow forever and ever, to keep the people enslaved.
The capitalists are counting on expanding wars, war debt, VA services, fossil fuel consumption, meat consumption, building, tearing down, blowing up, rebuilding, hurricanes, flooding, damming, diking, famine, desertification, emergency services, temporary housing, refugee management, imprisonment, surveillance, walling and fencing, and all the rest to expand the economy forever and ever and then some.
Detroit's planned obsolescence program, the ever-expanding freeway system, squander of 90% of production inputs, privatization of everything, healthcare costs double those elsewhere, and 10% of the economy dedicated to advertising/marketing aren't enough to suitably grow the economy. Grow the economy at the expense of all else... or else...
There are many questions unanswered. The US is a horrible polluter and the fact that the US has spent so much money on armaments while neglecting research into alternate forms of energy is a great calamity. I strongly support the preservation of hydrocarbon polymers (oil)for polymerization, not to burn in vehicles! We need oil for synthetics of all sorts and yet we destroy this unreplaceable resource for energy. This is truly stupid.
Believing this does not mean I have to believe whatever I am told. I can still think.
Beware of computer models, they are based on unsupported assumptions. Who can evaluate the buffering capacity of the earth? Who knows what kind of storage reserve exists for excess water?
Beware of correlational data, it is constantly abused.
You are so worked up over this! And so insulting! Can't stand disagreement? If you don't believe the theory you favor pollution? You must think exactly like me or you must be totally different from me, an animal, a lower being, a bum? All that because I don't believe. Well I'm pretty good at analyzing data and reaching conclusions for it, in fact I have been rigorously trained for it which I doubt you guys are. I have seen nothing but correlational data and showing a poor correlation at that. I see CO2 levels rising while temperature falls for a whole 10 years. I see data pulled out of the graph ignoring before and after for effect. I see an unscientific approach to the data. I'm a scientist, and scientists tend to be sceptical. I don't care who is right, but you obviously do. I just care for scientific objectivity. I also care about the world but that doesn't make me believe whatever I'm told.
Some people still think WTC was not a demolition, while the laws of physics say it must be. What do you think I believe?
What will you do, Lizard, when floods and famine come?
Crawl under a rock?
It is tempting to put people like "Lizard" into a zoo and protect them as an endangered species. I haven't seen the classic "sun is warming" and "CO2 is a minor gas" for a long time. A real pleasure to know that there are still fools out there willing to spout this rubbish. The evidence is in that the climate is not only going to change to an unimaginable extent, but it is going to change to an extent beyond which we can imagine; neither humans, nor the ape ancestors of humans, have ever seen the kind of climate that is coming to Earth soon. The last creatures to see such a warm planet almost all went extinct. Looks like being 100% extinction this time as we keep releasing all the CO2 and methane that has been trapped beneath the surface for hundreds of millions of years. Keep releasing it, our foot flat to the flor of the SUV, because fools like Mr Lizard keep being useful idiots for the energy companies. So no room for Mr Lizard in a zoo I'm afraid, too much effort is going to be needed to save worthwhile species. And it is probably not going to be possibleto saveany, including ourselves. The plane is going to crash folks, and is gathering speed as it heads down (http://www.blognow.com.au/mrpickwick/Climate_change/).
hmmmm, spend a fortune killing people, invading countries, making weapons and blowing things up, or usefully spending money to save the countries and its inhabitants.
Too expensive and less fun protecting the nation, boom time for Iraq
Its way to hard to swindle healthy people living in a healthy environment with a reasonably honest and effective government.
Thats the neocon program. That and genocide.
Several hundred billion dollars of the military budget is hidden under other programs. For example, the Veterans Administration budget is for some reason separate from the Pentagon's budget. Nuclear weapons development is with the Department of Energy. The black budget is into the hundreds of billions.
Here's my suggestion for the military. Take all of those nuclear weapons that are going to cause a nuclear winter, and label them as global cooling devices. There. Was that hard?
CO2 on venus doesn't mean co2 on earth does it? On earth CO2 is minor. sorry. The level of discussion is too low.
Lizard, if you trust no one, I feel sorry for you. But please do use your own mind. Anyone who says CO2 is not a major greenhouse gas has lost it. Go check out NASA, Venus has very little water vapour and a whole lot of CO2, Carl Sagan found that out quite some time ago. Venus and Mars are not warming up. Well, Venus isn't Mars is expected to for another dozen years or so because it is still (relatively) close to the sun. It takes time for things to warm up, especially when there is very little atmosphere around. On earth the northern hemisphere gets more direct sunlight in the summer and less in the winter. But winter doesn't even start (officially) until the shortest day of the year. It's still pretty cold where I live on February 21, which is the same number of days away from the shortest day as October 21, which is usually still pretty nice out.
