Slashdot Mirror

You need a chill pill....

Why do I think it's shady?? UCS is a extreme environmental group, in my opinion. They are against all genetic engineering of food, as far as I can tell are completly against nuclear energy, and their scientists are usually biased towards environmentalism v/s business.

If they called their organization 'An extension of Greenpeace', I might buy it. But their organization's name sucks people in and forces them to dig very deep (or start gettign emails) to find out what they are really about.

I enjoy getting their emails for 'Call to Action' that they forward to politicians. I like to change them to my viewpoint before sending them out.

You need a chill pill....

Why do I think it's shady?? UCS is a extreme environmental group, in my opinion. They are against all genetic engineering of food, as far as I can tell are completly against nuclear energy, and their scientists are usually biased towards environmentalism v/s business.

If they called their organization 'An extension of Greenpeace', I might buy it. But their organization's name sucks people in and forces them to dig very deep (or start gettign emails) to find out what they are really about.

I enjoy getting their emails for 'Call to Action' that they forward to politicians. I like to change them to my viewpoint before sending them out.

Kinda like how the Union of Concerned Scientists hide an extreme environmental group behind the aura that concerned scientists everywhere have the same beliefs.

Every 'side' does shady things, and everyone else knows they do it. Move on ... nothing new here....

The scary thing is this guy is just a casual observer. If you step outside the mainstream media and dig deeper you will find things that sound like fiction, but the government is actually doing.

1 in 5 scientists at the FDA say that "I have been asked, for non-scientific reasons, to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information or my conclusions in an FDA scientific document" - UCS

Members of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC) have been intimidated. Only recently have we needed an organization to protect whistleblowers, the intimidation against them to not go public is unprecedented.

I forgot if elections in 1984 were similar.

The earth has a surface area of 510,065,600,000,000m (510,065,600 km).

On average, the earth receives 175 watts of solar radiation per square meter per day (4.2 kilowatt-hours).

Do the math and it adds up to 89.26148 zetawatts. A billion watts is only 0.00000112030408% of this amount. This would have no significant effect on global temperatures.

Now, you say 2005 had the hottest year on record, yet the official temperature record of the Climate Research Unit shows otherwise. He was pointing this out. Are you going to ignore the official temperature record of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia?


http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/recor dtemp2005.html

they were "clearly" hucksters, where is your evidence to prove it? I discussed global warming with a guy on IRC a while back, and every time I quoted any scientific opposition to the idea we're headed to a global warming apocalypse, he said it was "petrol-funded" and acted as though that magically meant he had offered a valid counterpoint.

It actually is a valid counter point because anybody who is getting their funding from the oil industry has an innate bias towards conclusions that benefit the oil industry. This is obvious. Show me one valid scientific study that agrees with what the "petrol-funded" people are saying and it's worth a discussion.

Aside the fact that many scientific journals are blinded by groupthink and won't publish alternative viewpoints on global warming (just look at your attitude toward Bob Carter for referencing the official temperature record!), there is growing concern that many young scientists today have examined the evidence and don't believe we're headed toward a human-created cataclysm, but do not want to risk their careers expressing that viewpoint because of the politics involved.

Not a single one. Not one in all of those piles of papers, not one damn paper. I could see a strong bias as being indicative of group think, but not a single one?

It does mean there is not an official, unquestioned consensus. In the 1970s, there was also a consensus that we were all going to be in a new Ice Age by now.

Wrong: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

Hell, one guy even put out a book called The Skeptical Environmentalist

The "one guy" was a political scientist name Bjørn Lomborg. How is he qualified to make judgements about climate science?

I ask you, what benefit does anybody have for making this up? What possible benefit does any environmentalist get from telling people they may need to stop driving cars? It's political suicide to support reduction of CO2 emissions because it leads to sacrifices people are unwilling to make. On the other hand the detractors all seem to fall into two categories:

1) Industry funded pseudo-scientists
2) People who don't know jack about climatology

I just ask for one. One legitimate paper that really shows valid evidence to discredit the consensus. I assume said paper will be delivered by Godot.

