gorbash81's Blog

What Climage Change Looks Like!

Pictures of the breakup of the Greenland Glacier, the light blue sections are vulnerable to breakup.

Some Before and After pictures that Conservative Global Warming deniers don't want you to see!

The red areas are the areas that will be covered in water in approximately 50 years time if nothing is done to halt Greenhouse gas emissions.

New York City in aproximately 50 years time if nothing is done!

Graphic Computer artists rendition of the aftermath!

Could this be the Great Lakes in 100 years if we don't get serious about climate change?

Republican Corporate Stooges Cover Up for BigOil in Exxon Valdez Court Ruling!

Corporate Interests are more important than the Environment and the livlihood of Fishermen in Alaska's Prince William's Sound

Appointee and Conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts Stands up for Corporate Rights Over the Environment

The Conservative Bush Appointed Judge is appearing to side with Exxon Mobil in Corporate rights over the rights of fishermen and the environment in a Civil Case where Fisherman are suing the Exxon Mobil Company for damages due to the oil spill on March 24th 1989.

The Exxon Valdez ship was an oil tanker owned by the Exxon Corporation. On March 24th 1989, due to negligence and lapse in judgment by the company, the tanker captained by Joseph Hazelwood hit Prince William Sound's Bligh reef and spilled over 11 million gallons of crude oil.

It was recorded as the largest oil spill in U.S. history, and also one of the largest ecological disasters in U.S. history as well.

The ship was transporting crude oil from Alyeska consortium pipeline terminal in Valdez Alaska to the lower 48 states carrying 1.26 million barrels or 53 million gallons when it hit the reef.

On February 28th 2008 at 12:42 PM, the Conservative led supreme court heard oral arguments on how much money ExxonMobil corporation should be forced to pay as damages for the oil spill 19 years ago which destroyed fisheries important to the local economy there, as well as the environment..

According to reporters witnessing the arguments- Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts appeared "bothered" that Exxon might actually have to pay for the damages they caused!

Conservative Republican Judge John Roberts was "disturbed" that Exxon was being ordered to pay $2.5 Billion- or 3 weeks worth of profits, for destroying a long swath of the Alaska coastline, the local fishing industry, and the local ecology.

Showing compassionate conservatism for Corporate well-being he asked "So what can a corporation do to protect itself against punitive-damages awards such as this?" during the oral arguments of the case.

The lawyer arguing on the side of the Alaskan fishermen affected by the massive Exxon Valdez oil spill Jeffrey Fisher, said

"It can hire fit and competent people"

Looks like Conservative judges are already paying off for the people of Alaska.

John McCain said that he is going to appoint Conservative judges like John Roberts, just as Conservative Republican George W. Bush did during his administration.

http://consumerist.com/361852/exxon-may-have-its-pun

itive-damages-for-valdez-spill-cut-in-half-by-supreme-c

ourt

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/washington/28scotus
.
html?_r=1&ex=1361941200&en=0c50d5acb83ed4c6&ei=5090&par

tner=rssuserland&emc=rss&oref=slogin

Here Are Some of Barrack Obama's Plans on Energy and the Environment!

He Has a Strong Commitment to Clean Alternative Energy That Is Quite Impressive!

Here is a list of 13 Myths concocted by Conservatives and Republican Global Warming Deniers which they use to disprove scientific evidence of Global Warming

Since the release of the film An Inconvenient Truth (Paramount Classics, May 2006) featuring former Vice President Al Gore, the issue of global warming has received increased attention in the popular media. Yet numerous media figures have distorted the scientific studies they cite, frequently drawing criticism from the scientists who produced the studies. And while there is scientific consensus on many issues related to global warming, media figures have advanced several false, misleading, or baseless claims about the causes and seriousness of the crisis:

1. No scientific consensus that humans are the primary cause of global warming

Media figures, including MSNBC host Tucker Carlson, have claimed that "[t]here's no consensus" on "why" the "world is getting warmer." As Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, scientific organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) share the consensus view that, as stated in a June 2006 NAS report, "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming" of the planet. An IPCC report released in February found:

Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic [human-produced] greenhouse gas concentrations. This is an advance since the TAR's [Third Assessment Report] conclusion that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations". Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns. [The report defines "very likely" as a greater than 90 percent probability of occurrence.]

