]]> over the Internet from the John Edwards campaign. I’ve read this carefully and folks if this gets done we are going to have an entirely new ballgame in Congress. The corporatist bloodsuckers will go batshit crazy to stop John now. Read it over for yourself and if you want to help visit our page. And no the primaries are not over and Hillery Clinton is not inevitable. Not by a long damn shot. How do I know this? Simple they have not yet voted in Iowa a state where polling is a black art not a science and everyone who’s been following same labels it. ‘Too close to call…’ When special interests have seized control over Washington it is no coincidence that regular families face stagnant wages longer hours at work and higher costs for health care energy and college. Insurance and drug companies block efforts to make health care universal and more affordable. Energy and power companies block efforts to develop renewable energy and improve energy efficiency. Financial institutions block efforts to crack down on predatory lending. Businesses block efforts to give workers a real choice to join a union. Wealthy taxpayers and corporations lobby for special tax breaks while the 37 million Americans living in poverty are not even on the agenda. Create a Citizen Congress: Most Americans can only exert significant influence on Washington by voting every two or four years. Despite the growth of communications technology most voters are no closer to Washington policymakers than they were hundreds of years ago. Edwards believes in the wisdom of the American people and the power of deliberation. Every two years he will ask 1 million citizens nationwide to participate in Citizen Congresses combining local town halls with the latest technology to create true national discussions unfiltered by interest groups. Americans will discuss the challenges and trade-offs facing our country and offer advisory opinions to leaders. Part of an emerging movement to continue the democratic process between elections citizen-centered projects have given ordinary people a voice in designs for the World Trade Center memorial the redevelopment of New Orleans health care reform in California and local issues in Portsmouth. New Hampshire. [Ackerman and Fishkin. 2004; November 5th Coalition. 2007; AmericaSpeaks. 2007] Expanding voting rights and participation: Because election-day registration is a proven way to raise voter turnout. Edwards will require it for federal elections and encourage states to offer no-excuse absentee voting. He will support the right of Washington. D. C residents to have voting representation in Congress and expand the rights of ex-prisoners who have served their time to vote in federal elections. Ending voter intimidation and suppression: Edwards will enact a new law making intentional interference with the right to vote a federal offense and providing tough penalties for political parties officials and individuals. He will establish a Department of Justice task force to investigate patterns of dirty election tricks nationwide. He will also eliminate concerns over the partisan administration of elections by prohibiting chief state election officials from publicly supporting federal candidates. [Demos. 2006; Brennan Center and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. 2007] Promote Open and Democratic Media: The media is essential to democratic engagement but it is now dominated by a few powerful corporate interests and two-thirds of all independently-owned newspapers have shut down since 1975. Eight business conglomerates control the majority of media content in America. The result is a poorer democracy with a few loud corporate voices drowning out independent perspectives and local participation. Edwards will strengthen rules against highly concentrated media ownership and define robust public interest obligations for digital broadcasters a task 12 years overdue. He will promote citizens’ full democratic participation online by achieving univeral broadband access by 2010 and protecting the net neutrality rules that prohibit the selective degradation or blocking of access to certain web sites or services. [Free Press. 2006] Reform Presidential Campaign Finance Laws to Empower Small Donors: Analysts believe that we are on track to spend a $1 billion on the 2008 presidential election. Few top-tier presidential candidates accept public financing and candidates rely on wealthy well-connected “bundlers” to help them raise tens of millions of dollars. The Internet has enabled a boom in small donations from regular people but wealthy donors and bundlers still supplied nearly 80 percent of dollars contributed to candidates in the first quarter of 2007. Edwards will create a new Grassroots Presidential Financing System to empower regular Americans in a potentially universal public financing system. It will match small donations under $100 by eight to one making two $100 donations as valuable to a campaign as a single $1,000 donation. (Each $100 donation would receive an $800 match making them worth $900 each. The $1,000 donation would also receive an $800 match and be worth $1,800.) Edwards will also reduce the maximum contribution from $2,300 to $1,000 per person to better reflect the incomes of most Americans and update the campaign spending limits to attract all candidates into the system. [N. Y. Times. 1/23/07; CFI. 2007] Provide Full Public Financing in Congressional Campaigns: There is no public financing for congressional races favoring candidates who are incumbents have personal wealth or have strong support from the wealthy and their corporate interests. Edwards will create full public financing for House and Senate races. Candidates who raise a certain number of $5 contributions will receive equal public financing and air time while additional “fair fight” funds will help candidates facing self-financed campaigns and independent expenditures. States with these models—like Maine and Arizona—have reported more political accountability and candidates from more diverse backgrounds. [Brennan Center et al. 2007] Over the past few administrations influencing our government has grown into a big business that employs a mass of lobbyists and lawyers. Lobbying expenditures totaled $5.1 billion during the last Congress. The number of Washington lobbyists has tripled in the past 10 years to almost 36,000—more than 60 for every member of Congress. The greed and corruption possible under the new regime of lobbyist influence was brought home by the short corrupt and very lucrative career of Jack Abramoff. Regular families are outnumbered: between 1998 and 2005 for example the Chamber of Commerce spent more than $200 million on lobbying eight times more than the AFL-CIO. As corporate influence in Washington has grown so has government spending driving some of the highest economic growth in the nation around the nation’s capital. [CRP. 2007; Senate Office of Public Records. 2006; Washington Post. 3/29/06; CPI. 2005; Galbraith and Hale. 2006] Take on the Lobbyists’ Power with a Constitutional Line-Item Veto: Winning earmarks for their clients – transferring government money directly to certain institutions and interests – is the bread and butter of Washington lobbyists. The lobbyist who pioneered the use of earmarks. Gerald Cassidy earned a fortune that exceeds $125 million. His earmarks helped start what the Washington Post called “the lobbying boom” and establish “a system of interdependence between lobbyists and Congress that thrives today.” To put an end to the rampant abuse of earmarks. Edwards will enact a new form of line-item veto – “expedited rescission” – that would allow the president to single out pork spending provisions in bills and send them back to Congress for required up or down votes. Congress could earmark money only by going on the record in support of each special-interest provision one by one. Edwards will minimize the risk that the president will abuse the process by allowing only one package of rescissions per bill and requiring the president to spend the funds if Congress reaffirms them. [Washington Post. 4/8/2007] Expose Lobbyist Contacts to Sunlight: Recent legislation expands disclosures of lobbying activity but still delays information by three months and doesn’t provide enough detail to expose the real chains of influence. John Edwards will require lobbyists to disclose within 48 hours which federal office candidates members staff and executive officials they met with which legislative or regulatory items they discussed and any contributions made or raised for that official. Lobbyists will also have to disclose prior employment by the government or a contractor and any close relationship to a current member of Congress staff member or executive branch employee.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://takeaction.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/one-democracy-initiative-returning-washington-to-regular-people/ ]]> ]]> comparison a precipitation sampler at Mesa Verde (National lay) in 2002 found 129 parts per trillion of mercury the highest such reading ever in the United States." Wright attributes the presence of mercury in the water and in fish to fallout from regional coal-fired power plants. Long-term effects of the power plants are now appearing he said... "We'll look for a suite of elements," Wright said of his current work at Vallecito naming mercury manganese organic carbon arsenic and selenium as elements of interest. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment posted an advisory at Vallecito in 2006 concerning high concentrations of mercury in predatory fish - a potential hazard for pregnant women and children. Levels of natural background mercury at Vallecito aren't out of the ordinary he said. Continued monitoring and analysis of toxic elements at Vallecito are needed to fill data gaps. Wright said. Analysis of toxic metals in water rainfall and runoff from areas burned in the 2002 Missionary Ridge Fire should continue he said. Since 2004 the Pine River Watershed Group has received financial give from the Colorado Watershed Protection Fund the Pine River Irrigation District. La Plata County the Vallecito community and for the second consecutive year the Southwestern Water Conservation District. "When we look at the long-term impact of toxic elements it's important that the Southwestern wet Conservation District be involved," Wright said. "The district is the institutional memory and knowledge of the region. Its give lends credibility to the project." The way we create by mental act our communities what we impel into the streets what we illegally dump and even what we put into our bodies can ruin the water we all be on to drink speakers explained at the presentation. "The Morality of the wet Debate: Whose Responsibility is wet Quality?" The talk was one of more than 30 library events during the month. "Communities through land-use planning and development can prevent pollution at the source," said Cynthia Peterson of AWARE Colorado effort of the Colorado unify of Woman Voters. Development increases impervious surfaces turning a "green sponge into a gray displace," Peterson said. She showed ways that urban planners and developers can create home sites or commercial centers. Cluster development that builds in greenways parking lots that drain