Check out the Union of Concerned Scientist website. The Union's members are from varied fields of science, but many of its members are atmospheric scientists. The Union concludes that global warming is strongly support by available evidence. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

Check out the Union of Concerned Scientist website. The Union's members are from varied fields of science, but many of its members are atmospheric scientists. The Union concludes that global warming is strongly support by available evidence. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

Well, if I had any artistic talent...

BTW if you doesn't have any artistic talent you can still Help decide who Wins

FTA: If you don't enter the contest but you still want to help decide who comes out on top, sign up for the UCS Action Network. We'll let you know when the 12 finalists are identified and the voting period begins.

If you are interested you can Sign Up Here


And if you want to defend Science from Politics:

FTA: If you're a scientist or engineer, sign the Scientist Statement on Scientific Integrity. If you're not a scientist or engineer, sign the Citizens' Call-to-Action. By signing either document, you'll show your support for independent science and have the opportunity to be kept informed about ways to defend science from political interference.

Well, if I had any artistic talent...

BTW if you doesn't have any artistic talent you can still Help decide who Wins

FTA: If you don't enter the contest but you still want to help decide who comes out on top, sign up for the UCS Action Network. We'll let you know when the 12 finalists are identified and the voting period begins.

If you are interested you can Sign Up Here


And if you want to defend Science from Politics:

FTA: If you're a scientist or engineer, sign the Scientist Statement on Scientific Integrity. If you're not a scientist or engineer, sign the Citizens' Call-to-Action. By signing either document, you'll show your support for independent science and have the opportunity to be kept informed about ways to defend science from political interference.

Except that it very much is the case: we receive an effectively unlimited amount of energy from the sun. The only obstacle (and I admit it is a big one) is figuring out how to capture enough of that energy and convert it into a useful form (electrons, hydrogen, whatever) that we can use. But the energy is there for the taking:

Quote: The amount of energy from the sun that falls on the earth is enormous. All the energy stored in the earth's reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas is matched by the energy from 20 days of sunshine.

With that argument you can't replace fossil fuel with nuclear as it can't adapt to rapidly changing energy demand's

as I said in the later part of my post you can STORE ENERGY.

Coal is only 50% of our power right now and it's a long way from running out so it's not really an issue.

How come it has not risen since 1988 ? Where did you take it off ?

2005 was the hottest year on record.

Check out the stats here: http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Temp/2006Te mp_data.htm

You can see graphics here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

Do you think NASA is making up data ?

In addition to releasing its two reports on the Bush administration's unprecedented level of political interference in science, the Union of Concerned Scientists is actively organizing scientists and citizens to defend science from misuse for political reasons.

Scientists, engineers, and health professionals who want to show support for independent science should sign the scientists' statement on scientific integrity at http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interfe rence/scientists-signon-statement.html Other concerned citizens can sign the citizens call to action http://www.ucsusa.org/forms/rsi-activist-enrollmen t-form.html

There is also legislation to restore scientific integrity in federal policy making. Urge your representative and senators to co-sponsor the legislation (or thank them for doing so) here: http://ucsaction.org/campaign/9_14_05_political_in terference_science_senate

In addition to releasing its two reports on the Bush administration's unprecedented level of political interference in science, the Union of Concerned Scientists is actively organizing scientists and citizens to defend science from misuse for political reasons.

