AuthorTopic: The Surlynewz Channel  (Read 722129 times)

Offline azozeo

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 9741
    • View Profile
Re: 6 Climate Triggers That Could Completely Change Our World
« Reply #2010 on: June 05, 2015, 03:06:12 PM »
6 Climate Triggers That Could Completely Change Our World[/size][/color][/b]

Ilissa Ocko, climate scientist at Environmental Defense Fund   |   May 29, 2015 11:44am
   

   
   

               

Coastal flooding in Annapolis, Maryland, in 2012.
               

         Ilissa Ocko, climate scientist atEnvironmental Defense Fund(EDF), contributed this article to Live Science’s Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.


         One of the biggest fears about climate change is that it may be triggering events that would dramatically alter Earth as we know it.

         Known to scientists as “tipping events,” they could contribute to the mass extinction of species, dramatic sea level rise, extensive droughts and the transformation of forests into vast grasslands --among other upheavals our stressed world can ill afford.
      

      

Here are the top six climate events scientists worry about today.
      

         1. The Arctic sea ice melts
      

            [/url]


         The melting of the Arctic’s summer ice is considered to be the single greatest threat, and some scientists think we’ve already passed the tipping point. As sea ice melts and the Arctic warms , dark ocean water is exposed that absorbs more sunlight, thus reinforcing the warming. The transition to an ice-free Arctic summer can occur rapidly --within decades --and this has geopolitical implications as nations competefor the newly opened space and petroleum resources. Added to all that will be the damage that would result from the disruption of an entire ecosystem.
      

         2. Greenland becomes ice free

            [/url]


         The warming of the Arctic may also render Greenland largely ice free. While Greenland’s ice loss will likely reach the point of no return within this century, the full transition will take at least a few hundred years. The impacts of the Greenland ice melt is expected to raise sea levels by up to 20 feet. Half of the 10 largest cities in the world, including New York City, and one-third of the world’s 30 largest cities are already threatened by this sea-level rise. Today, those cities are home to nearly 1.8 billion people. Other vulnerable American cities include Miami, Norfolk and Boston.
      

         3. The West Antarctic ice sheet disintegrates.
         
            [/url]

         On the other side of Earth, the West Antarctic ice sheet is also disintegrating . Because the bottom of this glacier is grounded below sea level, it’s vulnerable to rapid breakup, thinning and retreat as warm ocean water eats away at the ice. Scientists expect the West Antarctic ice sheet to “tip” this century, and there is evidence that it already began happening in 2014. However, the entire collapse of the glacier, which would raise sea level by 16 feet, could take a few hundred years.
      

         4. El Nino becomes a more permanent climate fixture.
               
            [/url]


         The oceans absorb about 90 percent of the extra heat that is being trapped in the Earth system by greenhouse gases. This could affect the ocean dynamics that control El Niño events. While there are several theories about what could happen in the future, the most likely consequence of ocean heat uptake is that El Niño, a natural climate phenomenon , could become a more permanent part of our climate system. That would cause extensive drought conditions in Southeast Asia and elsewhere, while some drought-prone areas such as California would get relief. While the transition to a world with more El Niños is expected to be gradual and take around one hundred years, the event could be triggered during this century.

         5. The Amazon rainforest dies back
   
            [/url]


Deforestation, a longer dry season and rising summer temperatures are threatening the amount of rainfall in the Amazon. At least half of the Amazon rainforest could turn into savannah and grassland. Once that event is triggered, the changes could happen over just a few decades. This would make it very difficult for the rainforest to reestablish itself and would lead to a considerable loss in biodiversity. However, the reduction of the Amazon ultimately depends on what happens with El Niño, along with future land-use changes from human activities.
      

         6. Boreal forests are cut in half
      
[/url]
      

         Increased water and heat stress are taking a toll on the large forests in Canada, Russia and other parts of the uppermost Northern Hemisphere. So are their vulnerability to disease and fires. This could lead to a 50 percent reduction of the boreal forests --an event from which they may never be able to recover. Instead, the forest would gradually transition into open woodlands or grasslands over several decades. This would have a huge impact on the world’s carbon balance because forests can absorb much more carbon than grasslands can. As the forest diminishes, the climate will be affected --as will the Earth's energy balance. However, the complex interaction between tree physiology, permafrost and fires makes the situation tricky to understand.


         Other concerns ...
      

         As if that's not enough, there are a few other tipping events that scientists are also concerned about, but they are even more complex and harder to predict. Examples of such events include the greening of the Sahara and Sahel deserts, the development of an Arctic ozone hole and a chaotic Indian summer monsoon.
      
         How do we keep from tipping over?
      
         We know from measurements that the Earth has had many climate-related tipping events throughout its history. Today’s situation is different, because humans are now driving these changes and the warming is occurring at a faster rate.
      

         But as humans we also have the power to change the trajectory we’re on --and possibly turn the situation around in only a few years.
      

         Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates --and become part of the discussion --on [url=https://www.facebook.com/expertvoices]Facebook, [url=https://twitter.com/expert_voices]Twitter and [url=https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/102966466858233835249/102966466858233835249/posts]Google+. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on [url=http://www.livescience.com/51018-these-six-triggers-will-transform-earth-climate.html]Live Science.


That's some top shelf posting Surly. Thanks for sharing.
The one that caught my eye was the greening of the deserts
& more monsoonal flow. That's already happening here.  Our
monsoon usually starts around July 4th or so. IT STARTED BEFORE
MEMORIAL DAY THIS YEAR ! From a meandering spring to monsoon.
I know exactly what you mean. Let me tell you why you’re here. You’re here because you know something. What you know you can’t explain, but you feel it. You’ve felt it your entire life, that there’s something wrong with the world.
You don’t know what it is but its there, like a splinter in your mind

Offline Snowleopard

  • Waitstaff
  • ***
  • Posts: 505
    • View Profile
''Imminent'' Collapse of the Antarctic Ice Shelf and a ''New Era'' in the Arctic
By Dahr Jamail, Truthout | Report

(Photo: Iceberg via Shutterstock)
As human-caused climate disruption progresses, sea level rise is happening far faster than previously expected. (Photo: Iceberg via Shutterstock)

As human-caused climate disruption progresses, recent scientific reports show the collapse of a massive Antarctic ice shelf is "imminent," changes in the Arctic Ocean are so profound scientists say the region is entering a "new era" and sea level rise is happening far faster than previously believed.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/31089-imminent-collapse-of-the-antarctic-ice-shelf-and-a-new-era-in-the-arctic

Arctic sea ice comes and goes, and there are many indications that the arctic was open enough to navigate at times during the last glaciation.  I suspect that arctic ice is currently building back from a long decline, but all it takes is the right sea currents and winds to reverse that. 

On the other hand the Idea that the Antarctic is melting down is just ludicrous.





"A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest." -  Simon and Garfunkel

Offline Petty Tyrant

  • Cannot be Saved
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 4573
    • View Profile
''Imminent'' Collapse of the Antarctic Ice Shelf and a ''New Era'' in the Arctic
By Dahr Jamail, Truthout | Report

(Photo: Iceberg via Shutterstock)
As human-caused climate disruption progresses, sea level rise is happening far faster than previously expected. (Photo: Iceberg via Shutterstock)

As human-caused climate disruption progresses, recent scientific reports show the collapse of a massive Antarctic ice shelf is "imminent," changes in the Arctic Ocean are so profound scientists say the region is entering a "new era" and sea level rise is happening far faster than previously believed.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/31089-imminent-collapse-of-the-antarctic-ice-shelf-and-a-new-era-in-the-arctic

Arctic sea ice comes and goes, and there are many indications that the arctic was open enough to navigate at times during the last glaciation.  I suspect that arctic ice is currently building back from a long decline, but all it takes is the right sea currents and winds to reverse that. 

On the other hand the Idea that the Antarctic is melting down is just ludicrous.



As the paragraph stated and has already been explained to u,  ice melting underneath that which is submerged and thinning enough to break off. The last few years of surface ice driven by wind is not the issue. The ocean is warming and tropical fish are swimming near tasmania and NZ, not so far from antarctica. The warmer water melts the ice from underneath.