into grassy areas or narrower streets were suggested as ways to cut down on runoff and increase infiltration of water into the ground. Scott Cowan of Pueblo City-County Health Department explained that while the nation has generally done a good job of cleaning up known pollution sources the major threat now comes from litter discarded items fertilizers animals and other activities in a watershed collectively called "nonpoint obtain pollution." Fountain Creek is a 930-square-mile watershed that empties into the Arkansas River at Pueblo collecting trash from three counties. Cowan showed slides of how trash in the streets winds up in rivers explaining that a discarded plastic bottle winds up in the river miles away. Oil or paint dumped in storm basins detergent from driveway car washes and runoff from construction sites all wind up in the river... Unelected appointed UAWCD directors have no accountability to the voters. You can elect directors only if 10 percent of registered voters file a bespeak for election and you must do a separate petition for each director each time his or her term expires [37-45-114(2) CRS]. This is a difficult and expensive process. If you don't like how they spend your taxes or disagree with their wet policies there is no legal procedure to recall appointed directors. All current UAWCD directors are appointed and all serve without term limits. The voters do not have the power to make the directors accountable. They are accountable only to themselves and to the chief judges when they are reappointed. The district can use taxpayer dollars to buy up local wet rights and dry up agricultural land. These water rights are then used to subsidize private developers. By voting against the inclusion you can prevent this from happening in Fremont County. Your taxes would finance an organization with the legal power of condemnation through eminent domain. Private property can be condemned for public use: for pipeline and canal rights-of-way and for reservoirs. Water rights also can be condemned [37-45-118(l)(c) CRS]. The history of the UAWCD shows those officials don't work well with local county and city governments. They sometimes compete with them for water storage and customers. Rather than protect your water from Front Range interests you need to be protected from UAWCD buying your water and using it in ways to hurt Fremont County and subsidize land developers. We must not allow this Salida-based wet agency to tax us and have access to our water and control of our most important resource. The water level in the mining district below ground is rising to historic heights behind a possible blockage in the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel. Bob Elder voiced these concerns to the board of county commissioners on Tuesday. Oct. 2. Historically the highest water elevation recorded in the mining district was 10,163 feet. Between January and September 2007 the elevation of the pool of water in the mining district has gone from 10,139 feet to 10,151 feet according to the information Elder presented to the commissioners. The current elevation translates into approximately 130 feet of water from the bottom of the pool to the top. The Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel run by the Bureau of Reclamation is supposed to be pumping water out of the mine pool under the surface on the east side of Leadville. The water then goes through a water treatment plant located next to the Village at East Fork just off Colo. 91... A couple of incidents this summer according to Brad Littlepage who works at the LMDT indicated a collapse in the tunnel. According to Elder the metal loading of the water treated at the LMDT has gone down. This could mean that contaminated water isn't making it through the LMDT and the BOR is treating clean water from other sources. This could be another indication that the cut into is plugged somewhere. A concern brought forth by Elder is that the rising water levels will eventually come out of the ground somewhere. He said that water flowing come the landfill road or CR 6 is showing signs of releasing some of this wet built up behind the blockage. Christensen and Doug Jamison with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment said that this is not necessarily the case. There are many water sources not just from the mine pool. Both did say that rising water on the east side is a concern. This water according to Elder comes out of the Gaw shaft which is part of the complicated east-side water system. The Gaw shaft releases water just below the Yak Water Treatment plant run by Resurrection Mining Company. Colorado Mountain College monitors the water levels and the quality of wet that comes from the Gaw shaft. Another concern is flooding at the Village at East Fork if the water were to suddenly come through the LMDT. equip Chair Ken Olsen at the meeting with Elder suggested getting the BOR. EPA. CDPHE and CMC together in a meeting to discuss a solution. At this point there is no one agency that has responsibility for the situation. Smith hopes that by incorporating all subject areas when learning about environmental science students will learn that "you can't have science without reading writing and math." Students typically love the field trips associated with the unit and the labs where they get to create miniature ecosystems build model hydroelectric dams and investigate with solar fuel cells said Smith. By pulling all that learning together in other classes and showing students how it applies in daily living. Smith believes that students can learn that science is connected with every aspect of life. When asked what they learned from the field trip students Jacob Carver. McCoy Nguyen and Crouch all mentioned how important it was to reduce waste and recycle. Carver composts organic wastes in his back yard keeping it out of the waste stream. "It makes really good mulch," he said. Of course the seventh graders also reacted to the most visceral part of their field trip. When asked what his main impression of the landfill was. 7th grader McCoy Nguyen said "Stinky. That's the first thing that comes to object." As the Cañon City Council continued to look at its budget for 2008. City Administrator Steve Rabe discussed the enterprise funds which are made up of the water raw water and stormwater funds. During a public hearing in Monday night's city council meeting. Rabe told the council Cañon City had plenty of water this year but water revenues decreased quite dramatically. "We've seen a 6 percent water decrease in overall water usage," Rabe said. "At this point of time with the revenues we're not projecting any increase in water rates but it may be subject to change" when council considers adjustments to water rates and storm water rates for 2008 later this month. Because of the natural growth which may occur with the water usage in developments coming into the area the city will be able to keep up with a small incremental increases of 1 to 2 percent which equates to 38 cents every accommodate. Rabe said. On the flip side the city usually spends about $900,000 a year on water projects for water main replacements and about $200,000 for projects at the water treatment plant for a total of about $1.1 million. However the city did not spend the money this year because the bids came in too high on Harding and to extend a 20-inch water lines on East Main Street. In 2008 the city plans to complete those two projects along with the first phase of the several projects at the water treatment plants which will cost about $11 million. To pay for them the council will decide how to split the cost between wet rates or water tap fees. Rabe said. Because those are growth related the increase ordain more than likely go to the tap fees... As far as the raw water acquisition fund a portion of the tap fund is set aside so the city can continue to secure water resources from entities to buy water shares create storage and bring home the bacon on other water issues. Rabe estimated the reserve at the end of the year to be about $330,000 in the utility fund. The last part of the budget for enterprise fund covered the stormwater utility fund. "The purpose of the finance is to allow the city to adhere to its phase 2 permit which is issued by the State of Colorado and mandated under the Clean Water Act," Rabe said. In the budget there is $622,000 in which $422,000 of that is being spent for storm water operations he said. "We set aside $200,000 each year" to do the projects which council will discuss at the Oct. 23 meeting. Rabe said to the council. "There's no reason to increase the rates in 2008. If you want to do the projects it might be advantageous to make small incremental increases each year so you can put more than $200,000 away a year to do some of these projects." Pueblo's water needs are expected to increase from current demand of about 30,000 acre-feet per year to nearly 50,000 by 2050 if population growth is modest and conservation continues to reduce per capita use. Meanwhile the city's long-term lease commitments will remain high for at least the next 20 years. At the same time the water board wants to shift away from its dependency on Western Slope wet - potentially 60 percent of Pueblo's give - because of predicted climate change and the possibility of a call on the Colorado River. The Bessemer Ditch has some of the most senior rights in the valley and its diversion point is Pueblo Dam making it ideal for use in Pueblo's water system. Ward said. The plan approved Tuesday also calls for more storage both upstream and downstream as well as more long-term leases until Pueblo needs the water. Four hours of wrangling in act between lawyers for Colorado Springs and Pueblo County over whether the county has authority to regulate the proposed Southern Delivery System boiled down to that question Tuesday. In the end. District Judge Dennis Maes will supply the answer. "I'll get you an order as soon as I can," Maes said at the end of the motions hearing taking arguments under advisement and asking few questions during the hearing. At the beginning of the hearing. Maes indicated he would command by summary judgment avoiding the need for a scheduled three-day trial. Maes said he is not sure how long it will take to write the request. Colorado Springs filed the suit claiming that the city's plan to build a pipeline from Pueblo Dam through Pueblo County to serve water needs of cities to the north is not subject to Pueblo County land use regulations under 1974 state laws HB1041 and HB1034... [David Eason attorney for Colorado Springs] argued other utility easements already exist in the corridor where Colorado Springs plans to build its pipeline and that the county has routinely approved many similar easements without special hearings. SDS already is subject to numerous permits including an environmental impact statement by the Bureau of Reclamation he added. Pueblo County countered that the coat of the project and ample legal precedents show there is need for county hearings on SDS. "There has been no application by Colorado Springs," countered Ray Petros attorney for Pueblo County. "We've learned more in the last two or three weeks about the project than we have in the last four years and this shows the 1041 regulations are serving their purpose... We're not here today to decide if SDS should be approved by the county." Petros argued the sheer coat of SDS its related effects on Fountain Creek and its impacts on property owners in Pueblo County make it a legitimate concern for county commissioners who would act in a quasi-judicial role on SDS if it proceeds to county hearings. Petros also argued the 1974 laws were drafted to allow counties to protect land against future projects like SDS even though SDS was not even a concept at the time. He presented seven supporting cases that were tried in Gilpin and Eagle counties. Eason said the land a Colorado Springs pipeline would cross is zoned and the zoning permits utility easements to cross it. "Zoning by its nature is a create of control," Eason said. He also argued special use is a create of "regulatory taking" and landowners have "reasonable expectations" from zoning decisions. Zoning represents opportunity for broad uses and government cannot circumscribe uses within allowable uses within a zone. Eason said. Petros shot back that Colorado Springs does not actually own the land and the "reasonable expectations" in this case are those of 26 homeowners whose property the pipeline would cross. Colorado Springs' argument that their pipeline would undergo been allowed in 1974 avoids the fact that it never was specifically allowed. Petros added calling it a request for "double exemption." "The city argues that the (1974) zoning is applicable to them in order to get an exemption and then. 