Scientists, engineers, and health professionals who want to show support for independent science should sign the scientists' statement on scientific integrity at http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interfe rence/scientists-signon-statement.html Other concerned citizens can sign the citizens call to action http://www.ucsusa.org/forms/rsi-activist-enrollmen t-form.html

There is also legislation to restore scientific integrity in federal policy making. Urge your representative and senators to co-sponsor the legislation (or thank them for doing so) here: http://ucsaction.org/campaign/9_14_05_political_in terference_science_senate

a friend and I our currently debating this topic part of it with good links follows: >>> Here's a very professional, non-sensational letter sent to Senators Frist and Daschle from more than 1,000 scientists across the country Many are from major research universities. Notice this particular point "computer simulations do not reproduce the late 20th century warmth if they include only natural climate forcings such as emissions from volcanoes and solar activity. The warmth is only captured when the simulations include forcings from human-emitted greenhouse gases present in the atmosphere."

http://go.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_war ming/page.cfm?pageID=1264#Inst

This is actually one of the few things that I can find, that the IPCC overall releases reports supporting global warming, and this is why I am still pretty much undecided, they release good research and facts supporting their theory. The problem is even their reports never paint near as dire of situation as all the media tries to report about global warming. It still puts out many good points, but all their findings are less than a degree of change and we have records of other rapid temperature changes in the past such as the link jesse first sent out. Also, we dont have the good of temperature data for more than 100, years or so seeing heating in one half doesnt seem to be a large data set. Seeing some warming when on a large climate scale we are still coming out of an ice age and expecting to be warming (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html). In fact the IPCC report says we have shown most of the heating in the last 50 years (and some reports claim it is even more noticeable around the most industrialized countries, because we also are the most deforested, and our gauges are nearest to cities(see below)), but if you look we actually cooled from 1950 until 1975 according to public data.

During the last 100 years there have been two general cycles of warming and cooling recorded in the U.S. We are currently in the second warming cycle. Overall, U.S. temperatures show no significant warming trend over the last 100 years (1). This has been well - established but not well - publicized. (same link as above)

Dr. Patrick Michaels has demonstrated this effect is a common problem with ground- based recording stations, many of which originally were located in predominantly rural areas, but over time have suffered background bias due to urban sprawl and the encroachment of concrete and asphalt ( the "urban heat island effect"). The result has been an upward distortion of increases in ground temperature over time(2). Satellite measurements are not limited in this way, and are accurate to within 0.1 C. They are widely recognized by scientists as the most accurate data available. Significantly, global temperature readings from orbiting satellites show no significant warming in the 18 years they have been continuously recording and returning data. -A scientific Discussion of Climate Change, Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D., Harvard- Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and Willie Soon, Ph.D., Harvard- Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

(Ziegler, 1998). Again, we have a natural mechanism, correlated to periods of high sea level, for warming the poles that is independent of CO2 levels. -http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~polsen/nbcp/phyto.h tml (sorry for the bold and colors copy and past does weird stuff)

I did have a harder time finding alot about computer simulations that weren't directly tied to the IPCC. Computer simulations can't reproduce next fridays weather, couldnt predict Katrina until days away, can't predict historic weather based on known test data with in the ranges we have

Not if we switch to cheap, dirty coal first. In the long run, price increases will induce people to search for alternatives. But as Keynes famously said, in the long run, both you and I will be dead. How much damage will be caused in the meantime?

Simply relying on the market mechanism to fix this problem won't work, because the costs of pollution are not included in the market price of oil. I get all of the benefits when I drive my car, but I don't pay all of the costs because I don't pay for the effects of the pollution on other people. Multiply that by every car, every airplane, every power plant that burns oil, coal or natural gas, every cow (which produce significant amounts of methane), and so on, and you have a massive market failure.

So what does the Kyoto protocol, or something like it, really accomplish?

It will address the market failure that arises from market externalities like pollution.

There are market-based solutions that use precisely the mechanism you describe; it's called a carbon tax. Tax every carbon-releasing activity, so that the price reflects the true cost, including the release of greenhouse gasses, and suddenly wind power and solar will be economically vible.

Reducing the emission of greenhouse gasses right now makes solid economic sense:

United States Needs Incentive Based Policy to Reduce Carbon Emissions

Economists' Statement on Climate Change

Great idea! I think the government should let the markets decide, and stop subsidizing oil companies.