ELEVATE YOUR GAME

Offline Snowleopard

  • Waitstaff
  • ***
  • Posts: 505
    • View Profile
Re: The Surlynewz Channel
« Reply #2013 on: June 05, 2015, 08:16:25 PM »
Quote
As the paragraph stated and has already been explained to u,  ice melting underneath that which is submerged and thinning enough to break off. The last few years of surface ice driven by wind is not the issue. The ocean is warming and tropical fish are swimming near tasmania and NZ, not so far from antarctica. The warmer water melts the ice from underneath.

I will agree a bit of that is happening on the West Antarctic peninsula, but on average the antarctic sea ice is much thicker than it was a century ago.  In fact ice thickness is problem enough that some scientific stations might have to be abandoned due to the difficulty in supplying them.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/11/antarctica-has-so-much-sea-ice-scientists-have-trouble-getting-there/

"A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest." -  Simon and Garfunkel

Offline Surly1

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 18654
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: The Surlynewz Channel
« Reply #2014 on: June 06, 2015, 07:01:09 AM »
Quote
As the paragraph stated and has already been explained to u,  ice melting underneath that which is submerged and thinning enough to break off. The last few years of surface ice driven by wind is not the issue. The ocean is warming and tropical fish are swimming near tasmania and NZ, not so far from antarctica. The warmer water melts the ice from underneath.

I will agree a bit of that is happening on the West Antarctic peninsula, but on average the antarctic sea ice is much thicker than it was a century ago.  In fact ice thickness is problem enough that some scientific stations might have to be abandoned due to the difficulty in supplying them.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/11/antarctica-has-so-much-sea-ice-scientists-have-trouble-getting-there/

Splendid, SL. The Daily Caller, a ideological supermarket flyer, as a source of climate change wisdom? What's next? Newsmax? CO2Science? Stormfront? Never forget that TDC was founded by Tucker Carlson, a libertarian conservative political pundit, whose career was seen going up in flames some years ago, and Neil Patel, former adviser to former Vice President Dick Cheney in 2010. They'll never have trouble finding right wing sugar-tits to suck from, but never forget for a minute who they serve. Or expect us to, either.

Fucker Tiresome, pilot of a bathysphere in search of wherever it was that his career sank,  used to be a TV pundit until the whistling from wind whistling through his ears was audible even in the executive offices of MSNBC and CNN.

Now for some other views:

Big Shelves Of Antarctic Ice Melting Faster Than Scientists Thought

Some Quick Facts on Ice Sheets from the liberal conspirators at the NSIDC.

Oh, yeah, and to the point of the original: it's winter in the southern hemisphere.
Antarctic Ice Melt
Quote
The sea ice-extent is increasing as expected based on observations and model studies. Context is important here. While it is warming in the Southern Hemisphere (SH), there are other things changing that influence Antarctic Sea Ice Extent. While it is warming in and around Antarctica, It remains cold during winter which allows ice extent to grown each winter. The growth of Antarctic Sea Ice is likely due to changes in ocean and wind circulation combined with changes in moisture levels and related factors that are related to the ice extent increase.
"...reprehensible lying communist..."

Offline Surly1

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 18654
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: The Surlynewz Channel
« Reply #2015 on: June 06, 2015, 07:15:41 AM »
Quote from: Snowleopard
Arctic sea ice comes and goes, and there are many indications that the arctic was open enough to navigate at times during the last glaciation.  I suspect that arctic ice is currently building back from a long decline, but all it takes is the right sea currents and winds to reverse that. 

On the other hand the Idea that the Antarctic is melting down is just ludicrous.

You keep suspecting. Me and others, we're just slaves to evidence.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
Quote
In Antarctica, sea ice grows quite extensively during winter but nearly completely melts away during the summer (Figure 1). That is where the important difference between Antarctic and Arctic sea ice exists as much of the Arctic's sea ice lasts all the year round. During the winter months it increases and before decreasing during the summer months, but an ice cover does in fact remain in the North which includes quite a bit of ice from previous years (Figure 1). Essentially Arctic sea ice is more important for the earth's energy balance because when it increasingly melts, more sunlight is absorbed by the oceans whereas Antarctic sea ice normally melts each summer leaving the earth's energy balance largely unchanged.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/scientists_weigh_new_evidence_on_antarctic_ice_melt_20150507
Quote
West Antarctica has been losing vast chunks of ice, but greater average warmth has meant there have been heavier snowfalls, and the icepack in east Antarctica has been on the increase.

Now Christopher Harig and Frederik Simons, geoscientists at Princeton University in the US, report in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters that gravitational satellite data has delivered a method of “weighing” the ice sheet, and identifying a pattern of change.

Most of the loss has been from the West Antarctic region, where the glaciers are increasingly unstable. In 2008, the region was shedding ice at the rate of 121 billion tons a year. By 2014, this rate of loss had doubled.

At the same time, the ice sheet in East Antarctica had thickened—but  the gain made up for only about half the ice lost from the west.

“Most scientists would be hard-pressed
to find mechanisms that do not include
human-made climate change”
« Last Edit: June 06, 2015, 12:07:17 PM by Surly1 »
"...reprehensible lying communist..."

Offline Surly1

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 18654
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
How the Red Cross Raised Half a Billion Dollars ­and Built Six Homes
« Reply #2016 on: June 06, 2015, 12:59:24 PM »
Scandal:

ProPublica/NPR recently broke this story. Something to consider the next time the Red Cross comes calling for disaster relief dollars.

In late 2011, the Red Cross launched a multimillion-dollar project to transform the desperately poor area, which was hit hard by the earthquake that struck Haiti the year before. The main focus of the project — called LAMIKA, an acronym in Creole for “A Better Life in My Neighborhood” — was building hundreds of permanent homes. Today, not one home has been built in Campeche. Many residents live in shacks made of rusty sheet metal, without access to drinkable water, electricity or basic sanitation. When it rains, their homes flood and residents bail out mud and water.


"Humanitarian Aid" to Haiti: How the Red Cross Raised Half a Billion Dollars ­and Built Six Homes

   

Even as the group has publicly celebrated its work, insider accounts detail a string of failures

By Justin Elliott Global Research, June 06, 2015
   

   

      THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF CAMPECHE sprawls up a steep hillside in Haiti's capital city, Port-au-Prince. Goats rustle in trash that goes forever uncollected. Children kick a deflated volleyball in a dusty lot below a wall with a hand-painted logo of the American Red Cross.

      In late 2011, the Red Cross launched a multimillion-dollar project to transform the desperately poor area, which was hit hard by the earthquake that struck Haiti the year before. The main focus of the project - called LAMIKA, an acronym in Creole for "A Better Life in My Neighborhood" - was building hundreds of permanent homes.   

      Today, not one home has been built in Campeche. Many residents live in shacks made of rusty sheet metal, without access to drinkable water, electricity or basic sanitation. When it rains, their homes flood and residents bail out mud and water.

      The Red Cross received an outpouring of donations after the quake, nearly half a billion dollars.
   

DOCUMENTS: INSIDE THE RED CROSS' HAITI FAILURES            

         Confidential memo warns of "failed results"Report on key project finds no "contributions of any sort to the well being of households"Red Cross CEO emails about "wonderful helicopter idea" to spend money
      
      The group has publicly celebrated its work. But in fact, the Red Cross has repeatedly failed on the ground in Haiti. Confidential memos, emails from worried top officers, and accounts of a dozen frustrated and disappointed insiders show the charity has broken promises, squandered donations, and made dubious claims of success.
   
      The Red Cross says it has provided homes to more than 130,000 people. But the actual number of permanent homes the group has built in all of Haiti: six.
      
      After the earthquake, Red Cross CEO Gail McGovern unveiled ambitious plans to "develop brand-new communities." None has ever been built.
   
      Aid organizations from around the world have struggled after the earthquake in Haiti, the Western Hemisphere's poorest country. But ProPublica and NPR"s investigation shows that many of the Red Cross"s failings in Haiti are of its own making. They are also part of a larger pattern in which the organization has botched delivery of aid after disasters such as Superstorm Sandy. Despite its difficulties, the Red Cross remains the charity of choice for ordinary Americans and corporations alike after natural disasters.

      One issue that has hindered the Red Cross' work in Haiti is an overreliance on foreigners who could not speak French or Creole, current and former employees say.   

      In a blistering 2011 memo, the then-director of the Haiti program, Judith St. Fort, wrote that the group was failing in Haiti and that senior managers had made "very disturbing" remarks disparaging Haitian employees. St. Fort, who is Haitian American, wrote that the comments included, "he is the only hard working one among them" and "the ones that we have hired are not strong so we probably should not pay close attention to Haitian CVs."