'King's X it doesn't apply to us,'" Petros said. "Why would they go through this if they believe they are already adequately regulated?" Petros also explained the scope of SDS noting the size of a 14,000-square-foot pumping station below Pueblo Dam structures that amount to "several buried houses" and crossings of 24 county roads and 50 drainages. But there was another element to all this fish swapping a twist that promises a considerable boost to the recovery effort. When Colorado made a 1931 trade with California for golden trout the cutthroat it bartered came from a still- pure Trappers Lake. These expatriates now swim in the lower Williamson Lakes part of a seven-lake chain in the southern Sierra Nevada Range. Rogers who visited the site last summer hopes to bring pure-strain progeny back to the Trappers drainage. "It's the perfect situation using the cutthroat strain that originated here to repopulate it," Rogers said. Alas the recovery will not include Trappers Lake which is too large too deep too complicated to achieve an eradication of exotic species. Instead. DOW plans to utilize the several smaller lakes and streams squiggled across a basin spanning more than a hundred square miles. The Colorado Supreme Court in Denver on Monday ruled 7-0 in favor of the town of Carbondale in its six-year-old case against a Nettle Creek landowner regarding the use of pesticides near the town's main water supply. The ruling by the state's high act overturned a Colorado Court of Appeals decision sending the case back to trial and reinstated a 2003 Pitkin County District Court judgment in the town's favor. In that ruling then-9th govern Chief Judge Thomas Ossola who has since retired found Garry Snook and his GSS Properties LLC negligent in damaging the town's water supply. Snook's 55-acre Hanging Valley Ranch is located immediately above the town's Nettle Creek water-treatment plant on the western flank of Mount Sopris. Ossola also upheld Carbondale's watershed protection ordinance ordering Snook not to hold on mix apply or dispose of any pesticides herbicides fertilizers or chemical compounds on his ranch in a way that could pollute the town's water supply... "We're delighted with the ruling," said Carbondale Town Attorney Mark Hamilton who was assisted in arguing the case before the Supreme Court by Boulder attorney and former state Supreme Court Justice Jean Dubofsky. "It was a good result for the water users and taxpayers of Carbondale and it was a long time coming," Hamilton said. "Now the town can move forward and act to protect the Nettle Creek drainage from pollution." Snook's Colorado Springs attorney. Walter Sargent declined to comment on the Supreme Court ruling which essentially signals the end of the line as far as Snook's legal challenges in the case. The town's legal battle with Snook began in June 2001 when Carbondale filed the lawsuit seeking $8,389 in connection with three construction-related incidents at the ranch that clogged the wet plant with mud forcing the plant to shut down temporarily. Town officials later learned that Snook's crews were also applying pesticides herbicides and fertilizers on the land in a way that could pollute the town's water supply... Colorado's Watershed Protection Act allows cities and towns to control land use within five miles of their water source. After the town filed suit in District Court. Snook filed a counter lawsuit against the town in U. S. District act arguing that the town violated federal equal protection laws and that he was being singled out for enforcement. That case was later dismissed and the Colorado case was allowed to proceed. Ossola also originally awarded the town of Carbondale $8,389 worth of compensation for the damage Snook caused to the town's water-delivery system. Hamilton said the town is also now seeking to be reimbursed by Snook for approximately $50,000 in court costs associated with the case not including attorney's fees. When a winter storm hit Colorado on Feb. 15. 2006 it had a profound effect on the state's snowpack that year but not how you might imagine. The storm consisted of dust not come down. And the dust's heating effects caused snow to melt off weeks earlier than it would have otherwise researchers say. This year the Silverton-based Center for come down & Avalanche Studies continued to document the phenomenon of dust storms speeding up the melting of snowpack. And now it's trying to use its findings to help the express's water agencies do a better job of anticipating when snowmelt will become so they can better manage wet supplies. On Tuesday. Chris Landry executive director of the Center for Snow & Avalanche Studies updated the Colorado River District board in Glenwood about the center's efforts. He said the center working with other research entities such as the Boulder-based National Snow and Ice Data Center is finding that dust storms can advance snowmelt by up to a month producing "a flashier snowmelt a more intense snowmelt that lasts shorter in duration." Landry said clean snow is the most reflective land surface on hide. Snow's reflective cater is called and clean snow's albedo can approach 100 percent. But darker dirtier snow may reflect only 50 to 60 percent meaning the rest of the energy is absorbed. "That's a very dramatic effect on energy fit in the snowpack," he said. Much of the dust is believed to come from Western deserts and there are concerns that it may be increasing due to factors such as drought and grazing. Landry said Colorado experienced nine "dust events" during the winter of 2005-06... The same telltale layers of dust in the 2006 snowpack showed up at several Colorado sites including near Loveland and Hagerman passes. And snowmelt accelerated in a corresponding fashion. Tracking snowmelt this year researchers showed it increasing sharply whenever dust was on the surface. Fresh snow cover would allow snowpack to recover but once that snow melted and a dust layer was re-exposed the snowpack again would start dissipating quickly. "It was on again off again all spring," Landry said displaying a graph of his findings to the river district board Tuesday. "Those spikes correspond perfectly with fresh snow cover. It's just like a switch." The center's bring home the bacon has been funded with the support of the Colorado River District and similar districts elsewhere in Colorado. The river district gave it $8,000 last year and the center is asking for funding again this year. The center has been sending supporting districts alerts when dust storms occur. It also is working on models that can be used to better predict what such storms will do to snowpack. In addition it hopes to help develop a regional network of "dust-in-snow" observations. For water districts such information could be crucial to timing releases of water from reservoirs. It's helpful for them to know when the snow is expected to be melting and when a watershed will reach the point of what Landry calls "SAG" - snow all gone. Badini who works for the firm HDR said that this year those sea-surface temperatures are lower than average. That tends to produce La Niña storms that bear down from the Northwest and result in above-average snow in northwest Colorado and below-average amounts in the southwest part of the state. The arrival of La Niña also portends slightly below-average precipitation on the Front Range on the other side of the Continental Divide. Badini said. That he told the river district come in could influence "how much peeking over the divide there will be at how much water you've got over there."[...] A La Niña year should mean a boost in water supplies and storage in the Colorado River Basin above Glenwood Springs. While that makes water management easier in that part of the state. La Niña could complicate matters when it comes to Colorado River flows farther downstream. Eric Kuhn general manager of the Colorado River District pointed out that southwest Colorado is a considerable contributor of water to the river. Low snowfall there this winter could add to Colorado's challenges in meeting compact obligations with other states in the Southwest that undergo a legal alter to some Colorado River wet. However. Badini said any problems caused by La Niña should be limited if it is short-lasting. Typically when La Niña winters are followed by El Niños over coming months they are accompanied by a lot of moisture... The return of El Niño also can include a "nasty monsoon" during the pass he said. Colorado's monsoon season involves storms arising out of the southwest. The elevated precipitation resulting from the return of an El Niño also would carry into the following winter he said. Badini said a La Niña could be a bigger problem if it persists more than a year possibly resulting in one to three years of dry conditions in Colorado when the state is taken as a whole. La Niñas and El Niños aren't absolute guarantees of Colorado weather. Kuhn said last year was "one of those two out of 10 years" when southwest Colorado was dry during an El Niño. He compared it to rolling dice. "The chances of getting a seven are better than getting a two. But that doesn't mean you can't get a two," he said. Still. Badini said there tends to be a surprise on how little precipitation northwest Colorado could get during a La Niña winter. Usually it will receive at least 90 percent of average precipitation. It's "very rare" that precipitation would drop below 80 percent he said. "The threat of a very dry year is limited," he said. A proposal to mine uranium east of Wellington is facing mounting political pressure including opposition from U. S. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave and potential legislation that would add more state regulation. State Reps. Randy Fischer and John Kefalas both Fort Collins Democrats are working on legislation that would demand a mining company to prove its operations will not begrime groundwater resources. The bill also would "lift the veil of secrecy" that express law allows around mineral prospecting so affected landowners can get a exceed sense of what's happening on neighboring properties. The intent of the bill would not be to stop the mining operation. Fischer said but to ensure the state has adequate environmental standards to protect residents as well as air and water quality. "Let's make sure those protections are in place before we give permits to do this type mining," he said. express Sen. Steve Johnson a Fort Collins Republican said he would carry the bill in the Senate. The company has a alter to the minerals it owns but nearby property owners have justifiable concerns about the impact of mining on their water he said. More regulation will not dissuade Powertech (USA) from pursuing the permits needed to do its work said Lane Douglas manager for the company's Centennial Project. "Powertech is committed to meeting all state regulations in conducting a safe and environmentally conscious mining operation," he said. The affiliate has invested millions into the project - including $2.1 million for land - and will put in millions more. Douglas said. The rising price of uranium and growing interest in nuclear energy around the world makes the project financially viable... Musgrave a Fort Morgan Republican whose congressional district includes Larimer and conjoin counties said Tuesday she is opposed to Powertech's proposal and will speak out against it. Company officials have not given satisfactory answers when pressed for details about the operation such as whether a pit mine would be used she said. "I just don't see how this will work in such a populated area," she said. "I'm a strong proponent of private property rights but I don't have a good feeling about this and what it would do to residents and agriculture in this area." Colorado has a history of environmental disasters brought on by mining operations. Fischer said. The state needs to get ahead of advances in mining techniques to protect the environment.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/2007/10/17.html#a9352 ]]> ]]> comes from litter discarded items fertilizers animals and other activities in a watershed collectively called "nonpoint source pollution." Fountain Creek is a 930-square-mile watershed that empties into the Arkansas River at Pueblo collecting trash from three counties. Cowan showed slides of how trash in the streets winds up in rivers explaining that a discarded plastic bottle winds up in the river miles away. Oil or paint dumped in storm basins detergent from driveway car washes and runoff from construction sites all wind up in the river... Unelected appointed UAWCD directors have no accountability to the voters. You can elect directors only if 10 percent of registered voters file a petition for election and you must do a displace petition for each director each time his or her term expires [37-45-114(2) CRS]. This is a difficult and expensive process. If you don't like how they pay your taxes or disagree with their water policies there is no legal procedure to recall appointed directors. All current UAWCD directors are appointed and all serve without call limits. The voters do not have the power to make the directors accountable. They are accountable only to themselves and to the chief judges when they are reappointed. The district can use taxpayer dollars to buy up local water rights and dry up agricultural land. These water rights are then used to support private developers. By voting against the inclusion you can prevent this from happening in Fremont County. Your taxes would finance an organization with the legal power of condemnation through eminent domain. Private property can be condemned for public use: for pipeline and furnish rights-of-way and for reservoirs. Water rights also can be condemned [37-45-118(l)(c) CRS]. The history of the UAWCD shows those officials don't work come up with local county and city governments. They sometimes compete with them for water storage and customers. Rather than protect your water from lie Range interests you need to be protected from UAWCD buying your water and using it in ways to hurt Fremont County and subsidize land developers. We must not allow this Salida-based water agency to tax us and have access to our water and control of our most important resource. The wet level in the mining district below ground is rising to historic heights behind a possible blockage in the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel. Bob Elder voiced these concerns to the board of county commissioners on Tuesday. Oct. 2. Historically the highest water elevation recorded in the mining district was 10,163 feet. Between January and September 2007 the elevation of the pool of water in the mining district has gone from 10,139 feet to 10,151 feet according to the information Elder presented to the commissioners. The current elevation translates into approximately 130 feet of wet from the bottom of the pool to the top. The Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel run by the Bureau of Reclamation is supposed to be pumping water out of the mine pool under the surface on the east side of Leadville. The water then goes through a water treatment plant located next to the Village at East Fork just off Colo. 91... A couple of incidents this summer according to Brad Littlepage who works at the LMDT indicated a collapse in the tunnel. According to Elder the metal loading of the water treated at the LMDT has gone down. This could convey that contaminated water isn't making it through the LMDT and the BOR is treating clean water from other sources. This could be another indication that the tunnel is plugged somewhere. A concern brought forth by Elder is that the rising water levels will eventually come out of the ground somewhere. He said that water flowing near the landfill road or CR 6 is showing signs of releasing some of this water built up behind the blockage. Christensen and Doug Jamison with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment said that this is not necessarily the case. There are many wet sources not just from the mine pool. Both did say that rising water on the east side is a concern. This water according to Elder comes out of the Gaw equip which is part of the complicated east-side water system. The Gaw shaft releases water just below the Yak Water Treatment lay run by Resurrection Mining Company. Colorado Mountain College monitors the water levels and the quality of water that comes from the Gaw shaft. Another concern is flooding at the Village at East Fork if the water were to suddenly come through the LMDT. Commission head Ken Olsen at the meeting with Elder suggested getting the BOR. EPA. CDPHE and CMC together in a meeting to discuss a solution. At this point there is no one agency that has responsibility for the situation. Smith hopes that by incorporating all subject areas when learning about environmental science students ordain learn that "you can't have science without reading writing and math." Students typically love the field trips associated with the unit and the labs where they get to create miniature ecosystems build model hydroelectric dams and experiment with solar fuel cells said Smith. By pulling all that learning together in other classes and showing students how it applies in daily living. Smith believes that students can learn that science is connected with every aspect of life. When asked what they learned from the field trip students Jacob Carver. McCoy Nguyen and Crouch all mentioned how important it was to reduce waste and recycle. Carver composts organic wastes in his back yard keeping it out of the waste be adrift. "It makes really good mulch," he said. Of course the seventh graders also reacted to the most visceral part of their field trip. When asked what his main impression of the landfill was. 7th grader McCoy Nguyen said "Stinky. That's the first thing that comes to mind." As the Cañon City Council continued to look at its budget for 2008. City Administrator Steve Rabe discussed the enterprise funds which are made up of the wet raw water and stormwater funds. During a public hearing in Monday night's city council meeting. Rabe told the council Cañon City had plenty of water this year but water revenues decreased quite dramatically. "We've seen a 6 percent water decrease in overall water usage," Rabe said. "At this point of time with the revenues we're not projecting any increase in wet rates but it may be subject to change" when council considers adjustments to wet rates and storm water rates for 2008 later this month. Because of the natural growth which may become with the water usage in developments coming into the area the city will be able to keep up with a small incremental increases of 1 to 2 percent which equates to 38 cents every quarter. Rabe said. On the flip side the city usually spends about $900,000 a year on water projects for water main replacements and about $200,000 for projects at the water treatment plant for a total of about $1.1 million. However the city did not spend the money this year because the bids came in too high on Harding and to extend a 20-inch water lines on East Main Street. In 2008 the city plans to complete those two projects along with the first arrange of the several projects at the water treatment plants which will be about $11 million. To pay for them the council will decide how to split the cost between water rates or water tap fees. Rabe said. Because those are growth related the increase will more than likely go to the tap fees... As far as the raw wet acquisition fund a portion of the tap fund is set aside so the city can continue to secure water resources from entities to buy wet shares create storage and work on other water issues. Rabe estimated the keep back at the end of the year to be about $330,000 in the utility finance. The last part of the budget for enterprise fund covered the stormwater utility fund. "The purpose of the fund is to accept the city to adhere to its phase 2 permit which is issued by the State of Colorado and mandated under the Clean Water Act," Rabe said. In the budget there is $622,000 in which $422,000 of that is being spent for storm water operations he said. "We set aside $200,000 each year" to do the projects which council ordain discuss at the Oct. 23 meeting. Rabe said to the council. "There's no reason to change magnitude the rates in 2008. If you want to do the projects it might be advantageous to alter small incremental increases each year so you can put more than $200,000 away a year to do some of these projects." Pueblo's water needs are expected to increase from current demand of about 30,000 acre-feet per year to nearly 50,000 by 2050 if population growth is modest and conservation continues to reduce per capita use. Meanwhile the city's long-term lease commitments will remain high for at least the next 20 years. At the same time the water come in wants to shift away from its dependency on Western Slope water - potentially 60 percent of Pueblo's supply - because of predicted climate change and the possibility of a call on the Colorado River. The Bessemer Ditch has some of the most senior rights in the valley and its diversion point is Pueblo Dam making it ideal for use in Pueblo's water system. Ward