After all, the market has clearly decided that the big oil companies, with their record-breaking profits, are the appropriate market solution to our energy problems. So why is the government interfering with the market and giving away $7 billion to the oil companies?

Well here's my counter vote, based on ACTUALER INFORMATION.
As "the hottest on record" guy, I do have to retract my earlier statement. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, 2005 is, in fact, not THE hottest on record, its tied for hottest with 1998. My bad. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/recor dtemp2005.html
Now, if you'd like to maybe, i dunno, reference any actual information on which you based your other statements, I'm all ears.
And no, the almight "THEY" did not change global warming to climate change, the republicans, and specifically the bush administration did, as a rhetorical device to disarm and what became after the '80's a loaded term. Global warming has very negative connotations in our society, and they never like to discuss problems on anyone's terms but their own. Therefore they have favored the value-neutral "climate change" as a way to shape the rhetoric so as to disarm their critics. There's nothing evil about that, its just politics.
but it doesnt make it any less bullshit.
until we start seeing any other form of climate change besides global warming, I will continue to refer to it as such. when The Day After Tommorow comes true, and we have to call in Randy Quaid to save his son from certain doom in NY, then we can start talking about climate change.

One would hope that Bush's statements on scientific advances prove that he is not anti-science, no more than pro-lifers are anti-women. It is silly (though convenient) to label someone with whom you disagree as evil

it doesn't make sense that any President would actively work to thwart something like scientific progress in general.

It DOES make sense that a President would try to do what's best for the country, and that is where the disagreement lies.

try to understand why his position is what it is

you just might discover that there are intelligent arguments on all sides of the table.

One would hope that Bush's statements on scientific advances prove that he is not anti-science, no more than pro-lifers are anti-women. It is silly (though convenient) to label someone with whom you disagree as evil

it doesn't make sense that any President would actively work to thwart something like scientific progress in general.

It DOES make sense that a President would try to do what's best for the country, and that is where the disagreement lies.

try to understand why his position is what it is

you just might discover that there are intelligent arguments on all sides of the table.

One would hope that Bush's statements on scientific advances prove that he is not anti-science, no more than pro-lifers are anti-women. It is silly (though convenient) to label someone with whom you disagree as evil

it doesn't make sense that any President would actively work to thwart something like scientific progress in general.

It DOES make sense that a President would try to do what's best for the country, and that is where the disagreement lies.

try to understand why his position is what it is

you just might discover that there are intelligent arguments on all sides of the table.

Dean Acosta, deputy assistant administrator for public affairs at the space agency, said there was no effort to silence Dr. Hansen. "That's not the way we operate here at NASA," Mr. Acosta said. "We promote openness and we speak with the facts."

After that speech and the release of data by Dr. Hansen on Dec. 15 showing that 2005 was probably the warmest year in at least a century, officials at the headquarters of the space agency repeatedly phoned public affairs officers, who relayed the warning to Dr. Hansen that there would be "dire consequences" if such statements continued, those officers and Dr. Hansen said in interviews.

He added that government scientists were free to discuss scientific findings, but that policy statements should be left to policy makers and appointed spokesmen.

That's possible... on the other hand, the Bush administration has had a long and illustrious history of suppressing and distorting scientific findings that contradict its own world view. Their truculent behavior has been widely protested by scientists before, so it wouldn't surprise me if they're at it again.

That's possible... on the other hand, the Bush administration has had a long and illustrious history of suppressing and distorting scientific findings that contradict its own world view. Their truculent behavior has been widely protested by scientists before, so it wouldn't surprise me if they're at it again.

That's possible... on the other hand, the Bush administration has had a long and illustrious history of suppressing and distorting scientific findings that contradict its own world view. Their truculent behavior has been widely protested by scientists before, so it wouldn't surprise me if they're at it again.

But you are saying that the hard numbers and economic analysis that has already been done is wrong, because your intuition says so!