      The Red Cross won"t disclose details of how it has spent the hundreds of millions of dollars donated for Haiti. But our reporting shows that less money reached those in need than the Red Cross has said.

      Lacking the expertise to mount its own projects, the Red Cross ended up giving much of the money to other groups to do the work. Those groups took out a piece of every dollar to cover overhead and management. Even on the projects done by others, the Red Cross had its own significant expenses-- in one case, adding up to a third of the project's budget.

   
Quote
Where did the half billion raised for Haiti go? The Red Cross won't say.

      In statements, the Red Cross cited the challenges all groups have faced in post-quake Haiti, including the country's dysfunctional land title system.

      "Like many humanitarian organizations responding in Haiti, the American Red Cross met complications in relation to government coordination delays, disputes over land ownership, delays at Haitian customs, challenges finding qualified staff who were in short supply and high demand, and the cholera outbreak, among other challenges," the charity said.

      The group said it responded quickly to internal concerns, including hiring an expert to train staff on cultural competency after St. Fort's memo. While the group won't provide a breakdown of its projects, the Red Cross said it has done more than 100. The projects include repairing 4,000 homes, giving several thousand families temporary shelters, donating $44 million for food after the earthquake, and helping fund the construction of a hospital.
   
      "Millions of Haitians are safer, healthier, more resilient, and better prepared for future disasters thanks to generous donations to the American Red Cross," McGovern wrote in a recent report marking the fifth anniversary of the earthquake.
   
      In other promotional materials, the Red Cross said it has helped "more than 4.5 million" individual Haitians "get back on their feet."

      It has not provided details to back up the claim. And Jean-Max Bellerive, Haiti"s prime minister at the time of the earthquake, doubts the figure, pointing out the country"s entire population is only about 10 million.
   
      "No, no," Bellerive said of the Red Cross' claim, 'it"s not possible."
   
      When the earthquake struck Haiti in January 2010, the Red Cross was facing a crisis of its own. McGovern had become chief executive just 18 months earlier, inheriting a deficit and an organization that had faced scandals after 9/11 and Katrina.
   

      Gail McGovern (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
   
      Inside the Red Cross, the Haiti disaster was seen as "a spectacular fundraising opportunity," recalled one former official who helped organize the effort. Michelle Obama, the NFL and a long list of celebrities appealed for donations to the group.

      The Red Cross kept soliciting money well after it had enough for the emergency relief that is the group's stock in trade. Doctors Without Borders, in contrast, stopped fundraising off the earthquake after it decided it had enough money. The donations to the Red Cross helped the group erase its more-than $100 million deficit.
   
      The Red Cross ultimately raised far more than any other charity.

      A year after the quake, McGovern announced that the Red Cross would use the donations to make a lasting impact in Haiti.
   
      We asked the Red Cross to show us around its projects in Haiti so we could see the results of its work. It declined. So earlier this year we went to Campeche to see one of the group's signature projects for ourselves.
   
      Street vendors in the dusty neighborhood immediately pointed us to Jean Jean Flaubert, the head of a community group that the Red Cross set up as a local sounding board.

      Sitting with us in their sparse one-room office, Flaubert and his colleagues grew angry talking about the Red Cross. They pointed to the lack of progress in the neighborhood and the healthy salaries paid to expatriate aid workers.

         "What the Red Cross told us is that they are coming here to change Campeche. Totally change it," said Flaubert. "Now I do not understand the change that they are talking about. I think the Red Cross is working for themselves."
   
      The Red Cross' initial plan said the focus would be building homes - an internal proposal put the number at 700. Each would have finished floors, toilets, showers, even rainwater collection systems. The houses were supposed to be finished in January 2013.

   
   
      The Red Cross promised to build hundreds of new homes in Campeche but none have been built. Many residents still live in crude shacks. (Marie Arago, special to ProPublica) None of that ever happened. Carline Noailles, who was the project's manager in Washington, said it was endlessly delayed because the Red Cross "didn't have the know-how."

      Another former official who worked on the Campeche project said, "Everything takes four times as long because it would be micromanaged from DC, and they had no development experience."

      Shown an English-language press release from the Red Cross website, Flaubert was stunned to learn of the project's $24 million budget - and that it is due to end next year.
   
      "Not only is [the Red Cross] not doing it," Flaubert said, "now I'm learning that the Red Cross is leaving next year. I don't understand that." (The Red Cross says it did tell community leaders about the end date. It also accused us of "creating ill will in the community which may give rise to a security incident.")
   
      The project has since been reshaped and downscaled. A road is being built. Some existing homes have received earthquake reinforcement and a few schools are being repaired. Some solar street lights have been installed, though many broke and residents say others are unreliable.
   
      The group's most recent press release on the project cites achievements such as training school children in disaster response.
   
      The Red Cross said it has to scale back its housing plans because it couldn't acquire the rights to land. No homes will be built.
   
      Other Red Cross infrastructure projects also fizzled.
   
   
Quote
A Red Cross effort to save Haitians from cholera was crippled by internal issues. "None of these people had to die," said a Haitian official.
   
      In January 2011, McGovern announced a $30 million partnership with the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID. The agency would build roads and other infrastructure in at least two locations where the Red Cross would build new homes.
   
      But it took more than two and a half years, until August 2013, for the Red Cross just to sign an agreement with USAID on the program, and even that was for only one site. The program was ultimately canceled because of a land dispute.
   

      A Government Accountability Office report attributed the severe delays to problems "in securing land title and because of turnover in Red Cross leadership' in its Haiti program.

      Other groups also ran into trouble with land titles and other issues. But they also ultimately built 9,000 homes compared to the Red Cross' six.

      Asked about the Red Cross' housing projects in Haiti, David Meltzer, the group"s general counsel and chief international officer, said changing conditions forced changes in plans. "If we had said, 'All we're going to do is build new homes," we'd still be looking for land,' he said.

      The USAID project's collapse left the Red Cross grasping for ways to spend money earmarked for it.
   
      "Any ideas on how to spend the rest of this?? (Besides the wonderful helicopter idea?)," McGovern wrote to Meltzer in a November 2013 email obtained by ProPublica and NPR. "Can we fund Conrad's hospital? Or more to PiH[Partners in Health]? Any more shelter projects?"
   
       Jean Jean Flaubert says the Red Cross promised to transform his neighborhood. "Now I do not understand the change that they are talking about," he said.
   
      (Marie Arago, special to ProPublica)

      It's not clear what helicopter idea McGovern was referring to or if it was ever carried out. The Red Cross would say only that her comments were "grounded in the American Red Cross" strategy and priorities, which focus on health and housing."

      Another signature project, known in Creole as "A More Resilient Great North," is supposed to rehabilitate roads in poor, rural communities and to help them get clean water and sanitation.   

      But two years after it started, the $13 million effort has been faltering badly. An internal evaluation from March found residents were upset because nothing had been done to improve water access or infrastructure or to make "contributions of any sort to the well being of households," the report said.

      So much bad feeling built up in one area that the population "rejects the project."
   

   
Quote
The Red Cross says 91% of donations went to help Haitians. That's not true.
   

      Instead of making concrete improvements to living conditions, the Red Cross has launched hand-washing education campaigns. The internal evaluation noted that these were 'not effective when people had no access to water and no soap." (The Red Cross declined to comment on the project.)

      The group"s failures went beyond just infrastructure.

      When a cholera epidemic raged through Haiti nine months after the quake, the biggest part of the Red Cross" response - a plan to distribute soap and oral rehydration salts - was crippled by "internal issues that go unaddressed," wrote the director of the Haiti program in her May 2011 memo.

      Throughout that year, cholera was a steady killer. By September 2011, when the death toll had surpassed 6,000, the project was still listed as "very behind schedule" according to another internal document.

      The Red Cross said in a statement that its cholera response, including a vaccination campaign, has continued for years and helped millions of Haitians.
   
      But while other groups also struggled early responding to cholera, some performed well.
   
   "None of these people had to die. That"s what upsets me," said Paul Christian Namphy, a Haitian water and sanitation official who helped lead the effort to fight cholera. He says early failures by the Red Cross and other NGOs had a devastating impact. "These numbers should have been zero."
   
      So why did the Red Cross' efforts fall so short? It wasn't just that Haiti is a hard place to work.