So, Mars was at its closest point to the sun a few years ago, that's like the first day of summer (using our calendar) its going to keep warming up until the first day of autumn.
lizard,
would that be fresh water vapor? or salt water vapor? have you read "crossing the rubicon" by michael ruppert? granted, some may fail to see the connections, but if you haven't allowed yourself the pleasure, start turning the pages. after you read them (i dislike having to spell it out).
i'm not sure that most americans are willing to acknowledge the fact that we are attempting to control the climate. the unknown factor here is mother nature herself.
by the time we realize that the sun comes up each day (hint: free energy), it will be too late. if you haven't enjoyed the teasers mother nature has been giving us for several years now, just sit back, relax if you can, and enjoy the main event.
btw, thank you, welshterrier2. oh that everyone could see the big picture.
Could somebody tell me the difference between supply-and-demand and price-gouging?
Posters:
I trust noone. I use my own mind. We should and must reduce pollution so we don't live in our own filth. I'm with you. But the earth is not your playground. You are not that big. CO2 is not a major greenhouse gas, water vapor is. Tell me about that! Americans have been made to believe that they can control the world, now they are being made to believe they can control the climate. Go ahead, be my guest. I am not unaccustomed to seeing money siphoned off by well placed fat cats.
Lizards. Cold blooded creatures requiring warm environments in order that their metabolisms do not grind to a halt.
Along with amphibians who are equally at home on land as in water, lizards will probably thrive within the coming environmental catastrophy.
Ahab stabs at the heart of Mother Earth until she spouts Black Blood - it is our children's blood. We have destroyed ourselves.
lizard - IF Mars and Venus are warming up, it may be due to the fact that their atmospheres are almost pure carbon dioxide. And whoever told you that the "data for earth do not support the theory of man made global warming," was lying to you. Unfortunately, there are a great many lies out there, so it is understandable that many people are confused. But the science is clear. You need to find better sources to trust.
Lizard, if the sun is increasing its energy output and that is warming things up a bit, should we at least try to offset it by conservation and alternative energy sources, or just keep on feeding big oil until we roast?
To put is another way, if the water is rising, do you try to build a levy and maintain it, or do you just stand there and drown when it gets high enough?
In short, if the sun is not cooperating with us on global warming, shouldn't we still try to shut down the actions which are exacerbating it?
OMG my tax dollars are going to be spent in a cynical manipulation to reduce pollution!!!!!! The humanity!!! I wish.
Global warming is a solar system phenomenon unrelated to human activity. Both Mars and Venus are also warming up, and the data for earth do not support the theory of man made global warming. This is another cynical manipulation to get the population to back measures to reduce pollution. Using a theory that the end justifies the means, the anti-pollution community is pushing the global warming emergency to get everyone on board against pollution. Money has a lot to do with it. Access to tax payer dollars is the name of the game.
DUH ! They are wasting $Billions every week in Iraq attempting to steal a fossil fuel that will contribute to global warming.
The $2 Trillion used to fund war crimes (while creating more enemies) could have gone a long way towards alternative energy production !
Imagine if climate change were personified.
Attired in robes and turban, sporting a long beard, carring a Koran, and speaking threatening truths in Arabic, we'd soon been labling SUV owners as 'radicals' and rounding them up for internment in our favorite shadow-resorts around the globe.
Now we know where the term "Bang for the Buck" came from.
as someone once said...it's all crrrap...and I'm a Scott, and I know it when I see it. and if I can't see it I can smell it a mile away..so if it ain't scottish it's just crrrap...and that my friends is my analysis of our current path to an obliterated state of affairs,moving past the point of no return as fast as we can.
We had a man of great vision and compassion, a true man of peace, D Kucinich; way ahead of his time, running for office. He wasn't even worthy of crucifixion, by corporate press or their partners in crime at the DLC. and then they gave Edwards the Boot for good measure. not the purist of pure but the talk seemed good and he has passion. and now we are left with the corporate selection process while all the earth and it's citizens go to HEll in a handbasket. Tweedle dumb and tweedle dee, and the old man of the Si..
Si for senile..oh yes bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran...brought the cabbage patch doll at the big house a chuckle in his usual style..eheh..eheh..eheh!
and the American sheeple cheer..change??? I call it chump change! just another day on maggies farm.
"2-4-6-8 open up the pearly gates..ain't got time to wonder why..whoopee we're all gonna die"
All the hyperbole about "America dying" or "That is when America will die" is exactly how not to engage your fellow humans beings in a discussion about this.