Additionally, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, media figures frequently claim that there is insufficient evidence that humans are contributing to global warming. On the July 29, 2006, edition of Fox News' The Beltway Boys, Weekly Standard executive editor and co-host Fred Barnes denied that humans are a cause of global warming. After co-host Morton M. Kondracke stated that "[g]lobal warming is a fact," Barnes replied, "Yeah, but who caused it? You don't know." When Kondracke replied, "Humans," Barnes retorted: "No. You don't know that."

2. Gore is exaggerating

Reviving a familiar smear during the 2000 presidential campaign of Gore as an "exaggerator," media figures have attacked Gore and the film by accusing him of exaggerating scientific assessments and predictions about rising sea levels, the possible links between global warming and hurricanes, and arctic melting. The attacks take the form of false comparisons and misrepresentations of his claims.

But the IPCC projection to which Broad was referring involved rising sea levels as they are affected by "[c]ontinued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates" -- not the melting or breakup of the West Antarctic ice shelf or the Greenland ice dome. A chart projecting the rise of sea levels in six different scenarios showed that the "the best estimate for the high scenario," which defined the "likely range" of temperature increases over the next century to be from "2.4°C to 6.4°C," resulting in an increase in sea levels between 0.26 meters and 0.59 meters, which converts to a range of 10.24 to 23.23 inches. The IPCC further claimed that "[c]ontraction of the Greenland ice sheet is projected to continue to contribute to sea level rise after 2100" and that "[i]f a negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland ice sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m," which is equivalent to approximately 23 feet. The apple-to-oranges comparison Broad made on sea levels was noted by Bob Somerby on his weblog, The Daily Howler.

The false comparison was repeated in a March 19 Wall Street Journal column by John Fund, who accused Gore of "environmental exaggerations and hypocrisy." Similarly, on the March 21 edition of Fox News' The Big Story, Cato Institute senior fellow Patrick Michaels used this false comparison as the basis for characterizing Gore's position as "beyond shrill" and "thermonuclear."

But while Gore attributed the claim "that global warming is even leading to an increased frequency of hurricanes" to "some" scientists in his book, he also acknowledged "[t]here is less agreement among scientists about the relationship between the total number of hurricanes each year and global warming." Similarly, in the update to the film Gore said: "There is no scientific consensus linking the absolute number of hurricanes to global warming." Further, the recent IPCC report appeared to agree with Gore's assessment, concluding that "[b]ased on a range of models, it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical SSTs [sea surface temperatures]." [Emphasis in original.]

3. "Rank-and-file" scientists disagree with Gore

In support of his thesis that "[c]riticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists," The New York Times' Broad cited numerous scientists who -- far from being "rank-and-file" scientists with "no political ax to grind" -- are well-known global warming skeptics who have made statements questioning global warming that have either been debunked or discredited by the scientific community. Though Broad failed to say so in his article, the scientist he named specifically as his example of a "rank-and-file" scientist who has criticized the film -- Don J. Easterbrook -- has taken a position on global warming that puts him outside of the scientific mainstream and at odds with the IPCC.

Further, while Broad purported to represent the views of mainstream scientists on the accuracy of the film, in May 2006, at the time of the theatrical release of An Inconvenient Truth, the Times published an article by Andrew C. Revkin reporting that mainstream scientists, while taking issue with some details in the film, embraced its premise and subscribed to Gore's "main point":

In interviews and e-mail exchanges, many climate specialists who have seen the film quibbled about details but tended to agree with Eric Steig, a University of Washington geochemist who posted his reactions at the Web log realclimate.org after a recent Seattle screening: ''The small errors don't detract from Gore's main point, which is that we in the United States have the technological and institutional ability to have a significant impact on the future trajectory of climate change.''