      "They collected nearly half a billion dollars," said a congressional staffer who helped oversee Haiti reconstruction. "But they had a problem. And the problem was that they had absolutely no expertise."   

      Lee Malany was in charge of the Red Cross" shelter program in Haiti starting in 2010. He remembers a meeting in Washington that fall where officials did not seem to have any idea how to spend millions of dollars set aside for housing. Malany says the officials wanted to know which projects would generate good publicity, not which projects would provide the most homes.   

      "When I walked out of that meeting I looked at the people that I was working with and said, 'You know this is very disconcerting, this is depressing,"" he recalled.

      The Red Cross said in a statement its Haiti program has never put publicity over delivering aid.

      Malany resigned the next year from his job in Haiti. "I said there's no reason for me to stay here. I got on the plane and left."

      

   Transitional shelters like these on the outskirts of Port-Au-Prince, paid for by the Red Cross, typically last three to five years. (Marie Arago, special to ProPublica) Sometimes it wasn’t a matter of expertise, but whether anybody was filling key jobs. An April 2012 organizational chart obtained by ProPublica and NPR lists 9 of 30 leadership positions in Haiti as vacant, including slots for experts on health and shelter.

   The Red Cross said vacancies and turnover were inevitable because of "the security situation, separation from family for international staff, and the demanding nature of the work."

   The constant upheaval took a toll. Internal documents refer to repeated attempts over years to "finalize" and "complete" a strategic plan for the Haiti program, efforts that were delayed by changes in senior management. As late as March 2014, more than four years into a six-year program, an internal update cites a "revised strategy" still awaiting "final sign-off."

   The Red Cross said settling on a plan early would have been a mistake. "It would be hard to create the perfect plan from the beginning in a complicated place like Haiti," it said. "But we also need to begin, so we create plans that are continually revised."


Quote
The Red Cross says it provided homes to more than 130,000 Haitians. But they didn't.Facebook Twitter

   Those plans were further undermined by the Red Cross" reliance on expats. Noailles, the Haitian development professional who worked for the Red Cross on the Campeche project, said expat staffers struggled in meetings with local officials.

   "Going to meetings with the community when you don"t speak the language is not productive," she said. Sometimes, she recalled, expat staffers would skip such meetings altogether.

   The Red Cross said it has "made it a priority to hire Haitians" despite lots of competition for local professionals, and that over 90 percent of its staff is Haitian. The charity said it used a local human resources firm to help.

   Yet very few Haitians have made it into the group"s top echelons in Haiti, according to five current and former Red Cross staffers as well as staff lists obtained by ProPublica and NPR.

   That not only affected the group's ability to work in Haiti, it was also expensive.

   According to an internal Red Cross budgeting document for the project in Campeche, the project manager- a position reserved for an expatriate-was entitled to allowances for housing, food and other expenses, home leave trips, R&R four times a year, and relocation expenses. In all, it added up to $140,000.

   Compensation for a senior Haitian engineer - the top local position - was less than one-third of that, $42,000 a year.

   Shelim Dorval, a Haitian administrator who worked for the Red Cross coordinating travel and housing for expatriate staffers, recalled thinking it was a waste to spend so much to bring in people with little knowledge of Haiti when locals were available.

   "For each one of those expats, they were having high salaries, staying in a fancy house, and getting vacation trips back to their countries," Dorval said. "A lot of money was spent on those people who were not Haitian, who had nothing to do with Haiti. The money was just going back to the United States."

   Soon after the earthquake, McGovern, the Red Cross CEO, said the group would make sure donors knew exactly what happened to their money.

   The Red Cross would "lead the effort in transparency," she pledged. "We are happy to share the way we are spending our dollars."

   That hasn't happened. The Red Cross" public reports offer only broad categories about where $488 million in donations has gone. The biggest category is shelter, at about $170 million. The others include health, emergency relief and disaster preparedness.

    After the earthquake, Red Cross CEO Gail McGovern unveiled plans to "develop brand-new communities." None has ever been built.
   (Marie Arago, special to ProPublica)

   It has declined repeated requests to disclose the specific projects, to explain how much money went to each or to say what the results of each project were.


   There is reason to doubt the Red Cross" claims that it helped 4.5 million Haitians. An internal evaluation found that in some areas, the Red Cross reported helping more people than even lived in the communities. In other cases, the figures were low, and in others double-counting went uncorrected.

   In describing its work, the Red Cross also conflates different types of aid, making it more difficult to assess the charity"s efforts in Haiti.

   For example, while the Red Cross says it provided more than 130,000 people with homes, that includes thousands of people who were not actually given homes, but rather were "trained in proper construction techniques." (That was first reported by the Haiti blog of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.)

   The figure includes people who got short-term rental assistance or were housed in several thousand "transitional shelters," which are temporary structures that can get eaten up by termites or tip over in storms. It also includes modest improvements on 5,000 temporary shelters.

The Red Cross also won't break down what portion of donations went to overhead.

How the Red Cross' Overhead Claim Stacks Up

   The Red Cross says that for each dollar donated, 91 cents went to Haiti. But here's what actually happened in one $5.4 million project to improve temporary shelters.

         Overhead and Management
         Spent on Doing the Work
         What They Say
         What Actually Happened
            9%
            91%
            9%Red Cross' overhead
            24%Red Cross' program management and other
            ~7%Other groups' overhead
            60%
   Source: American Red Cross and ProPublica Analysis
   Credit: Sisi Wei/ProPublica

   McGovern told CBS News a few months after the quake, "Minus the 9 cents overhead, 91 cents on the dollar will be going to Haiti. And I give you my word and my commitment, I"m banking my integrity, my own personal sense of integrity on that statement."

   But the reality is that less money went to Haiti than 91 percent. That's because in addition to the Red Cross' 9 percent overhead, the other groups that got grants from the Red Cross also have their own overhead.

   In one case, the Red Cross sent $6 million to the International Federation of the Red Cross for rental subsidies to help Haitians leave tent camps. The IFRC then took out 26 percent for overhead and what the IFRC described as program-related "administration, finance, human resources" and similar costs.

   Beyond all that, the Red Cross also spends another piece of each dollar for what it describes as "program costs incurred by the American Red Cross in managing" the projects done by other groups.

   The American Red Cross" management and other costs consumed an additional 24 percent of the money on one project, according to the group"s statements and internal documents. The actual work, upgrading shelters, was done by the Swiss and Spanish Red Cross societies.

   "It’s a cycle of overhead," said Jonathan Katz, the Associated Press reporter in Haiti at the time of the earthquake who tracked post-disaster spending for his book, The Big Truck That Went By. "It was always going to be the American Red Cross taking a 9 percent cut, re-granting to another group, which would take out their cut."

   Given the results produced by the Red Cross' projects in Haiti, Bellerive, the former prime minister, said he has a hard time fathoming what"s happened to donors" money.

   "Five hundred million dollars in Haiti is a lot of money," he said. 'I'm not a big mathematician, but I can make some additions. I know more or less the cost of things. Unless you don"t pay for the gasoline the same price I was paying, unless you pay people 20 times what I was paying them, unless the cost of the house you built was five times the cost I was paying, it doesn't add up for me."

   A resident in a Port-Au-Prince transitional shelter paid for by the Red Cross.

   (Marie Arago, special to ProPublica)

   This story was co-published with NPR. Mitzy-Lynn Hyacinthe contributed reporting. Design direction by David Sleight, production by Hannah Birch.

   Read about how the Red Cross botched key elements of its mission after Superstorm Sandy and Hurricane Isaac in PR Over People: The Red Cross" Secret Disaster. And about how the Red Cross' CEO has been serially misleading about where donors' dollars are going.

   If you have information about the Red Cross or about other international aid projects, please email justin@propublica.org
   Justin Elliott is a ProPublica reporter covering politics and government accountability. Previously, he was a reporter at Salon.com and TPMmuckraker and news editor at Talking Points Memo.   

      Laura Sullivan is a NPR News investigative correspondent whose work has cast a light on some of the country"s most disadvantaged people.
"...reprehensible lying communist..."