No such analysis has been posted in this thread, only the rather vague statement that it's not economically feasible (to sustain all of our energy needs from solar energy alone). I have argued, based on intuition, that it is feasible. No agreement on this, so the only solution would be to turn to exact numbers.

Here are some: An area of about 750,000 km^2 covered with todays photovoltaic cells (10% efficient) would be enough to cover total world energy consumption. (Which, in 1998, was 379.7 Quad BTU, average solar energy input is 4.2 kWh/m^2/d.)

That area would be about twice the size of Germany. Less than the size of Nigeria or Sudan.

One square meter of photovoltaic cells costs about $1000 today (actually, $300-$700 but let's use easy numbers). So that would be an upper bound of $750 trillion to pay for those cells. Obviously, the price for solar cells would go down dramatically if such mass production were ever to be attempted. For comparison, since the 1950s, nuclear energy was subsidized by about $0.5-1 trillion.

To me, that project seems well within reach of human civilization.

The difficulty is converting this energy into a form we can use. If something gives 100 joules of energy, and we can only convert that to 10 joules of energy we can make use of, we'd be better off going with something that gives 50 joules that we can convert to 25 joules of useful energy.

You definitely should look up the real numbers some time. You're in for many pleasant surprises.

Even if photovoltaics (or another direct solar energy harvester) were only 10% efficient, and another source 50% efficient, that's by far offset by the actual amount of energy that's coming in. My favourite one: the amount of energy stored in all of the known fossil fuel reserves on earth equals 20 days of sunshine.

Read up at:

• The Institute for Local Self-Reliance
• Taxpayers for Common Sense
• The Union of Concerned Scientists

We've cut polutants dramatically in this country and probably do more than almost any country but get no credit for it

huge disparity between scientific belief on the cause of this warming trend and you can understand why it's not taken as seriously as it should.

You might as well say "There is a lot of disagreement about whether this gun is loaded, so I can point it at my head and pull the trigger."

You are man centric. Man is likely to kill himself off with all his brain power by accident if religious folks don't get smarter about science that bushy is more likely to risk the earths distruction in some crazy holy war claiming that bunker buster bombs are somehow safe when they actualy are proned to dump radiation thousands of miles air borne. http://www.ucsusa.org/general/special_features/pag e.cfm?pageID=1782 As long as it is us against them, their raligion/ ours, good versus evil people will never see the humanity to the others. I think democracy need to be reformed. I think canidates should all have the same amount of money. I think elections should only be publicaly funded and each candidate should be given the same amount of money. Then they can take their political stratigists and they can all make a different game plan. This would be a true democracy. Each candidate would get equal time toe be on the air. There would be a standardization of the electorial process not based on the most wealthiest contributors but by the ones with the best ideas chosen by the people for the people. Also of we want to get out of the side taking polarity of politics we need a moderate party for us true conservitives who want to make conservation the greater goal and sustainability. I got way off topic. But heah your none threatening gays anomilies that are inherantly bad theory inspired me.

I'm not part of this community, only stumbled in here because it came up in my google news.

And so ==> anonymous coward for now until I get my bearings. Just wanted to draw your attention to a recently released study (I was a part of) that goes over a number of the technical questions you all are talking about here:

The Physics of Space Security: A Reference Manual

Here here. Let's please not focus on ID just because it is the latest thing to come out of this government. Rather, let's focus on the torrent of unsound and unresearched scientific claims made by the administration and the stifiling of scientists who strongly oppose such intrusion.

Here's a great place to start:

Through observation & reproducability science is made. Only those observations and Theories that fit them should be imparted to future Generations as Science.

The President is, and never has been, a authoritative voice in the scientific community. As it should be. If you want to know about science ask a scientist. If you want to know about the complete disregard of science for policy ask the President:

http://www.creationethics.org/index.cfm?fuseaction =webpage&page_id=208
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0219-02.ht m
http://www.savearcticrefuge.org/scientist.pdf
http://www.fas.org/bethepr.htm

Don't Even Ask about Stem cells.