A June 2006 Associated Press article reported a similar consensus among scientists.

4. The sun, not human activity, causes global warming

The claim that the sun -- rather than human activity -- is primarily responsible for global warming has been trumpeted by nationally syndicated columnist John McCaslin, who wrote in his March 2 Washington Times column that a February 28 National Geographic News article "cites 2005 data" showing similar warming trends on Earth and Mars as "evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun." In fact, the National Geographic News article, to which conservative Internet gossip Matt Drudge linked, did not itself assert the existence of evidence that "changes in the sun" are largely responsible for global warming -- as McCaslin suggested -- but rather reported on "one scientist's controversial theory." The article first quoted "Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University" saying that the claim that the sun is largely responsible for global warming is "completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion" and that it "contradict[s] the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC report." The article added that "[t]he conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun" and that "most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now." The article further reported that "the biggest stumbling block in" the theory is the "dismissal of the greenhouse effect," and quoted Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who said that "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice."

Rush Limbaugh made a similar claim in September 2005, selectively reading on his nationally syndicated radio show from a year-old article to falsely suggest that a 2004 study by the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research found that an increase in solar brightness is the sole cause of global warming. In fact, the article, which appeared in the London Telegraph in July 2004, specifically noted that the study's lead author did not believe increased solar brightness was responsible for the dramatic rise in global temperatures over the past 20 years; according to the parent organization of the group that conducted the study, solar brightness "plays only a minor role in the current global warming."

Two days before Gore testified, Drudge purported to reveal several "[p]roposed questions" that "could lead [sic] Gore scrambling for answers!" One question asked:

How can you continue to claim that global warming on Earth is primarily caused by mankind when other planets (Mars, Jupiter and Pluto) with no confirmed life forms and certainly no man-made industrial greenhouse gas emissions also show signs of global warming? Wouldn't it make more sense that the sun is responsible for warming since it is the common denominator?

5. Carbon dioxide is not bad for the environment

In May 2006, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) released two 60-second television ads "focusing on the alleged global warming crisis and the calls by some environmental groups and politicians for reduced energy use." One ad titled "Energy" suggests that environmentalists have falsely labeled carbon dioxide as a pollutant when, in fact, it is "essential to life." The ad is misleading because, while carbon dioxide is not inherently harmful, excessive discharges of the gas are indeed harmful to the atmosphere.

Wall Street Journal columnist Pete du Pont echoed the commercial's claim, asserting that carbon dioxide "is not a pollutant -- indeed it is vital for plant growth," But, contrary to du Pont's suggestion, scientists do not argue that carbon dioxide is inherently harmful. Rather, they point to the danger posed to the atmosphere by excessive discharges of C0₂, as the Natural Resources Defense Council noted:

[A] pollutant is a substance that causes harm when present in excessive amounts. CO2 has been in the atmosphere since life on earth began, and in the right amounts CO2 is important for making the earth hospitable for continued life. But when too much CO2 is put into the atmosphere, it becomes harmful. We have long recognized this fact for other pollutants. For example, phosphorus is a valuable fertilizer, but in excess, it can kill lakes and streams by clogging them with a blanket of algae.

6. Greenland and Antarctic ice is increasing, not decreasing

The second CEI ad, "Glaciers," claimed that scientific studies have proven that "Greenland's glaciers are growing" and that the "Antarctic ice sheet is getting thicker, not thinner." But as the weblog Think Progress noted, the Greenland study found increased snow accumulation only on the island's interior, while separate studies conducted during the same period found significant melting among the coastal glaciers. Further, the lead author of the study on Antarctica issued a public statement accusing CEI of a "deliberate effort to confuse and mislead the public about the global warming debate." According to the statement, "Growth of the ice sheet was only noted on the interior of the ice sheet and did not include coastal areas. Coastal areas are known to be losing mass, and these losses could offset or even outweigh the gains in the interior areas. ... The fact that the interior ice sheet is growing is a predicted consequence of global climate warming."

On Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Fred Barnes made a similar claim, asserting that the "hysterical position is to say that sea levels -- based on some glaciers in some places melting -- based on that, sea level is going to rise 20 feet. ... It's getting colder in Greenland." Du Pont's Wall Street Journal column also claimed that "the coastal stations in Greenland had actually experienced a cooling trend." But climate scientist Petr Chylek of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, who found in a 2004 report that "Greenland coastal stations data have undergone predominantly a cooling trend," published a study a year later that attributed this cooling trend to local climate patterns -- specifically, the North Atlantic Oscillations (NAO). Chylek then analyzed the temperature record in the Danmarkshavn region of Greenland -- an area on the northeastern coast apparently unaffected by the NAO -- and found that the rate of warming there was 2.2 times faster than the global average. This corresponds with United Nations climate-change models that show Greenland warming at a faster rate than the rest of the planet and partially explains the rapid deterioration of the Greenland ice sheet in recent years. In addition, recent studies documenting the increased melting in Antarctica and Greenland, as well as studies of past ice-sheet melting, have strengthened the case for accelerated sea-level rise over the course of the next century.

Even when it is accepted that ice is melting, media figures have suggested that scientists don't know why they are melting. In a segment on "the health of our planet" on the September 13, 2006, edition of NBC's Nightly News, host Brian Williams showed recently released NASA images of the Arctic from 2004 and 2005 and said that the difference between the two demonstrated "an abrupt shrinkage ... equal to an area about the size of the state of Texas." Williams stated that the ice is not "shrinking that much every year," adding that "[s]cientists can't say yet whether global warming is the culprit." However, according to the scientist and author of the NASA study on the Arctic ice meltdown to which Williams was presumably referring in citing the Arctic images, new data show "the strongest evidence of global warming in the Arctic so far."

7. Global warming has come and gone

Global warming is now 0.6°C in the past three decades and 0.8°C in the past century. It is no longer correct to say that "most global warming occurred before 1940". More specifically, there was slow global warming, with large fluctuations, over the century up to 1975 and subsequent rapid warming of almost 0.2°C per decade.

8. Alarmism then and now

Media figures have argued that the predictions by scientists now should be put in context because scientists were convinced in the 1970s that global cooling was occurring but have since become similarly convinced that global warming is occurring. In fact, far from suggesting impending doom, one paper frequently cited, "Variations in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages," addressed only long-term trends "with periods of 20,000 years and longer."

9. Because it's cold outside today, global warming can't be real

Several media figures -- and even weather forecasters -- have looked at weather patterns lasting days, weeks, or months to disprove global warming, which is based on thousands of years of records. For instance, the January 17 edition of Fox News' Your World featured on-screen graphics that read: "Global Warming?" and "Nation in a Deep Freeze: What Global Warming?" Host Neil Cavuto began the segment by noting freezing temperatures in Texas, Arizona, and California and asking if these temperatures were "[p]roof that all this hype over global warming could be just that -- hype?"