Offline azozeo

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 9741
    • View Profile
Re: The Surlynewz Channel
« Reply #2017 on: June 06, 2015, 01:59:55 PM »
When ever we see the sign of the cross red, blue, green, white, doesn't matter
the people always loose out. That cross represents the house of Rothschild.
They're in it for the money, not the people. Thanks for posting Surly.
I know exactly what you mean. Let me tell you why you’re here. You’re here because you know something. What you know you can’t explain, but you feel it. You’ve felt it your entire life, that there’s something wrong with the world.
You don’t know what it is but its there, like a splinter in your mind

Offline Surly1

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 18654
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
A Commencement Speech for the Scammed
« Reply #2018 on: June 07, 2015, 04:48:13 AM »
You’ve Been Scammed!
Kept Politicians and Demobilized Americans in a System Without a Name

By Tom Engelhardt

Going for Broke in Ponzi Scheme America:  You’ve Been Scammed!

It couldn’t be a sunnier, more beautiful day to exit your lives -- or enter them -- depending on how you care to look at it. After all, here you are four years later in your graduation togs with your parents looking on, waiting to celebrate. The question is: Celebrate what exactly?

In possibly the last graduation speech of 2015, I know I should begin by praising your grit, your essential character, your determination to get this far. But today, it’s money, not character, that’s on my mind. For so many of you, I suspect, your education has been a classic scam and you’re not even attending a “for profit” college -- an institution of higher learning, that is, officially set up to take you for a ride.

Maybe this is the moment, then, to begin your actual education by looking back and asking yourself what you should really have learned on this campus and what you should expect in the scams -- I mean, years -- to come. Many of you -- those whose parents didn’t have money -- undoubtedly entered these stately grounds four years ago in relatively straitened circumstances.  In an America in which corporate profits have risen impressively, it’s been springtime for billionaires, but when it comes to ordinary Americans, wages have been relatively stagnant, jobs (the good ones, anyway) generally in flight, and times not exactly of the best.  Here was a figure that recently caught my eye, speaking of the world you’re about to step into: in 2014, the average CEO received 373 times the compensation of the average worker.  Three and a half decades ago, that number was a significant but not awe-inspiring 42 times.

Still, you probably arrived here eager and not yet in debt. Today, we know that the class that preceded you was the most indebted in the history of higher education, and you’ll surely break that “record.” And no wonder, with college tuitions still rising wildly (up 1,120% since 1978).  Judging by last year’s numbers, about 70% of you had to take out loans simply to make it through here, to educate yourself.  That figure was a more modest 45% two decades ago.  On average, you will have rung up least $33,000 in debt and for some of you the numbers will be much higher.  That, by the way, is more than double what it was those same two decades ago.

We have some sense of how this kind of debt plays out in the years to come and the news isn’t good. Those of you with major school debts will be weighed down in all sorts of ways. You’ll find yourselves using your credit cards more than graduates without such debt.  You’ll be less likely to buy a home in the future.  A few decades from now, you’ll have accumulated significantly less wealth than your unindebted peers. In other words, a striking percentage of you will leave this campus in the kind of financial hole that -- given the job market of 2015 -- you may have a problem making your way out of.

For those who took a foreign language in your college years, in translation you’ve paid stunning sums you didn’t have to leave yourself, like any foreclosed property, underwater. Worse yet, for those of you who dream of being future doctors, lawyers, financial wizards, architects, or English professors (if there are any of those anymore), that’s only the beginning. You’ll still have to pay exorbitantly for years of graduate school or professional training, which means ever more debt to come.

Does this really sound like an education to you or does it sound more like a Ponzi scheme, like you’ve been scammed?

Do I understand how all this works?  No.  I’m no expert on the subject.  What anyone should be able to see, however, is that the promise of higher education has, in this century, sunk low indeed and that what your generation has been learning how to endure while still in school is a form of peonage.  I’d binge drink, too, under the circumstances!

Nobody feels good when they’ve been scammed, but at least you’re not alone on this great campus in needing to reassess what higher education means.  Many of your teachers turned out to be untenured part-timers, getting pitiful salaries.  They, too, were being scammed.  And even some of their esteemed tenured colleagues (as I know from friends of mine) are remarkably deep in the Ponzi pits.  It turns out that, as government money flowing onto campus has dried up, the pressure on some of those eminent professors, particularly in graduate programs, to essentially raise their own salaries has only been rising -- a very highbrow version of peonage.  They increasingly need patrons, which generally means “friendly” corporations.  Talk about a scam!

Demobilizing You

Many of you undoubtedly think that your education is now over and it’s time to enter the “real world.”  I have news for you: you’ve been in that world for the last four years, hence the debt you’re dragging around behind you.  So, on a day when the sun’s in your eyes and it couldn’t be more apparent that the world’s not what you’ve been told it was, maybe you should apply the principles of the scam artist to the world you’re about to enter.  Unless you do so, you’ll simply be scammed again in the next phase of your life.

Like the rest of us, presidents and politicians of every stripe have regularly told you that you belong to the one “indispensible” nation on the planet, a country “exceptional” in every way.  As a college-educated American, you’ve similarly been assured of how important you’ll be to that exceptional land.

Get over it.  You’re going to find yourself living in an ever greyer, grimmer country -- if you don’t believe me, check out the government’s unwillingness to fund essential infrastructure maintenance -- to which you will be remarkably irrelevant.  And if the political elite, the plutocratic class, and the national security state have anything to do with it, in the future you’ll become ever more so.  In other words, you are to be relegated to the sidelines of what now passes for American life.

Behind this reality, there’s a history.  Since the Vietnam era, the urge to demobilize Americans, to put them out to pasture, to stop them from interfering in the running of “their” country has only grown stronger.  When it comes to the military, for instance, the draft was sent to the trash bin of history in 1973 and most Americans were long ago demobilized by the arrival of an “all volunteer” force.  So, today, you have no obligation whatsoever to be part of that military, to serve in what is no longer, in the traditional sense, a citizen’s army.

If that military isn’t really yours, the wars it's been fighting since the dawn of the twenty-first century haven’t been your wars either, nor -- despite the responsibility the Constitution reserves to Congress for declaring war -- have they been that body's.  Congress still has to pony up sums so extravagant for what's charmingly called "defense" that the military budgets of the next seven countries combined don't equal them.  It has, however, little genuine say about what wars are fought. Even when, as with the Islamic State, it is offered the modest opportunity to pass a new authorization for a war already long underway, its representatives, like most Americans, now prefer to remain on the sidelines.  In the meantime, the White House runs its own drone assassination campaigns via the CIA without anyone else’s say-so, while secretive paramilitaries and a secret military -- the Special Operations forces -- cocooned inside the larger military and growing like mad have changed the face of American war and it’s none of your business.

Your role in all this is modest indeed: to pay as little attention as you want, endlessly thank the troops for their “service” when you run across them at airports or elsewhere, and leave it at that.  Of course, given the sums, verging on a trillion dollars a year, that “we” now put into the U.S. military and related national security outfits, and given our endless wars, conflicts, raids, and secret operations, that military does at least provide some job opportunities, though it has its own version of job flight -- to so-called private contractors (once known as “mercenaries”).

And if you think it’s only the military from which you’ve been demobilized, think again.  In these last years, so much of what the American government does has been swallowed up in a blanket of heavily enforced secrecy and fierce prosecutions of whistleblowers.  An expanding national security state, accountable neither to you nor to the legal system, has proven eager indeed to surveil your life, but not be seen by you.  In growing realms, that is, what once would have been called “the people’s business” is no longer your business.

Your role, such as it is, is to get out of the way of the real players.  As with the military, so with that national security state: Americans are to thank its officials and operatives for their service and otherwise, for their own “safety,” remain blissfully ignorant of whatever “their” government does, unless that government chooses to tell them about it.

The Corruption Sweepstakes

It hardly needs to be said that this isn’t the normal definition of a working democracy or, for that matter, of citizenship.  Other than casting a vote every now and then, you are to know next to nothing about what your government does in your name.  And speaking of that vote, you’re being sidelined there, too, and buried in an avalanche of money.  Admittedly, in the media campaign season that now goes on non-stop from one election to the next, sooner or later you can still enter a polling place, if you care to, and cast your ballot.  Otherwise step aside.  These days, the first primary season or “Koch primary” is no longer for voters at all.  Instead, prospective candidates audition for the blessings and cash of plutocrats.