You can help:
http://www.ucsusa.org/rsi_calltoaction/index.php

Make sure you read the second article listed before you go witch hunting ethanol production. It looks like it all depends on which study you listen to.

To quote the study from the "Union of Concerned Scientists" http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/renewable_energ y/page.cfm?pageID=78

"One persistent myth about biomass is that it takes more energy to produce fuels from biomass than the fuels themselves contain. In other words, that it is a net energy loser. In fact, current ethanol production uses corn, one of the most energy-intensive crops, and then uses just the kernels from the corn plant, and not even the entire kernel. Even so, this process yields 50 percent more energy than it takes to make the ethanol, so it is a net gainer.

Nonetheless, we could do much better. By making ethanol from energy crops, we could obtain between four and five times the energy that we put in, and by making electricity we could get perhaps 10 times or more."

Well it is not as bad as the GP suggests, SUVs are handled differently than cars or other legitimate business costs.

I'm not an accountant, but this article suggests that you can write off up to $100k on SUVs and $7k on cars. A slight incentive some would say.

Forced by whom? The only country that seems interested in militarizing space is the U.S., and that is more a fulfillment of the wet dreams of defense contractors than any real threat.

Maybe other countries would be less likely to follow our lead in the arms race if we didn't always jump before the first signs of danger.

Some interesting discussion on the relevant international treaties. Not that the current administration shows any interest in that sort of thing...

The difference is the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. Article Four says:

Article IV
States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.

The moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited.

When you agree to a treaty wherein you promise not to militarize a specific place, efforts to later break that treaty are generally considered to be in poor taste (putting in very mildly)...

More info is here.

"Agency warnings have no more effect than a wink and a nod, a deadline is just an arbitrary date on the calendar, and once passed, not to be mentioned again."
"Financial benefits accrue to the owners and operators who were not required to incur the statutory burden and costs attendant to surface mining: political benefits accrue to the state executive and legislators who escape accountability while the mining industry gets a free pass."

Now who's unaware of the other side of the argument, again?

the same as with someone that wanted to eliminate technology...
As if those people even existed. They're just straw men, invented by corporate PR firms so they'll have a bogey man to scare people like you with.

That Kerry wouldn't have done the same?

Ok. Kerry wouldn't have done the same. Not because he's vastly more moral than this administration. Rather, because it never would have occurred to the Democrats to be this petty.

This administration applies loyalty tests to everything, including scientific advisory appointments and attendance at campaign events.

Disappointing, petty, and not even surprising anymore.

The problem of dumping gallons of fertilizer and pesticide on each square foot of land

Apparently you've never heard of Roundup-Ready Soybeans.

Besides, the biggest problem with GM plants isn't that they're somehow inherently dangerous. The real worry is that we'll make them produce something dangerous, and that those genes will become almost impossible to control. I.e., producing pharmacological drugs in food plants or their close relatives, for which there has been a big push. The degree and rate of gene flow, even from only sister species, can be rather impressive.

Perhaps (if you are one of these global warming nimrods) you could argue that we need to produce less CO2.

First, let's define "nimrod".

Then, let's see what the nimrods at the Union of Concerned Scientists have to say about global warming.

Don't overlook the science on the issue.

A quick Google search shows that on earth every square meter receives about 4.2kwh of energy per day over a 24 hour period.

A quick look at my electric bill says I use about 20kwh/day as a rough average -- another Google search suggests that the average US household uses approximately 25kwh/day

...So, finishing the math: using 15% efficiency solar cells, the Average US Household needs only 40 square meters (430 square feet) of solar cells to cover all its energy needs. Heck, I could use 5% solar cells on my roof in downtown San Francisco, and STILL have 2x extra capacity to sell back to the grid!