10. 1934 was the hottest year globally

Several media figures have misrepresented an August 2007 correction made by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) to its climate figures after the discovery of inconsistencies in its U.S. temperature data. According to Gavin A. Schmidt, a climate modeler at GISS, the correction resulted in a re-ranking of NASA's list of the warmest years in the United States. For example, whereas 1998 was previously ranked as the warmest year in the United States, it is now ranked second, behind 1934. According to Schmidt, the temperature difference between 1934 and 1998 in the United States -- both before and after the correction -- is not statistically significant. Further, the GISS stated that the revisions to the climate data have "no effect on the rankings of global temperature." However, during the August 10, 2007, edition of Fox News' Special Report, chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle reported that NASA was forced "to admit it was wrong when it said that 1998 was the hottest year on record" and that NASA "now says 1934 was the hottest year, followed by 1998, then 1921" but did not note that those rankings applied only to the United States. Glenn Beck made a similar claim during the October 24, 2007, edition of his nationally syndicated radio show. Beck declared that "the globe was the hottest" in 1934 and claimed that this "stat ... was, I believe, intentionally distorted by the guy the left holds up as the scientist on global warming," an apparent reference to James Hansen, director of GISS.

In fact, according to GISS, 2005 remained the warmest year globally in the instrumental record, followed by 1998. (2007 is now tied with 1998 as the second warmest year in the global instrumental record.) According to a January 16 GISS statement, "The eight warmest years in the [global] GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990."

12. The sun, not human activity, causes global warming

Echoing earlier claims by nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh and columnist John McCaslin, media figures have distorted scientific research to claim that the sun -- rather than human activity -- is primarily responsible for global warming. During the August 21, 2007, edition of Special Report, host Brit Hume cited "new research by University of Washington mathematicians [that] shows a correlation between high solar activity and periods of global warming" as evidence to support his claim that "[global warming] skeptics are increasingly certain that the scare is vastly overblown." But an August 9, 2007, New Scientist article on the mathematicians' research warned that "[c]limate-change skeptics may seize on the findings as evidence that the sun's variability can explain global warming -- but [the report's co-author] mathematician Ka-Kit Tung says quite the contrary is true." According to the article, Tung, who is a University of Washington professor of applied mathematics and an adjunct professor in Atmospheric Science, says his finding, in the New Scientist's words, "adds to the evidence that mainstream climate models are right about the likely extent of future human-generated warming."

Similarly, in a March 22, 2007, National Review Online (NRO) commentary, former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN) mocked those who "think that our planet is suffering from a fever," saying: "Now scientists are telling us that Mars is experiencing its own planetary warming: Martian warming. ... I wonder what all those planets, dwarf planets and moons in our SOLAR system have in common. Hmmmm. SOLAR system. Hmmmm. Solar? I wonder." In a July 27, 2007, Washington Post article, then-staff writer John Solomon quoted portions of Thompson's commentary, but failed to note that Thompson's argument -- that warming on other planets is evidence that warming on Earth is the result of natural circumstances, and not human activity -- is one, according to a scientist interviewed in National Geographic about the theory, that is "completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion." Indeed, according to the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, "Most of the observed increase in globally-averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG (greenhouse gas) concentrations." The authors of the IPCC report noted that the phrase "very likely" translates to greater than 90 percent probability. The IPCC further reported that "it is very unlikely [less than a 10-percent chance] that the contribution from solar forcing to the warming of the last 50 years was larger than that from greenhouse gas forcing."

13. Gore is exaggerating about rising sea levels

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, media figures have attacked Gore and the film by accusing him of exaggerating scientific assessments and predictions about rising sea levels, the possible links between global warming and hurricanes, and arctic melting. The attacks have taken the form of false comparisons and misrepresentations of his claims. Indeed, during the June 1, 2007, edition of Fox News' Special Report, Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes falsely claimed that there is a "difference between Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" because "Al Gore says that over the next century sea level rises 20 feet" but the IPCC "says, 'Well, maybe 17 to 23 inches.' " In fact, Gore never said in either the film or the book version of An Inconvenient Truth that the potential 20-foot rise in sea levels would happen "over the next century," as Barnes claimed. Rather, the supposed "difference" between Gore and the IPCC on the issue of sea levels relies on a false comparison. While the February 2007 IPCC report projected a maximum 23-inch sea-level rise before 2100 as a result of rising temperatures, Gore's statement predicted a 20-foot rise in sea levels if the Greenland or West Antarctic ice sheets were to melt completely or collapse at an indefinite point in the future. Indeed, the IPCC reported that "[c]ontraction of the Greenland Ice Sheet is projected to continue to contribute to sea level rise after 2100" and that "[i]f a negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland ice sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m," which is equivalent to approximately 23 feet. The IPCC also supports Gore's claim that a collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet would result in a sea level rise as high as 20 feet:

Recent satellite and in situ observations of ice streams behind disintegrating ice shelves highlight some rapid reactions of ice sheet systems. This raises new concern about the overall stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, the collapse of which would trigger another five to six metres of sea level rise. While these streams appear buttressed by the shelves in front of them, it is currently unknown whether a reduction or failure of this buttressing of relatively limited areas of the ice sheet could actually trigger a widespread discharge of many ice streams and hence a destabilisation of the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet.

Similarly, on the May 2, 2007, edition of his CNN Headline News show, Beck aired an hour-long "special report" titled "Exposed: The Climate of Fear," which he promised would present the "other side of the climate debate that you don't hear anymore." During the program, Beck stated: "Just look at the difference between Greenland's ice melt in Al Gore's scenario when spread out over a century versus what the IPCC projects."

Charts show that Global Warming is going to get continually worse, if no actions are taken to prevent or hault the causes of Global Warming- Greenhouse gas emissions

This chart shows the rise in temperatures, recorded by scientists between 1860 and 2000. It has gotten worse since then.

Our Dependence on Fossil Fuels?

Bad for the Environment!

Bad for the World!

Bad for our Wallets!

Bad for Security!

Bad for America!

Switching to Clean Renewable Alternative Energy sources?

Good for Security!

Good for our Wallets!

Good for the Environment!

Good for the World!

Good for America!

Support the Lake Erie Wind Turbine/Wind Farm!

Scientists are Predicting That Sea Levels Will Rise Significantly in our Future

I Wouldn't suggest "Investing" in Coastal Beach Front Property

Looks like Global Climate Change Will Effect Rich People Who Own Beachfront Property, and Not Just Poor People

Solar System and Star Gliese 581c

Gliese 581c Solar System Contains 3 Extra Solar Planets

Extra Solar Planets are planets that exist in solar sytems outside of our own galaxy and revolve around other stars other than our own.

Information about Gliese 581c-

Swiss French and Pourtuguese Astronmers/Scientists discovered at the European Southern Observatory in Chile

Most Earthlike Planet Ever Found- may contain life!

3 planets orbit the Red Dwarf Star. Red Dwarf stars are cooler and give off less energy than our sun. This solar system is 20.5 light years away from us in the Constellation Libra.

581c exists in the stars "habital zone" or area where it may contain liquid water, and therfore life. It may be rocky or it may be covered in liquid water. The estimated surface temperature is 32 to 104 degrees farenheit.

The scientists used the Wobble method of finding extrasolar planets, and the Harp instrument 3.6 telescope. They measured the wobble on the star by the gravity of the planets in the system as they revolve around it. This is also how they determined the size and mass of the planets with very intricate math and the study of gravity. The light of the Star becomes redder as it moves away from us, and more Blue as it moves towards us. By measuring the light spectrucm shift between reds and blues over time, they can determine how fast the planets orbit, as well as their sizes. The solar system/star can be seen by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey using a 2.5 meter telescope in New Mexico.

Scientists are very excited about Extra Solar Planets, especially the 2nd planet from the Red Dwarf star in the system of Gliese 581c.

Here are some informative photos and illustrations to educate people about ACID RAIN!

These diagrams show how Acid Rain works

Acid Rain is a destructive force that needs to be reduced if possible with regulations and enforcement of existing regulations.

Here are some photos that show the effects of Acid Rain

Below is a photo of some woodland area that  has been damaged by Acid Rain

Below is what Acid Rain does to car exteriors. Imagine what it does to living things?