Just how the vast sums of money flooding into American politics do their dirty work may not matter that much.  Specific contributions from the .01%, enacting their version of trickle-down politics, may not even elect specific candidates.  What matters most is the deluge itself.  These days in the American political system, money quite literally talks (especially on TV).  Via ads, it screams.  In the 2016 election season in which an unprecedented $10 billion is expected to be spent and just about every candidate will need his or her “sugar daddies,” the politicians will begin to resemble you; that is, they will find themselves dragging around previously unheard of debts to various plutocrats, industries, and deep pockets of every sort for the rest of their careers.

Take just two recent examples of the new politics of money.  As the New York Times reported recently, Florida Senator Marco Rubio has been supported by a single billionaire auto dealer, Norman Braman, for his entire political career.  Braman hired him as a lawyer, hired his wife as a consultant to a family foundation, financed his legislative agenda, helped cover his salary at a local college, helped him right his personal finances and deal with his debt load, and is now about to put millions of dollars into his presidential campaign.  Rubio, as the article indicates, has returned the favor.  Though no one would write such a thing, this makes the senator quite literally a “kept” candidate.  Other plutocrats like the Koch brothers and their network of investors, reputedly ready to drop almost a billion dollars into the 2016 campaign, have been more profligate in spreading around their support and favors.

Now, jump across the political aisle and consider Hillary Clinton.  As the Washington Post reported recently, she received a payment from eBay of $315,000 for a 20-minute talk at a "summit" that tech company sponsored on women in the workplace.  Over the last 16 months, in fact, she and her husband have raked in more than $25 million for such talks.  Hillary’s speeches pulled in $3.2 million from the tech sector alone, which she’s now pursuing for more direct contributions to her presidential campaign.  “Less than two months [after the eBay summit]," the Post added, "Clinton was feted at the San Francisco Bay-area home of eBay chief executive John Donahoe and his wife, Eileen, for one of the first fundraisers supporting Clinton’s newly announced presidential campaign.”

Say no more, right?  I mean, it’s obvious that no one pays such sums for words (of all things!), not without ulterior motives.  No deal has to have been made.  No direct or even indirect exchange of promises is necessary.  On the face of it, there is a word for such fees, as for Rubio’s relationship with Braman, as for the investor primaries of the new election season, as for so much else that involves “dark money” and goes to the heart of the present political process.  It’s just not a word normally used about our politicians or our system, not by polite pundits and journalists.  If we were in Kabul or Baghdad, not Washington or Los Angeles, we would know just what that word was and we wouldn’t hesitate to use it: corruption.

The Un-Kept Americans

We are, it seems, enmeshed in a new hybrid system, which fits the Constitution, the classic tripartite separation of powers, and the idea of democracy increasingly poorly. We have neither an adequate name for it, nor an adequate language to describe it. I’m talking here about the “real world” in which, at least in the old-fashioned American sense, you will no longer be a “citizen” of a functioning “democracy.”

As that system, awash in plutocratic contributions to politics and taxpayer contributions to the military-industrial-homeland-security complex, morphs into something else, so will you, whether you realize it or not.  Though never thought of as such, your debt is part of the same system.  A society that programmatically trains its young into debt and calls that “higher education” is as corrupt as a wealthy country that won’t rebuild its own infrastructure.  Talk about the hollowing out of America: you are it.  No matter how substantial you may be in private, you are being impersonally emptied in what passes for the real world.

If Marco Rubio and Hillary Clinton are kept politicians, then you are un-kept Americans.  You are the ones that no one felt it worth giving money to, only taking money from.

Being on the sidelines, it turns out, is an expensive affair.  The question is: What are you going to do so that you aren’t there, and in debt, forever?

Of course, there’s a simple answer to this question.  Think of it as the Rubio Solution.  You could each try to find your own billionaire.  But given the numbers involved and what you don’t have to offer in return, that seems an unlikely option.  Or, if you don’t want the version of higher education you experienced to morph into the rest of your lives, you -- your generation, that is -- could decide to stop thanking others for their “service” and leave those sidelines.

They’re counting on you not to serve.  They assume that you’ll just stay where you are and take it, while they fleece the rest of us.  If instead you were to start thinking about how to head for the actual playing fields of America, I guarantee one thing: you’d screw them up royally.

As you form into your processional now to exit this campus, let me just add: don’t underestimate the surprises the future has in store for all of us.  The people who sidelined you aren’t half as good at what they do as they think they are.  In so many ways, in fact, they’re a crew of bumblers.  They have no more purchase on what the future holds than you do.

You’ve proved in these years that you can get by despite lousy odds.  You’ve lived a life to which no one (other than perhaps your hard-pressed parents) has made a contribution.  You’re readier than you imagine to take our future into your hands and make something of it.  You’re ready to become actual citizens of a future democracy.  Go for broke!

Tom Engelhardt is a co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author of The United States of Fear as well as a history of the Cold War, The End of Victory Culture. He is a fellow of the Nation Institute and runs TomDispatch.com. His latest book is Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World.  This graduation speech was given only on the campus of his mind.
"...reprehensible lying communist..."

Offline Snowleopard

  • Waitstaff
  • ***
  • Posts: 505
    • View Profile
Re: The Surlynewz Channel
« Reply #2019 on: June 07, 2015, 08:23:55 PM »
Quote
As the paragraph stated and has already been explained to u,  ice melting underneath that which is submerged and thinning enough to break off. The last few years of surface ice driven by wind is not the issue. The ocean is warming and tropical fish are swimming near tasmania and NZ, not so far from antarctica. The warmer water melts the ice from underneath.

I will agree a bit of that is happening on the West Antarctic peninsula, but on average the antarctic sea ice is much thicker than it was a century ago.  In fact ice thickness is problem enough that some scientific stations might have to be abandoned due to the difficulty in supplying them.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/11/antarctica-has-so-much-sea-ice-scientists-have-trouble-getting-there/

Splendid, SL. The Daily Caller, a ideological supermarket flyer, as a source of climate change wisdom? What's next? Newsmax? CO2Science? Stormfront? Never forget that TDC was founded by Tucker Carlson, a libertarian conservative political pundit, whose career was seen going up in flames some years ago, and Neil Patel, former adviser to former Vice President Dick Cheney in 2010. They'll never have trouble finding right wing sugar-tits to suck from, but never forget for a minute who they serve. Or expect us to, either.

Fucker Tiresome, pilot of a bathysphere in search of wherever it was that his career sank,  used to be a TV pundit until the whistling from wind whistling through his ears was audible even in the executive offices of MSNBC and CNN.

Now for some other views:

Big Shelves Of Antarctic Ice Melting Faster Than Scientists Thought

Some Quick Facts on Ice Sheets from the liberal conspirators at the NSIDC.

Oh, yeah, and to the point of the original: it's winter in the southern hemisphere.
Antarctic Ice Melt
Quote
The sea ice-extent is increasing as expected based on observations and model studies. Context is important here. While it is warming in the Southern Hemisphere (SH), there are other things changing that influence Antarctic Sea Ice Extent. While it is warming in and around Antarctica, It remains cold during winter which allows ice extent to grown each winter. The growth of Antarctic Sea Ice is likely due to changes in ocean and wind circulation combined with changes in moisture levels and related factors that are related to the ice extent increase.

I've no interest in defending any news source overall, and there are very few that do not deserve a brick today!

I'll quote Pravda or Press TV if they have the better writeup. 

Of the free sources I had for that conference on how to deal with resupply of antarctic stations and how to better forecast sea ice
growth, the DC seemed to have the better article. 

There was a better (pay-walled) article here:

 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/australian-antarctic-division-battles-record-ice-considers-moving/story-e6frg6xf-1227350881836

So other than badmouthing the source, (which, though irrelevant to me, might be deserved FAIK)) did you  find a problem with the article itself??

And yes, I'm fully aware that the majority of "establishment" science has been bought by government funds to publish what is politically correct.  Since they have billion$, and the skeptics/deniers have pittance, the PC scientists will win any contest decided by appeal to authority or volume of papers published.

"A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest." -  Simon and Garfunkel

Offline Snowleopard

  • Waitstaff
  • ***
  • Posts: 505
    • View Profile
Re: The Surlynewz Channel
« Reply #2020 on: June 07, 2015, 09:07:44 PM »
Quote from: Snowleopard
Arctic sea ice comes and goes, and there are many indications that the arctic was open enough to navigate at times during the last glaciation.  I suspect that arctic ice is currently building back from a long decline, but all it takes is the right sea currents and winds to reverse that. 

On the other hand the Idea that the Antarctic is melting down is just ludicrous.