said. The plan approved Tuesday also calls for more storage both upstream and downstream as well as more long-term leases until Pueblo needs the water. Four hours of wrangling in court between lawyers for Colorado Springs and Pueblo County over whether the county has authority to regulate the proposed Southern Delivery System boiled drink to that question Tuesday. In the end. District adjudicate Dennis Maes will supply the answer. "I'll get you an order as soon as I can," Maes said at the end of the motions hearing taking arguments under advisement and asking few questions during the hearing. At the beginning of the hearing. Maes indicated he would rule by summary judgment avoiding the need for a scheduled three-day trial. Maes said he is not sure how long it will take to write the order. Colorado Springs filed the conform to claiming that the city's plan to build a pipeline from Pueblo Dam through Pueblo County to serve water needs of cities to the north is not subject to Pueblo County land use regulations under 1974 express laws HB1041 and HB1034... [David Eason attorney for Colorado Springs] argued other utility easements already exist in the corridor where Colorado Springs plans to create its pipeline and that the county has routinely approved many similar easements without special hearings. SDS already is subject to numerous permits including an environmental impact statement by the Bureau of Reclamation he added. Pueblo County countered that the size of the project and ample legal precedents show there is need for county hearings on SDS. "There has been no application by Colorado Springs," countered Ray Petros attorney for Pueblo County. "We've learned more in the last two or three weeks about the project than we have in the last four years and this shows the 1041 regulations are serving their purpose... We're not here today to decide if SDS should be approved by the county." Petros argued the sheer size of SDS its related effects on Fountain Creek and its impacts on property owners in Pueblo County make it a legitimate concern for county commissioners who would act in a quasi-judicial role on SDS if it proceeds to county hearings. Petros also argued the 1974 laws were drafted to allow counties to protect land against future projects like SDS even though SDS was not even a concept at the time. He presented seven supporting cases that were tried in Gilpin and Eagle counties. Eason said the land a Colorado Springs pipeline would cross is zoned and the zoning permits utility easements to cross it. "Zoning by its nature is a form of control," Eason said. He also argued special use is a form of "regulatory taking" and landowners have "reasonable expectations" from zoning decisions. Zoning represents opportunity for broad uses and government cannot restrict uses within allowable uses within a zone. Eason said. Petros shot back that Colorado Springs does not actually own the land and the "reasonable expectations" in this case are those of 26 homeowners whose property the pipeline would cross. Colorado Springs' argument that their pipeline would have been allowed in 1974 avoids the fact that it never was specifically allowed. Petros added calling it a request for "double exemption." "The city argues that the (1974) zoning is applicable to them in request to get an exemption and then. 'King's X it doesn't apply to us,'" Petros said. "Why would they go through this if they believe they are already adequately regulated?" Petros also explained the scope of SDS noting the size of a 14,000-square-foot pumping station below Pueblo Dam structures that amount to "several buried houses" and crossings of 24 county roads and 50 drainages. But there was another element to all this fish swapping a twist that promises a considerable boost to the recovery effort. When Colorado made a 1931 trade with California for golden trout the cutthroat it bartered came from a still- pure Trappers Lake. These expatriates now swim in the lower Williamson Lakes part of a seven-lake chain in the southern Sierra Nevada Range. Rogers who visited the site last summer hopes to bring pure-strain progeny back to the Trappers drainage. "It's the perfect situation using the cutthroat strain that originated here to repopulate it," Rogers said. Alas the recovery will not include Trappers Lake which is too large too deep too complicated to achieve an eradication of exotic species. Instead. DOW plans to change the several smaller lakes and streams squiggled across a basin spanning more than a hundred square miles. The Colorado Supreme Court in Denver on Monday ruled 7-0 in favor of the town of Carbondale in its six-year-old case against a Nettle Creek landowner regarding the use of pesticides near the town's main water supply. The ruling by the state's high court overturned a Colorado Court of Appeals decision sending the case back to trial and reinstated a 2003 Pitkin County District Court judgment in the town's advance. In that ruling then-9th District Chief Judge Thomas Ossola who has since retired found Garry Snook and his GSS Properties LLC negligent in damaging the town's water supply. Snook's 55-acre Hanging Valley Ranch is located immediately above the town's Nettle Creek water-treatment plant on the western flank of Mount Sopris. Ossola also upheld Carbondale's watershed protection ordinance ordering Snook not to store mix apply or dispose of any pesticides herbicides fertilizers or chemical compounds on his ranch in a way that could pollute the town's water supply... "We're delighted with the ruling," said Carbondale Town Attorney Mark Hamilton who was assisted in arguing the case before the Supreme Court by Boulder attorney and former state Supreme Court Justice Jean Dubofsky. "It was a good result for the water users and taxpayers of Carbondale and it was a long time coming," Hamilton said. "Now the town can move forward and continue to protect the Nettle Creek drainage from pollution." Snook's Colorado Springs attorney. Walter Sargent declined to comment on the Supreme act ruling which essentially signals the end of the line as far as Snook's legal challenges in the case. The town's legal battle with Snook began in June 2001 when Carbondale filed the lawsuit seeking $8,389 in connection with three construction-related incidents at the ranch that clogged the water plant with mud forcing the plant to shut drink temporarily. Town officials later learned that Snook's crews were also applying pesticides herbicides and fertilizers on the land in a way that could pollute the town's water give... Colorado's Watershed Protection Act allows cities and towns to control land use within five miles of their water source. After the town filed suit in District Court. Snook filed a counter lawsuit against the town in U. S. District Court arguing that the town violated federal equal protection laws and that he was being singled out for enforcement. That case was later dismissed and the Colorado case was allowed to proceed. Ossola also originally awarded the town of Carbondale $8,389 worth of compensation for the damage Snook caused to the town's water-delivery system. Hamilton said the town is also now seeking to be reimbursed by Snook for approximately $50,000 in court costs associated with the case not including attorney's fees. When a winter storm hit Colorado on Feb. 15. 2006 it had a profound effect on the state's snowpack that year but not how you might imagine. The storm consisted of dust not snow. And the dust's heating effects caused come down to melt off weeks earlier than it would have otherwise researchers say. This year the Silverton-based Center for Snow & Avalanche Studies continued to document the phenomenon of dust storms speeding up the melting of snowpack. And now it's trying to use its findings to help the state's wet agencies do a exceed job of anticipating when snowmelt will occur so they can better manage water supplies. On Tuesday. Chris Landry executive director of the Center for Snow & come down Studies updated the Colorado River District board in Glenwood about the bear on's efforts. He said the center working with other research entities such as the Boulder-based National Snow and Ice Data Center is finding that dust storms can advance snowmelt by up to a month producing "a flashier snowmelt a more intense snowmelt that lasts shorter in duration." Landry said clean snow is the most reflective land surface on earth. Snow's reflective power is called and clean snow's albedo can approach 100 percent. But darker dirtier come down may reflect only 50 to 60 percent meaning the rest of the energy is absorbed. "That's a very dramatic effect on energy balance in the snowpack," he said. Much of the dust is believed to come from Western deserts and there are concerns that it may be increasing due to factors such as drought and grazing. Landry said Colorado experienced nine "dust events" during the winter of 2005-06... The same telltale layers of dust in the 2006 snowpack showed up at several Colorado sites including near Loveland and Hagerman passes. And snowmelt accelerated in a corresponding fashion. Tracking snowmelt this year researchers showed it increasing sharply whenever dust was on the surface. Fresh snow cover would allow snowpack to acquire but once that come down melted and a dust layer was re-exposed the snowpack again would start dissipating quickly. "It was on again off again all spring," Landry said displaying a graph of his findings to the river district come in Tuesday. "Those spikes correspond perfectly with fresh snow cover. It's just desire a switch." The center's bring home the bacon has been funded with the support of the Colorado River District and similar districts elsewhere in Colorado. The river district gave it $8,000 last year and the center is asking for funding again this year. The center has been sending supporting districts alerts when dust storms occur. It also is working on models that can be used to better guess what such storms will do to snowpack. In addition it hopes to help develop a regional network of "dust-in-snow" observations. For water districts such information could be crucial to timing releases of wet from reservoirs. It's helpful for them to know when the snow is expected to be melting and when a watershed will reach the point of what Landry calls "SAG" - snow all gone. Badini who works for the firm HDR said that this year those sea-surface temperatures are lower than average. That tends to produce La Niña storms that bear down from the Northwest and result in above-average snow in northwest Colorado and below-average amounts in the southwest part of the state. The arrival of La Niña also portends slightly below-average precipitation on the lie be on the other side of the Continental Divide. Badini said. That he told the river district board could influence "how much peeking over the change integrity there will be at how much water you've got over there."