On the left is a Statue that has not been effected by Acid Rain, the Right is the same statue that HAS been effected by Acid Rain!

Here is a child that has been burned by Acid Rain in Africa.

In Africa, there is little or no regulations and what little regulations that do exist, are not enforced properly.

This is what helps contribute to Acid Rain, Greenhouse gases, and Global Warming

Here is a pie chart showing the major chemical contributers to Acid Rain

This is a map of pH (Acidity measurement levels) of the United States (1999 was the most recent numbers I could find)

Southern Ohio (which is controlled by Republicans) has a nasty red spot of high Levels of Acidity in its atmosphere.

Mothers! I Implore You, protect the childrens from Acid Rain!

I Support Alternative Renewable Clean Energy Such as Wind, Solar, Geothermal, and Biomass Energy

And So Should YOU!

Liberal Vision of the Future!

Liberals Have a Plan to Reform Energy Policy Our Energy Policy places more emphasis on Cleaner Energies that are less damaging to the environment and which do not require wars for oil to obtain and are Self Sustaining.

Conservative Vision for the Future!

See A Difference?

Our Plan (Liberal Plan) Contributes Less Greenhouse Gases such as Carbon Dioxide to the Atmosphere and helps Combat or reduce Global Warming effects and relies on a basically (in human existence terms) Infinite Amount of Energy

Their Plan?(Conservative Plan) Contributes MUCH MUCH MORE Greenhouse gases such as Carbon Dioxide and requires MORE WARS in order to obtain Oil (which is a finite source of energy).

3 Star Solar System

Check it OUT!

There are MANY 3 Star Solar systems in the galaxy and in the universe at large!

Imagine what it would be like to live on a planet that orbits in such as system! You would have a very strange horizon, with 3 suns, and would have strange Day/Night cycle, depending on which star your planet was orbiting, and the speed and angle of the orbit.

Exxon Mobil Funds the Science and Public Policy Institute

Exxon Mobil funds the Right Wing Think Tank Frontiers of Freedom

Gives alot of money to various Right Wing Think tanks and Republican Front Groups, as well as to Global Warming Skeptic groups

The Science and Public Policy Institute (SSPI) was formerly a group called the Center for Science and Public Policy.

Both groups are under the umbrella of a Republican Front group/Think Tank called the Frontiers of Freedom.

Frontiers of Freedom is a Right Wing think tank founded by former Republican senator from Wyoming Malcolm Wallop.

SPPI's Executive Director is Robert Ferguson, who was the former Chief of Staff of disgraced Republican Congressman Jack Fields from 1981-1997, to Republican John Peterson (1997-2002), and Republican Rick Renzi (2002).

SPPI received $90,000 from Exxon Mobil in 2006

Exxon Backs Groups That Question Global Warming, Jennifer B. Lee, May 28 2003 New York Times

ICECAP

ICECAP is the acronym for the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project

it promotes the views of Global Warming skeptics

ICECAP is funded by Science and Public Policy Institute- which is in turn funded by the Right Wing Republican Frontiers of Freedom lobbyist/special interest group.

On its website the group says it is "not funded by large corporations that might benefit from the status quo but by private investors who believe in the need for free exchange of ideas on this and other important issues of the day. Our working group is comprised of members from all ends of the poltical spectrum. This is not about politics but about science."

Why would a science group say "This is not about politics but about science"? That seems kind of strange to me!

The Website domain name for ICECAP was registered on October 20th 2006 by Joseph D'Aleo- who is a member of a group called the Science and Public Policy Institute- a group that promotes global warming skeptics which is backed by another group called the Frontiers of Freedom

The Science and Public Policy Institute- states on its website that "Only through science and factual information, seperating reality from rhetoric, can legislators develop beneficial policies without unintended consequences that might threaten the life, liberty, and prosperity of the citizenry."

Sounds like they are interested in protecting property of certain citizens, and not about protecting the environment.