You keep suspecting. Me and others, we're just slaves to evidence.


https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/06/07/arctic-sea-ice-continues-to-track-2006-5/

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/06/07/june-temperatures-in-greenland-have-plummeted-to-record-low-levels/
"A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest." -  Simon and Garfunkel

Offline Surly1

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 18654
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: The Surlynewz Channel
« Reply #2021 on: June 08, 2015, 03:06:14 AM »
Quote from: Snowleopard
Arctic sea ice comes and goes, and there are many indications that the arctic was open enough to navigate at times during the last glaciation.  I suspect that arctic ice is currently building back from a long decline, but all it takes is the right sea currents and winds to reverse that. 

On the other hand the Idea that the Antarctic is melting down is just ludicrous.

You keep suspecting. Me and others, we're just slaves to evidence.


https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/06/07/arctic-sea-ice-continues-to-track-2006-5/

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/06/07/june-temperatures-in-greenland-have-plummeted-to-record-low-levels/

I said EVIDENCE. Not Capricorn-1-level fabrication by the likes of Tony Heller.

http://www.desmogblog.com/steven-goddard

Quote
Steven Goddard is one of several climate change skeptics cc'd on an email from S. Fred Singer in hopes of countering the documentary film “Merchants of Doubt,” which exposes the network of climate change skeptics and deniers trying to delay legislative action on climate change. 

The October, 2014 email was leaked to journalists before the documentary was released. “Can I sue for damages?” Singer asked in the email. “Can we get an injunction against the documentary?”

InsideClimate News reports in their article “Leaked Email Reveals Who's Who List of Climate Denialists,” how “Many of those copied on the email thread, such as Singer and communications specialist Steven Milloy, have financial ties to the tobacco, chemical, and oil and gas industries and have worked to defend them since the 1990s.” [13]

InsideClimate News also documented all those who were cc'd on the email, including the following skeptics and groups:

Ron Arnold
Timothy Ball
Joseph “Joe” Bast
Joe Bastardi
Michael Bastasch
William Briggs
Russell Cook
Judith Curry
Joe D'Aleo
James Delingpole
David Paul Driessen
James Enstrom
Steve Goddard
Pierre Gosselin
Greenie Watch
William Happer
Jim Lakely
Patrick J. Michaels
Steven J. Milloy
Christopher Monckton
Marc Morano
Joanne Nova
Roger Pielke Sr. (Or Roger Pielke Jr. - Unclear in Email)
Thomas P. Sheahen
S. Fred Singer
Wei-Hock (Willie) Soon
Roy Spencer
James Taylor
Anthony Watts

Politifact rates "Goddard's" claims about fudged measurement data as Pants on Fire.

Case dismissed.
"...reprehensible lying communist..."

Offline Surly1

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 18654
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: The Surlynewz Channel
« Reply #2022 on: June 08, 2015, 03:16:39 AM »

So other than badmouthing the source, (which, though irrelevant to me, might be deserved FAIK)) did you  find a problem with the article itself??

And yes, I'm fully aware that the majority of "establishment" science has been bought by government funds to publish what is politically correct.  Since they have billion$, and the skeptics/deniers have pittance, the PC scientists will win any contest decided by appeal to authority or volume of papers published.

I find it beneficial to my health to not drink from a poisoned trough.

What I find interesting is that you are quick to accuse the great majority of climate scientists as participating in a conspiracy to defraud the public, but blind to the financial motives of the handful of deniers and their fossil-fuel-financed agenda.

Glaciers around the world have been retreating for decades, with evidence that has been abundantly generated, not to mention the melting of the Arctic and Antarctic regions, and this is all supposed to be a "librul plot" of some kind? Left to the choice of believing my own lying eyes or the Likes of Fucker Tiresome, Steve Doocy, Craig Idso, Anthony Watts, Fred Singer and the rest of the Heartland-Institute-funded crowd... I'm supposed to believe it's all a plot?

Filing this in the David Icke file with the Greys and their underseas bases.
"...reprehensible lying communist..."

Offline Snowleopard

  • Waitstaff
  • ***
  • Posts: 505
    • View Profile
Re: The Surlynewz Channel
« Reply #2023 on: June 08, 2015, 11:08:22 AM »

So other than badmouthing the source, (which, though irrelevant to me, might be deserved FAIK)) did you  find a problem with the article itself??

And yes, I'm fully aware that the majority of "establishment" science has been bought by government funds to publish what is politically correct.  Since they have billion$, and the skeptics/deniers have pittance, the PC scientists will win any contest decided by appeal to authority or volume of papers published.

I find it beneficial to my health to not drink from a poisoned trough.

What I find interesting is that you are quick to accuse the great majority of climate scientists as participating in a conspiracy to defraud the public, but blind to the financial motives of the handful of deniers and their fossil-fuel-financed agenda.

Glaciers around the world have been retreating for decades, with evidence that has been abundantly generated, not to mention the melting of the Arctic and Antarctic regions, and this is all supposed to be a "librul plot" of some kind? Left to the choice of believing my own lying eyes or the Likes of Fucker Tiresome, Steve Doocy, Craig Idso, Anthony Watts, Fred Singer and the rest of the Heartland-Institute-funded crowd... I'm supposed to believe it's all a plot?

Filing this in the David Icke file with the Greys and their underseas bases.

Quote
I find it beneficial to my health to not drink from a poisoned trough.

What is poison and what is not is then decided by who runs the trough, rather than testing. 

IMHO there is no clean source, and any trough popular enough to attract a crowd will soon have its poisons.  One is left with picking a favorite poison or filtering everything.  Most pick a favorite poison.  Filtering (questioning) everything is only for those who can live without a support group, team or side.

Quote
What I find interesting is that you are quick to accuse the great majority of climate scientists as participating in a conspiracy to defraud the public, but blind to the financial motives of the handful of deniers

It was not quick, it took me over ten years and many interim positions to go from "The world is warming, but I'm not sure man-made CO2 is a major factor".  to "The world is actually cooling, on all time scales that matter, and man-made climate change is a TPTB/bankster hoax".

 In 2007, expecting warming,  I built a lightly insulated log cabin in New Hampshire, above mean elevation on land that slopes north and west.  It has gotten progressively cooler here since then, and I now expect that to continue for my expected life span and beyond.


IN CONSIDERING THE MOTIVES OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS, LET'S FIRST CONSIDER THE MOTIVES OF SOME FOLKS YOU MAY ACTUALLY KNOW:


Is your dentist trying to poison you when he fills a cavity with mercury-silver amalgam? 

Is the water treatment specialist adding chlorine and/or fluoride to the local water supply intentionally poisoning the local population? 

Is your doctor intentionally poisoning your child when he administers a vaccine containing mercury and formaldehyde (and or other toxins) into your child's bloodstream?

Is your local grocer trying to poison you when he sells foods containing GMO ingredients and laced with residue of toxic pesticides and herbicides?

IN LIKE MANNER CLIMATE SCIENTISTS ARE DOING A JOB AS TAUGHT TO THEM.  Likely they see no reason to question it either.   The funding is there for studies supporting the paradigm, and it is almost absent for studies going against the paradigm.  Furthermore doing a study for "the other side" means you become a heretic who will not get any more paradigm funding.  If you did not believe in man made warming, it is unlikely you would have entered this field in the first place, and you might not even be aware it IS a belief. Thus looking for results in line with your beliefs (and your paycheck) does not seem strange.

The so-called climate gate scandal showed a certain amount of fudging is going on under pressure to achieve desired results.  But those folks still believe they are doing the right thing.  In a few cases this could be considered fraud, but just because a few scientists caved to pressure says nothing about reality.  The vast majority are not intentionally fudging, just looking where they are most likely to find results that confirm their beliefs and drawing faulty conclusions from those results.

Yes some folks on either side might be mostly motivated by politics or a paycheck.  I think those folks are a minority, and it is easier to evaluate actual statements than to assume evil motivations.  Besides, I often learn things from those I disagree with, refusing to listen to them would deprive me of that knowledge.

Quote
Glaciers around the world have been retreating for decades, with evidence that has been abundantly generated, not to mention the melting of the Arctic and Antarctic regions, and this is all supposed to be a "librul plot" of some kind? Left to the choice of believing my own lying eyes or the Likes of Fucker Tiresome, Steve Doocy, Craig Idso, Anthony Watts, Fred Singer and the rest of the Heartland-Institute-funded crowd... I'm supposed to believe it's all a plot?