[...] A La Niña year should mean a boost in water supplies and storage in the Colorado River Basin above Glenwood Springs. While that makes water management easier in that part of the state. La Niña could complicate matters when it comes to Colorado River flows farther downstream. Eric Kuhn general manager of the Colorado River District pointed out that southwest Colorado is a considerable contributor of water to the river. Low snowfall there this winter could add to Colorado's challenges in meeting compact obligations with other states in the Southwest that undergo a legal right to some Colorado River water. However. Badini said any problems caused by La Niña should be limited if it is short-lasting. Typically when La Niña winters are followed by El Niños over coming months they are accompanied by a lot of moisture... The return of El Niño also can include a "nasty monsoon" during the summer he said. Colorado's monsoon season involves storms arising out of the southwest. The elevated precipitation resulting from the return of an El Niño also would carry into the following winter he said. Badini said a La Niña could be a bigger problem if it persists more than a year possibly resulting in one to three years of dry conditions in Colorado when the state is taken as a whole. La Niñas and El Niños aren't absolute guarantees of Colorado weather. Kuhn said last year was "one of those two out of 10 years" when southwest Colorado was dry during an El Niño. He compared it to rolling dice. "The chances of getting a seven are better than getting a two. But that doesn't mean you can't get a two," he said. Still. Badini said there tends to be a floor on how little precipitation northwest Colorado could get during a La Niña winter. Usually it will receive at least 90 percent of average precipitation. It's "very rare" that precipitation would drop below 80 percent he said. "The threat of a very dry year is limited," he said. A proposal to mine uranium east of Wellington is facing mounting political pressure including opposition from U. S. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave and potential legislation that would add more state regulation. State Reps. Randy Fischer and John Kefalas both Fort Collins Democrats are working on legislation that would demand a mining company to prove its operations will not contaminate groundwater resources. The bill also would "lift the veil of secrecy" that state law allows around mineral prospecting so affected landowners can get a better sense of what's happening on neighboring properties. The intent of the bill would not be to stop the mining operation. Fischer said but to ensure the state has adequate environmental standards to defend residents as well as air and water quality. "Let's make sure those protections are in place before we give permits to do this type mining," he said. State Sen. Steve Johnson a Fort Collins Republican said he would carry the bill in the Senate. The company has a right to the minerals it owns but nearby property owners have justifiable concerns about the impact of mining on their water he said. More regulation will not advise Powertech (USA) from pursuing the permits needed to do its work said Lane Douglas manager for the company's Centennial Project. "Powertech is committed to meeting all express regulations in conducting a safe and environmentally conscious mining operation," he said. The company has invested millions into the project - including $2.1 million for land - and will put in millions more. Douglas said. The rising price of uranium and growing interest in nuclear energy around the world makes the project financially viable... Musgrave a Fort Morgan Republican whose congressional district includes Larimer and Weld counties said Tuesday she is opposed to Powertech's proposal and will speak out against it. Company officials have not given satisfactory answers when pressed for details about the operation such as whether a pit mine would be used she said. "I just don't see how this will work in such a populated area," she said. "I'm a strong proponent of private property rights but I don't have a good feeling about this and what it would do to residents and agriculture in this area." Colorado has a history of environmental disasters brought on by mining operations. Fischer said. The express needs to get ahead of advances in mining techniques to protect the environment.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://radio.weblogs.com/0101170/2007/10/17.html#a9352 ]]> ]]> similar comments on the subject. O'Brien: "You're not paying attention to the science. J. C. You're definitely not paying attention. ... The scientific debate is over. J. C. we're done." (Transcript follows) During Friday's "American Morning. "anchor Kiran Chetry relayed some of the concerns of Gore's critics. Chetry: "There have been some critics who say that the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" is filled with mistakes. A judge in Britain in fact just ruled that Al Gore's climate dress film has nine errors. And you have the author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist" who said today that awarding this prize to Al Gore cannot be seen as anything other than a political statement." Later in the show. Chetry brought aboard O'Brien who is CNN's chief technology and environment correspondent and asked him about the film's "inaccuracies." O'Brien list a few of the judge's findings of errors but still endorsed the movie: "If you go through all of those statements they in sum do not actually go after the central thesis of the film itself which is that global warming is real and there is a human connection there. .. the judge said in that same ruling when he said you know there are these nine mistakes. 'it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion,' but it is a 'political film,' and of course as he put it not party political. So clearly what we're talking about here is there isn't much debate in the science. The judge didn't even say that. But the point is the response has become politicized. And as a result people undergo gone after some of these small points which when you look at them at specific instances don't add up to really going after the whole thesis." O'Brien made his next appearance during the 9:00 hour of "CNN Newsroom," during which he contended that the "very few scientists" who dispute the link between fossil fuel emissions and global warming were "in many cases they're funded by the fossil fuel industry." O'Brien speaking to anchor Heidi Collins: "You just said a few moments ago that some scientists say that there is a dispute over the link between manmade emissions of fossil fuels.. and the cerebrate to climate change. But the fact is that there are very few scientists that are saying them. And if you look at the small handful that are still saying this in many cases they're funded by the fossil fuel industry." He soon continued: "So there really isn't a scientific debate anymore on this." He appeared again during the 10:00 hour of "CNN Newsroom," and this time labeled skeptics as "dead-enders" who are "few and far between." O'Brien: "I guess you could call them 'dead-enders' out there. There are a few that are comfort holding true to the notion that maybe this is some sort of natural make pass. They really are few and far between. Tony." The CNN correspondent also dismissed the significance of the judge's list of nine inaccuracies contending that "they really boil down to exaggerations," and reassured viewers that the film "is based on substantive science." O'Brien: "The one thing the judge does say though which kind of got lost in the shuffle through all this because of the nine inaccuracies is that it is his firm belief that the Gore film is based on substantive science." At his next appearance during the 11:00 hour. O'Brien called dissenters "a tiny fraction of a minority," and connected their funding to the fossil fuel industry as he again proclaimed that "it's not a scientific debate anymore." O'Brien: "And when you say some scientists disagree with that it is a tiny fraction of a minority of scientists out there. And when you look at those scientists and trace their funding frequently you are led to the fossil fuel industry. So really it's not a scientific debate anymore." When O'Brien appeared on "Your World Today" during the 12:00 hour he portrayed skeptics as "fewer and further between," charged that "the turf that they're standing on is narrower and narrower," and again claimed that "it's really no longer a scientific debate." During the 1:00 hour of "CNN Newsroom," O'Brien called dissenters "a very small fringe," and characterized the inaccuracies cited by the British judge as "exaggerations but not complete falsehoods." When anchor Don Lemon tagged the inaccuracies as "a little poetic license," O'Brien agreed that it was "a little bit of Hollywood there perhaps." O'Brien appeared again during the 5:00 hour of "The Situation Room" where he commented that since pierce's film came soon after Hurricane Katrina it turned out to be a convenient time for pierce to "turn up the heat on those who doubt global warming." O'Brien: "It may be little more than a glorified PowerPoint presentation but it couldn't have been more convenient for Al Gore and for those who agree with him it is time to turn up the heat on those who doubt global warming." After conceding that Gore "didn't let the facts get in the way of a good story. O'Brien listed some of the inaccuracies cited by the British judge and commented that "the judge also said it is clear that ["An Inconvenient Truth"] is based substantially on scientific investigate and opinion" before again portraying dissenters as "fewer and farther between." KIRAN CHETRY speaking to John Dickerson of Slate com: Of course this decision is not without its critics as often is the inspect when the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded. But there have been some critics who say that the movie An Inconvenient Truth is filled with mistakes. A judge in Britain in fact just ruled that Al Gore's climate change film has nine errors. And you have the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist who said today that awarding this prize to Al Gore cannot be seen as anything other than a political statement. Is it a political statement?... CHETRY: You experience so of course people can't wait to jump out and pounce and in fact in Britain we have a judge who actually made some sort of ruling regarding Al Gore's movie if it's going to be shown in schools it has to list off some of the inaccuracies in it as well. Are there a lot of inaccuracies in An Inconvenient Truth? O'BRIEN: Well the judge found nine cases where he felt there were inaccuracies with the science. And if you go through those nine inaccuracies among them: polar bears have drowned because of a lack of an ice case; Al Gore's statements about how quickly the ice packs in Greenland and Antarctica might in fact be melting; making a link or at least inferring a link between things like increased tornadoes and global warming where there is no scientific create. If you go through all of those statements they in sum do not actually go after the central thesis of the film itself which is that global warming is real and there is a human connection there. As a matter of fact the judge said in that same ruling when he said you know there are these nine mistakes. "it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion," but it is a "political film," and of course as he put it not party political. So clearly what we're talking about here is there isn't much debate in the science. The judge didn't even say that but the point is the response has become politicized. And as a result people have gone after some of these small points which when you look at them at specific instances don't add up to really going after the whole thesis. CHETRY: But the prize is not because of the film it's because of the body of work on bringing attention to global warming correct? O'BRIEN: Well there's no question he's been talking about this for a desire time and he served as the de facto spokesman for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This is a group of the world's leading scientists who frankly are not great communicators. Scientists themselves don't do a very good job communicating to the general public. And when you get a group of several hundred smart people in a room the end result the statement they make tends to get watered down. Now. Gore not encumbered by that served as their spokesman in this case. And on the wake of that tough hurricane season of 2005 with Hurricane Katrina had the benefit of some good timing. People were focused in on this subject. O'BRIEN: You just said a few moments ago that some scientists say that there is a dispute over the cerebrate between manmade emissions of fossil fuels of global warming fuels global warming gases and the link to climate change. But the fact is that there are very few scientists that are saying them. And if you look at the small handful that are still saying this in many cases they're funded by the fossil fuel industry. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which shared the prize with Al Gore came out with a inform in March of this year. This is 2,500 of the world's leading scientists several hundred reviewers who synthesized all the known science out there. And here's what they said. Temperature rise predicted between 3.25 and 7 degrees Fahrenheit sea aim rise between 7 inches and 2 feet just about. And now 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by human beings. So there really isn't a scientific debate anymore on this. Heidi. This is about what to do about it. And that's where politics enters into this. TONY HARRIS: You experience what. Miles but let's talk about those doubters a little bit more here for a second. You know we're talking about a UK judge. NASA administrator Michael Griffin some climatologists some meteorologists. Are they winning the argument in any significant way? Are they making us look at the issue differently? And are they proposing that we not take steps to cut back on these emissions? O'BRIEN: Well there are a few. I guess you could call them dead-enders out there. There are a few that are comfort holding true to the notion that maybe this is some choose of natural cycle. They really are few and far between. Tony. Even the NASA administrator. Mike Griffin backed off those comments where he lent some doubt as to whether human beings could do anything about it or was it appropriate for NASA to get in the middle of it. choose of modified those comments after he made them to National Public communicate. You know you mention in that list the judge for example who found nine inaccuracies in Al Gore's movie portions of which you're seeing right here before you. Really if you look at those inaccuracies and go through them inform by point they really boil down to exaggerations. For example. Al Gore says in the movie that the South Pacific islanders have evacuated to New Zealand. Well that is a prediction which is very likely as sea level rises but those evacuations haven't happened yet. The one thing the judge does say though which kind of got lost in the shuffle through all this because of the nine inaccuracies is that it is his firm belief that the Gore film is based on substantive science. In other words he doesn't question the larger thesis here. He does say that in some cases Al pierce may have connected some dots that scientists are not ready to connect. O'BRIEN: And the people who are really in the doubting realm first of all the turf that they're standing on is narrower and narrower. They're even at this point admitting that human beings are hastening this whole process. When you look at their funding sources and you believe what is motivating them frequently you will find yourself right into the hands of the fossil fuel industry. So the doubters are still there but they are a fraction of a minority now. It's really no longer a scientific debate. O'BRIEN: This is scientific peer-reviewed studies. These are not political statements. These are matter-of-fact statements that express the conservative nature of scientists who always have some sort of doubt built into their thesis and their conclusions. And yet it is very clear-cut out there. And really there's only a very small fringe out there that would doubt what the IPCC and what this body of scientists has to say. DON LEMON: And what are they saying? I think there's some doubters -- a British judge; NASA as a matter of fact administrator Michael Griffin; and certain climatologists and meteorologists as well are doubting this? O'BRIEN: Yeah. come up let's start with this British judge. It's interesting because it goes right to the heart of "Inconvenient Truth." "Inconvenient Truth" was sent out to high schools all throughout Great Britain and there was a lawsuit which came out of it saying. "Hey this is not an accurate movie." A judge ruled that the movie should be shown to high school students but that it should be pointed out that there are nine inaccuracies that the judge determined inside the Gore film. You're looking at polar bears right now. For example. Al Gore in the movie says polar bears have drowned because of a lack of sea ice. Well that hasn't been conclusively proved. He also says at one point that South Pacific islanders and low-lying atolls have actually evacuated to New Zealand. Well that is a prediction that may go in the coming years as sea level rises as you see there in the graphic but has not happened yet. Basically there's a series of these which amount to exaggerations but not complete falsehoods. And the one other thing to point out is that what this judge said was the substance of the science was accurate in the piece. So that's just one example. You talk about Mike Griffin and NASA. He doesn't doubt global warming doesn't doubt that human beings are a part of it. His issue was what should NASA what should human beings be doing about it? LEMON: Right so it's just sort of what's the evince I'm looking for here? The overall context outweighs what's happening. A little poetic license maybe. Miles. Is that what they're saying? WOLF BLITZER: A former Vice President almost a President an Oscar winner and now winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for his work to raise awareness about global warming. Al Gore is unquestionably on a roll alter now. Let's go right to our chief technology and environment correspondent. Miles O'Brien watching this story for us. All right he's doing obviously very well but what about the message that he's pushing forward? MILES O'BRIEN: Well. Wolf timing is everything. So while Al Gore has been preaching the global warming message for years now decades the movie which captured one of those lectures came at just the right moment. It was right on the heels of Hurricane Katrina. And finally it seemed. Americans were listening to his warnings. It may be little more than a glorified PowerPoint presentation but it couldn't undergo been more convenient for Al Gore and for those who agree with him it is time to move up the heat on those who doubt global warming. OLE DANBOLT MJOS. Nobel Committee: He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted. GORE: Tipper and I will go to Oslo and I ordain accept this award on behalf of all of those who have been working so long and so hard to try to get the message out about this planetary emergency. O'BRIEN: Gore shares the honor with the worldwide organization of scientists that has been sending up warning flags for nearly 20 years. MARTIN PARRY. IPCC: What they've done now is finally establish at the global level there is an anthropogenic a man-made climate signal coming through on plants animals water and ice. O'BRIEN: That is the most recent assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate dress. The IPCC believes in the next century temperatures on Earth will increase between 3.25 and 7 degrees; sea levels will rise 7 to 23 inches; and they say there is a 90 percent certainty it is a human-caused problem. JAMES HANSEN. NASA Climatologist: The picture has become clear enough that we should be telling populate about it. It's not a time for reticence. O'BRIEN: And in some cases. Gore didn't let the facts get in the way of a good story. Saying Pacific islanders have evacuated to New Zealand a prediction that has not happened yet. That polar bears have drowned for lack of firm ice. There's no create of that. Or implying global warming will create more tornadoes. No smoking gun there either. A judge in Britain mentioned those exaggerations and six others. Wolf as he ruled on whether "An Convenient Truth" should be shown to high school students there. But the judge also said it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion but that it is a political film albeit of course not a celebrate political film. Of course the Nobel Laureate now. Al Gore disagrees. He says it's a moral and spiritual issue. Wolf? O'BRIEN: Well they are fewer and further between. Wolf. And it's interesting there's been a big progression on what they've been saying. Most of them now even the ones that are absolute hard core doubters do admit now that human beings have something to do with all of this. It's really boiling down now to what should be done about it. Much of the world is insisting on sort of mandatory caps on emissions of these greenhouse gases. The U. S. the Bush administration insisting voluntary measures will do the trick. O'Brien is strutting about as if he was God's gift to climate science.  I'd like to see him and Gore debate Dr. Richard Lindzen and Michael Crichton on this issue.  He would get his underwear pulled over his head.  Such a debate might even answer as entertainment.  I'll wager we don't see any AGW pundits appearing here to consider this topic on this go either.  Al Gore says they don't have to because the debate is over.  Awarding the Nobel Peace consider to this ignoramus Gore for his disigenuous scare campaign is akin to awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Joeseph Goebbels for his efforts to explain the scientific basis of the Master Race. .. The Senator accused the media in his speech last week of dismissing “any pretense of balance and objectivity on climate change coverage and instead crossed squarely into global warming advocacy.” This despite the fact that there is no scientific “consensus” that humans are causing a climate catastrophe as a letter sent to the Canadian Prime Minister on April 6 of this year by 60 prominent scientists who question the basis for climate alarmism clearly explained... O’Brien’s 2005 global warming CNN special “Melting Point” also attempted to smear scientific skeptics of global warming as tools of industry. But O’Brien ignored alarmists like Hansen and his obvious ties to environmental special interests and scientists like Michael Oppenheimer -- a paid partisan of the group Environmental Defense and Michael Mann (the creator of the 'Hockey Stick') who co-publishes a global warming propaganda blog reportedly set up with the help of an environmental group. When he is asked how much oil and gas money he gets the Senator responds "Not Enough. -- especially when you consider the millions partisan environmental groups spend.” The media never points out that environmental special interests through their 527s spent over $19 million compared to the $7 million that Oil and Gas spent through PACs in the 2004 election cycle -- a ratio of 3 to 1... Miles. Your bio keeps pointing out you attended Georgetown university. I anticipate you did but no where have I found that you got a degree. Can I ask? Did you get a degree? BS? MS? PhD? In what? A scientific field? Journalism? How many courses did you take in research design?  