Don't get me wrong: Solar won't solve everything, particularly in applications like transportation where energy storage is an issue --- and cheap Fission IS something we should have figured out a long time ago --- but please don't resort to misinformation to make your points, it only weakens what you are saying.

5. Is ozone depletion related to global warming?

No. Ozone depletion and global warming are separate problems, though some agents contribute to both. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are the principle cause of ozone deletion, but they also happen to be potent heat-trapping gases. Still, CFCs are responsible for less than 10 percent of total atmospheric warming, far less than the 63 percent contribution of carbon dioxide. Thus, attention paid to CFCs has been on their ozone depletion role. This will change as CFCs are phased out and replaced by hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs such as R-134a). These chemicals have little or no effect on the ozone layer but are strong heat-trapping gases. As their concentration in the atmosphere is already rising, the likely net effect in the future is that reductions in the CFC-related contribution to global warming will be offset by the presence of HCFCs and HFCs.

Do a google search on Davis Besse. Its the nuclear power plant that nearly let their containment vessel rust through.

As for the profitability of power companies versus media companies, First Energy, the owners of Davis Besse and some coal fired power plants cleared $878 million in profits just in the first quarter of 2004, and that was while they were stuggling to repair Davis Besse. Energy companies, thanks to deregulation, a blind eye from the FERC and the Bush administration, and a carefully managed shortage of power can charge as much as they want for electricty.

First Energy's name may sound familiar because they are also suspected to have been responsible for the blackout on the east coast.

Also reference Enron's scam to nearly bankrupt California by artificially inflating the price of electricity. California pled for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to step in since it was obvious Enron was colluding with several other energy traders to extort billions of dollars from Californians for electricty. Their illegal activity, since proven by tapes of their energy traders planning the scam, bankrupted PG&E, hammered California's economy and is still hammering it due to the still high cost of electricity, and of course helped put the Republican's in to the governorship. Now there was a situation where some regulation, fines and criminal charges were called for and to date the Bush administration has done nothing about it, and many suspect were in fact colluding with Enron to commit this gigantic fraud, both to help Enron's profitibility and to force a Democrat Governor out of office.

All in all these fines are just the New Republican Party and the Religious right waging war on New York and Hollywood liberals and striving to inflict their puritanical values on everyone. Meanwhile they are letting their rich friends and big corporate backers rape, loot and pillage the public in order to make handsome profits.

one (This map was created based on U.S. Department of Energy data).

two quick summary of this link (sorry about formatting):

THE TOP 20 CARBON DIOXIDE EMITTERS
Country Total emissions (1000 tons of C) Per capita emissions Total emission (rank) Growth (in %, 1990-96)
United States 1446777 5.37 (1) (9.9)
Peoples Rep. of China 917997 0.76 (18) 40.0
Russia Federation 431090 2.91 (6) -19.2 (since 1992)
Japan 318686 2.54 (9) 9.1
...

three. Is that enough? This stuff is available from many many sources, try google.

Please, do at least some minimal amount of research before you embarrass yourself.

This is incorrect.

Too vague. Let's make up a scenario or two.

Or let's not, and look at a sample complaint.

I don't see any reason to believe that all -- or any -- of them are less innocent.

Because there was a survey that said so? Surveys are often slanted, but it agrees with everything else I've read on the issue.

Did they teach you in school not to quote an unabashedly right-wing counter-activist's personal website and try to write it off as some sort of informed document on the history of an organization?

Activistcash is a slightly more reputable, but the information source is so poorly written and clearly deriding the organization that its informational content is questionable.

Try their own website or perhaps even Wikipedia.

The percentage of people from the scientific community is irrelevant. They still only survey scientists. The fact that there's the other 90% that's non-scientists but still interested is a good thing.

I was surprised to see Kurt Gottfried mentioned though. He's no longer head of the Physics Department but is a neat guy (and wrote a textbook here).

Did you read the survey? (Available here)

It's phrased in the present tense.