The above invites a series of full length posts.

1. Glaciers: Retreat, Recovery and Prognosis,   from the Little Ice Age into the near future

2. Greenland: A history of the ice mass and projections.

3. The Arctic Ocean:  History and Legends of the Northwest Passage

4.  Antarctica: the Non-Meltdown

5. Oil Money and Climate funding:  How Big Oil Overwhelmingly Supports Green Causes and "Climate Science" over Skeptics and Deniers

6. Above Politics:  The Climate Change Hoax at the Bankster Level.


I might find time to write these posts, or not.

 I will say it is not a "librul" plot, they are just the foot soldiers.  Those who own the generals hatched the plot circa 1974 at the Club of Rome.

My overall outlook might be best pictured by these quotes:

“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”
– William Casey, CIA Director (from first staff meeting, 1981)

“The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media.”
– William Colby, former CIA director


Quote
Filing this in the David Icke file with the Greys and their underseas bases.

No one would ever look down that rabbit hole!

Icke reminds me of the traditional fool or Court Jester, who could say whatever, because he was assumed insane by most.

Sifting and investigating the Icke stuff publicly might be a good hobby for a bored billionaire with a death wish.  I have neither the billion$ nor the wish.

I'll offer one hint. 

This source (I picked a leftie one) suggests Defense Dept funds on the order of 8.5 trillion$ cannot be accounted for over the last twenty years.

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/06/report-reveals-85-trillion-missing

My research indicates the actual figure may run four times that amount. 

I doubt it was all actually stolen.  Surely there could be at least one secret program afoot.  Maybe more?

"A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest." -  Simon and Garfunkel

Offline Surly1

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 18654
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
$5 Trillion in Oil Subsidies!
« Reply #2024 on: June 10, 2015, 08:23:28 AM »
Report Shows The Oil Industry Benefits From $5.3 Trillion in Subsidies Annually

 
Tuesday, June, 9th, 2015, 11:18 am

oil subsidies2
Most Americans should know by now that Republicans despise ‘entitlements’ that they errantly consider is anything Americans receive; even if it is theirs to begin with. They hate the idea of retired Americans receiving their Social Security and Medicare after paying into them their entire working lives, and they hate Americans working at slave-wage jobs receiving nutrition assistance because they earn too little to survive. What they do not hate, and indeed fight ferociously for, are taxpayer-funded entitlements that go to corporations in the form of tax loopholes and particularly entitlements for the oil industry in the form of subsidies.

According to the oil industry, the very idea of ending billions-of-dollars in taxpayer subsidies for the profitable industry is un-American; a position that Republicans embrace with religious passion. However, it is not just Republicans that believe the oil industry deserves to be paid for being a highly-profitable business; the world’s governments are handing outlandish amounts of the population’s money to the industry that is driving the Earth’s climate catastrophe.

In a new and disturbing report from researchers at the International Monetary Fund, the world’s governments are providing subsidies to the highly profitable oil industry to the tune of an astonishing $5.3 trillion in benefits per year.  Another way of looking at just how much the world pays the oil industry that bears responsibility for decimating the Earth’s environment; imagine they receive $10 million per minute. That is $10 million every minute, every day, of every month, of every year. Those mind-boggling entitlements have grown over the past couple of decades and are increasing every year.

What that also means is that every minute the world’s population is paying $10 million to help the fossil fuel industry pump climate-changing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. All the while, in America Republicans are either denying that the Earth’s climate is warming, or debating whether global warming is caused by man’s propensity to pump carbon emissions into the atmosphere. If that is not bad enough, Republicans are fighting tooth and nail to preserve America’s billions in oil industry subsidies while crusading to abolish any and all environmental regulations and eliminate efforts to find new and less costly clean energy alternatives. It is true the world’s population will continue depending on fossil fuels for their energy needs long into the future, but that does not mean seeking and developing existing clean and renewable energy sources needs to be put off; particularly when the intent is to create more wealth for the oil industry.

What most Americans may be surprised to learn, if they even care, is that the IMF report revealed that besides the obvious cash “subsidies” being regularly “gifted” to the oil industry of acollective $88 billion from the G-20 nations alone, are the horrific  consequences of burning fossil fuels that very few nations, including the Koch-American government, are even willing to address. These are consequences such as the permanent and prohibitively costly health and environmental impacts affecting both local regions such as air and water pollution, and the more dangerous global consequences such as melting glaciers, rising sea levels, and extreme weather events wreaking havoc on the entire world.

Actually, it is the effects of pouring billions of tons of climate changing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere that accounts for nearly three-quarters of the final $5.3 trillion annual figure arrived at by IMF researchers. According to a statement from  Benedict Clements representing the IMF’s fiscal affairs department; “While the large size of our new estimates may be surprising, it is important to put in perspective just how many health problems are linked to energy consumption and air quality.” According to conservative estimates of the World Health Organization (WHO), “One in eight global deaths are attributable just to air pollution.” Obviously it does not included the deaths from drought-related food shortages, lack of water, extreme and deadly weather events, or any of the other consequences of anthropogenic global climate change caused by burning fossil fuels. The WHO strongly suggests that even beyond the global climate benefits of the entire world working in concert to eliminate the highly-profitable oil industry’s entitlements, any one nation’s efforts to keep fossil fuels in the ground and out of the atmosphere “will carry very significant health and economic benefits at the local level.”

The IMF’s report revealed that ending oil industry entitlements would cut by half the number of deaths attributed to outdoor air pollution alone and save about 1.6 million human lives each year. Besides, the level of money being paid to the oil industry for nothing would be better spent on healthcare, education, and infrastructure improvements and relieve the crushing poverty plaguing third world nations like America and drive robust economic growth. Part of that spending naturally includes investing in more cost-effective and money-saving projects like clean and renewable energy and research and development of more energy-efficient uses for oil and gas.

To his credit, President Obama has made efforts to scale back America’s contribution to destroying the Earth’s climate, and in fact joined Democrats’ one attempt at putting an end to taxpayer-funded entitlements to the oil industry. But this is the Koch brothers’ America and although Republicans will never allow the entitlements to stop flowing to their favorite campaign donors, the President could do much more to alert Americans that while their roads, bridges, hospitals, and schools are crumbling around them, Republicans continue spending taxpayer dollars to bolster the profitable oil industry’s bottom line.

It is noteworthy that although the President did veto the Republican attempt to circumvent his Constitutional authority over the Canadian Keystone XL pipeline, he made peace, at least temporarily, with the Koch brothers and fossil fuel industry by granting them permission to start drilling for oil in the Arctic. Obviously President Obama had a good reason to give big oil more opportunities to wipe out the climate and destroy the pristine Arctic environment, but it is a secret he felt was too dangerous for the American people to learn. He said it was because “we can’t prevent oil exploration completely in the region, so we’re setting the highest possible standards.” However, Americans have witnessed, for far too long, exactly how effective those “highest possible standards” are; especially since the Koch brothers own the federal government.

The President sent a mixed message about his commitment to combat global climate change and committed America to adding to the $5.3 trillion in subsidies for the fossil fuel industry; likely to keep up with other world governments that, like America, will not bother to invest even a fraction of that astounding amount in protecting their population’s health or the environment. If nothing else, it appears that to maintain its status as “exceptional,” America will not be outspent by other governments in providing big oil’s entitlements any more than it will make any significant attempt to combat anthropogenic climate change; not while the Kochs own the government. And make no mistake, the Kochs and big oil do own the government lock, stock, and barrel.

It is a sad state of affairs, but the rest of the world’s population, like the American people, are going to have to come to grips with the tragic fact that they are contributing to the $5.3 trillion annual oil subsidies to destroy the environment and the Earth’s climate whether they like it or not. The lack of outrage in the population informs that obviously, most Americans do like it and that, in itself, is incredibly discouraging.


 
« Last Edit: June 10, 2015, 08:44:17 AM by Surly1 »
"...reprehensible lying communist..."

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
Azozeo's News Channel

Started by Surly1 « 1 2 ... 5 6 » Far Out Newz

82 Replies
31436 Views
Last post March 19, 2020, 04:27:44 AM
by azozeo
0 Replies
1222 Views
Last post July 01, 2018, 08:07:18 PM
by Palloy2
0 Replies
925 Views
Last post August 05, 2019, 03:51:00 AM
by RE