Everybody's got their pet way for America to go to hell in a handbasket. F*ck the flag when we're talking human survival.
War spending *is* an anti climate change measure. It's the means by which the US intends to protect its way of life by securing resources and keeping out climate change refugees. The US knows what is coming - it isn't going to surrender a single SUV or executive toy to save the rest of the world.
Exxon has just posted the largest annual profits of any US corporation in history, thanks to record crude oil prices. Spending on the war doesn't dwarf only spending on climate change. It dwarfs spending on almost everything else. And the war is based on a thinly veiled lie, with most evidence pointing towards control of Iraqi oil reserves as the true motive. The so-called "Democratic" Congress has been unable, or more likely unwilling, to take any steps to change this. All this while the US middle class is trying to survive on 1970's level (inflation corrected) wages, and this last month has seen a significant drop in employment as we head into, at best, a likely recession. America isn't really dying, yet. It's morphing into a fabulously wealthy corporatocracy maintained by a general population surviving on minimum wages or less. History tells us that this situation inevitably goes unstable, ending in revolution and installation of a new governmental system which may or may not work. That ... is when this country will die.
Neocon Colonel Blimp is fighting the wrong war.
We die.
over the past week millions of chinese have been without electricity and water due to unprecedented cold weather. other thousands have been stranded at railway stations as a result of this. as a consequence agricultural lands and food have been devastated. this is the kind of upheaval we are going to witness as a result of climate change. with the world's food supplies already dwindling the end result is not too difficult to imagine. perhaps the 647 billion dollars allocated for the military will somehow protect the u.s. citizens against the 'serious national security threat' posed by global warming............
Sadly, climate change is happening, and even if we stop every greenhouse gas emission now, the Earth's temperature is going to rise for some time. The ice caps will melt more, and ocean levels rise. We need to spend more on adapting to that reality, and less on stupid "smart bombs."
Besides, climate change is a national security issue. Just look at Bangladesh, a nation of 150 million people, most moderate Muslims. If the ocean levels rise just 3 feet, 50% or so of Bangladesh will be under water. Which will probably (rightly) result in 150 million angry formerly moderate Muslims. Imagine post-Katrina New Orleans multiplied by I don't know how much.
Sorry about reposting this but it was just too relevant to ignore:
America is dying, my friends. The oil companies are showing record profits. The defense industry is showing record profits. The candidates are showing nothing.
Look, let's make this real easy, OK? We cannot continue to burn oil. Why? Because it is bankrupting our treasury and threatening life on the planet.
The solution? We cut about $500 billion out of the $1.1 trillion defense budget. That still leaves the US with a defense budget larger than the rest of the world combined! Instead of pouring money into the research and production of new fighter planes and funding more than 730 foreign military bases, we pour those funds into research on cars that don't burn fossil fuels and we spend that money on research for efficient, low cost solar panels. This research would be done by government employees hired specifically for these purposes. We then make the technology available to private companies to produce consumer products. Either we sell the patents to them or we demand certain affordable pricing when the goods come to market.
The result? We stop importing more than 10 million barrels of oil per day at roughly $100 per barrel. Sound good? And the prices will only get higher over time. Demand for oil in China is skyrocketing. And there's always peak oil pricing pressures to consider. Our oil addiction is jeopardizing our security and our future.
So, not only could new technology help us stop importing 10 million barrels per day, but it would enable us to stop spewing CO2 into the atmosphere at the rate of 20 million barrels per day. That's how much oil is burned everyday in the US.
The problem, my friends, be you Democrat or Republican, is that the weeny ass candidates from both major parties are in bed with BIG DEFENSE and BIG OIL. You just will never hear anything real from either major party on this critical issue. That's just the way it is. Which candidate is willing to call for massive cuts in the defense budget to make the country safer? America will always be less safe having to occupy other countries to secure oil. We will always be less safe when we have to sell our souls to the tyrannical House of Saud to guard our oil sources. We will always be less safe when we gut America's infrastructure to pay for big defense and big oil. We will always be less safe when we cannot afford quality education, healthcare and a social safety net for those who need it. That's exactly where we've come to today. Do you really believe otherwise?
And so, America continues to die while we play the great campaign game. Obama said this; Clinton said that. It's all crap, friends. Keep your eye on the real stuff. We need major changes and play-it-safe political parties are not ever going to advocate for them. Until we can make the major parties bend to the people's will rather than the will of entrenched corporate interests, the minor differences between parties and candidates is little more than illusion … and time is growing very, very short.
US$647.5B to US$7.37B is a ratio of 88:1 defense to climate-change funding. Remember this the next time you speak with a neocon and they try to shift the discussion from GWoT to the global warming "scam" (and in my experience, they always do).