This is their adress Science and Public Policy Institute

209 Pennsylvania Ave. SE Suite 299 Washington, D.C.20003  and 5501 Merchants View Square, #209 Haymarket, VA 20169

Odd how a science group is conveniently situated right in the immediate vicinity of our nation's capital?

Frontiers of Freedom is the group that sponsors the Science and Public Policy Institute, which funds ICECAP.

Here is some info on FoF

It was founded in 1996 by ex Republican Senator Malcolm Wallop of Wyoming

On their own website FoF says that it is "a cutting-edge, forward looking policy group advancing center-right principles in today's fast-paced news and information age. We work with grassroots activists througthout the country to protect private property rights, secure our national security, and promote sensible public policies criticial of our country's liberty"

and theres more! "We regularly brief Members of Congress (code talk for Lobbying) and the Administration on important policy matters."

and "Since our founding, Frontiers has grown from a start-up organization with big ideas to a preeminent think tank that is making a real and tangible difference advancing common sense ideas for government" - Translation? Right Wing Think Tank

And here is some more disturbing information about the Global Warming deniers in their own words! "In addition, we have both provided and received briefings from Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and his Deputy Paul Wolfowitz."- WOW! They are in league with the rats and snakes in the Bush Administration!

FoF groups work under different "banners" or "Policy centers" that spread Right Wing propoganda to the media and lobby congress

FoF receives money from Big Tobacco and Big Oil Companies, such as Philip Morris (tobacco), ExxonMobil and RJ Reynolds Tobacco.

According to the New York Times FoF has about a "$700,000 annual budget, received $230,000 from Exxon in 2002, up from $40,000 in 2001, according to Exxon documents"

FoF also receives donations from the Right Wing plutocrat Scaife Family from the Sarah Scaife Foundation

In 1996 a memo shows that Jeff Taylor of FoF wrote to Alexander Spears of the Lorillard Tobacco Comany to solicit funding.

Taylor describes the activities where FoF engaged in attacks against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's efforts to regulate the Tobacco industry- That same memo shows that FoF managed to generate clamor from GOP congressmembers seeking support of FoF- who was at that time a new group.

FoF gives out "Defender of Freedom" award to Republican Stooges who are loyal to the Big Tobacco and Big Oil companies that fund FoF.

Other activities that FoF engage in include attempting to lobby congress to privatize Social Security, and undermine privacy laws- all in 1996.

Here is some Info on John Coleman

the Meteorologist who believes that the large portion of the scientific community who acknowledge the science behind Global Warming/Global Climate Change are a bunch of "wackos"

John Coleman admits that his expertise is in weather, and not in climate change science, and has been a tv weatheramn since he was a freshman in college in 1953.

There is a big difference between tv weather man and scientist, just as there is a difference between a tv nightly news host/pundit and a newsprint journalist.

Scientists actually study, collect data, and perform experiments, and create hypotheses and theories- Meteorologists (There are several sub categories) forecast the weather.

John Coleman was the "wacky weather guy" at channel 7 in Chicago in the "Happy Talk" news fad of the late 1960s and 1970s period- during the time when elderly women were the target audience.

John Coleman once did a stunt saying that if it snowed on a certain day he would do the weather standing on his head wearing only his underwear- It did, and he reniged

John Coleman was later fired and replaced with someone who can actually do real news.

He started the Weather Channel as a way to sell ad time and keep his tired comedy act going- but was later FIRED FROM THE WEATHER CHANNEL! THE CHANNEL HE HELPED START! Because the Weather Channel was sick of his antics.

Then John Coleman got hired by Chicago's Channel 5, because they thought it would boost ratings (it didn't) and they fired him after 6 months.

John Coleman is "famous" for popularizing the term "thorms" and "thowers" to represent thunderstorms and thundershowers.

Extra Solar Planets

The Next New Thing in Astronomy?

Exciting New Field of Study for the Future?