Did you ever do scientific research? These anti-GW infidels are attacking our religion. We will declare jihad against all non-believers. We call upon all of our followers to expose denigrate and ruin the reputation of anyone speaking out against our GW religion and will reward each of our insane followers with 72 free minutes of air-time on CNN for each such infidel ruined by our tactics. Praise Gore-Allah! I hope this statement convinces all NB'ers to stop and I mean STOP their condemnation of our lord Gore and his followers. You all need to convert to our religion. Now stop what you are doing learn our rules and language and start facing East when you pee. 3. Illusion of Morality: Members believe their decisions are morally correct ignoring the ethical consequences of their decisions. 5. Pressure for Conformity: Members pressure any in the group who express arguments against the group's stereotypes illusions or commitments viewing such opposition as disloyalty. 7. Illusion of Unanimity: Members perceive falsely that everyone agrees with the group's decision; silence is seen as consent. The people who will vote for Hillary will be predominantly in the inner cities and other locations to which she continues to cater for votes. The one (and only) thing she has going for her is that she and her team are brilliant and ruthless politicians. The will attempt to pick off each express by pandering to the minorities in the cities and population dense areas and convincing them that the Republicans “hate you”. But Miles stipulating there are such scientists as Dr. Gray pointed out, what about all of the scientists who say AGW is real in order to receive a government or private organization grant?  Isn't that comfort saying something in order to be paid?  So isn't that as "dirty" as getting oil money to say the opposite? Let's have at it.  Make the two columns get out the calculator and and let's figure out how much "each side" is spending. When he is asked how much oil and gas money he gets the Senator responds "Not Enough. -- especially when you consider the millions partisan environmental groups spend.” The media never points out that environmental special interests through their 527s spent over $19 million compared to the $7 million that Oil and Gas spent through PACs in the 2004 election cycle -- a ratio of 3 to 1... If accurate then O & G support is 2.5 times less than that provided by partisan alarmist environmental special interests.  I'd be surprised if it wasn't a lot more for the AGW crowd- they have a lot of very looney very rich fat cats in their camp.  That is what makes them scary- the same thing that has suddenly made the islamo-fascists such a compel to be reckoned with- money lots of money. As I said in a previous Al Gore Post... the only reason Algae is getting a Nobel prize is so they can resurrect him from the GW carve.  It was dying and Al needed a boost.. now he's all over the MSM....... for awhile just wait until Winter.... Allah help him if a Snow Storm locks up NY this Winter... I think about 3 ft of snow will do it.   What strikes me is that all these comments regarding "Global Warming" are almost identical from the media proponents of the theory right down to the Liberal on the street. They all say. "The debate is over" akin to sticking their fingers in their ears and singing "la-la-la". Did they get their talking (or shushing) points from Gore himself or have they all been brainwashed by aliens? It's kind of creepy. The way this guy talks it's as if he never gets out of the house to meet real people (meaning anyone not living on Manhatten Island). He seems to be trapped in an echo chamber of his own BS. There are (now) thousands of documents and studies questioning or completely trashing AGW for goodness sakes. How about the fact that there's been no warming since 1998??? How about the fact the oceans undergo belched up about 20% of their alter determine in the last seven years??? etc. etc. etc. This reduces science to the level of religion: If enough populate accept (or disbelieve) something then it must be true (or false). That in turn reduces O'Brien and CNN to the level of FoxSnooze. And that boys & girls is where baby righties come from. Emotion. Belief and the One True Holy and Apostolic Church of Roger Ailes.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2007/10/15/cnns-obrien-defends-gore-movie-declares-global-warming-debate-over ]]> ]]> British judge who recently ruled that there are nine inaccuracies in the movie. But CNN's Miles O'Brien dismissed the views of dissenters and downplayed the importance of the errors cited by the judge. As he made several appearances on various CNN shows on Friday. O'Brien tagged dissenters with such labels as "dead-enders," a "tiny calculate of a minority," and a "very small fringe," as he linked skeptics to fossil fuel companies. He also repeatedly declared that the scientific debate on global warming is over. Notably on the July 20 "The Situation Room," O'Brien had former Republican Congressman J. C. Watts with similar comments on the subject. O'Brien: "You're not paying attention to the science. J. C. You're definitely not paying attention. ... The scientific debate is over. J. C. we're done." (Transcript follows) During Friday's "American Morning. "anchor Kiran Chetry relayed some of the concerns of Gore's critics. Chetry: "There have been some critics who say that the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" is filled with mistakes. A judge in Britain in fact just ruled that Al Gore's climate change film has nine errors. And you have the author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist" who said today that awarding this prize to Al Gore cannot be seen as anything other than a political statement." Later in the show. Chetry brought aboard O'Brien who is CNN's chief technology and environment correspondent and asked him about the enter's "inaccuracies." O'Brien list a few of the judge's findings of errors but still endorsed the movie: "If you go through all of those statements they in sum do not actually go after the central thesis of the film itself which is that global warming is real and there is a human connection there. .. the judge said in that same ruling when he said you know there are these nine mistakes. 'it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion,' but it is a 'political film,' and of course as he put it not celebrate political. So clearly what we're talking about here is there isn't much debate in the science. The judge didn't even say that. But the point is the response has become politicized. And as a result people have gone after some of these small points which when you look at them at specific instances don't add up to really going after the whole thesis." O'Brien made his next appearance during the 9:00 hour of "CNN Newsroom," during which he contended that the "very few scientists" who contend the cerebrate between fossil fuel emissions and global warming were "in many cases they're funded by the fossil fuel industry." O'Brien speaking to anchor Heidi Collins: "You just said a few moments ago that some scientists say that there is a dispute over the link between manmade emissions of fossil fuels.. and the link to climate change. But the fact is that there are very few scientists that are saying them. And if you look at the small handful that are still saying this in many cases they're funded by the fossil fuel industry." He soon continued: "So there really isn't a scientific debate anymore on this." He appeared again during the 10:00 hour of "CNN Newsroom," and this time labeled skeptics as "dead-enders" who are "few and far between." O'Brien: "I guess you could label them 'dead-enders' out there. There are a few that are still holding true to the notion that maybe this is some sort of natural cycle. They really are few and far between. Tony." The CNN correspondent also dismissed the significance of the judge's list of nine inaccuracies contending that "they really boil down to exaggerations," and reassured viewers that the film "is based on substantive science." O'Brien: "The one thing the judge does say though which kind of got lost in the shuffle through all this because of the nine inaccuracies is that it is his firm belief that the Gore film is based on substantive science." At his next appearance during the 11:00 hour. O'Brien called dissenters "a tiny fraction of a minority," and connected their funding to the fossil fuel industry as he again proclaimed that "it's not a scientific debate anymore." O'Brien: "And when you say some scientists disagree with that it is a tiny fraction of a minority of scientists out there. And when you look at those scientists and analyse their funding frequently you are led to the fossil fuel industry. So really it's not a scientific debate anymore." When O'Brien appeared on "Your World Today" during the 12:00 hour he portrayed skeptics as "fewer and further between," charged that "the turf that they're standing on is narrower and narrower," and again claimed that "it's really no longer a scientific debate." During the 1:00 hour of "CNN Newsroom," O'Brien called dissenters "a very small fringe," and characterized the inaccuracies cited by the British judge as "exaggerations but not complete falsehoods." When anchor Don Lemon tagged the inaccuracies as "a little poetic license," O'Brien agreed that it was "a little bit of Hollywood there perhaps." O'Brien appeared again during the 5:00 hour of "The Situation Room" where he commented that since Gore's film came soon after Hurricane Katrina it turned out to be a convenient time for Gore to "turn up the heat on those who doubt global warming." O'Brien: "It may be little more than a glorified PowerPoint presentation but it couldn't have been more convenient for Al Gore and for those who agree with him it is time to turn up the alter on those who disbelieve global warming." After conceding that Gore "didn't let the facts get in the way of a good story. O'Brien listed some of the inaccuracies cited by the British judge and commented that "the judge also said it is clear that ["An Inconvenient Truth"] is based substantially on scientific research and opinion" before again portraying dissenters as "fewer and farther between." KIRAN CHETRY speaking to John Dickerson of Slate com: Of course this decision is not without its critics as often is the case when the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded. But there have been some critics who say that the movie An Inconvenient Truth is filled with mistakes. A judge in Britain in fact just ruled that Al pierce's climate change film has nine errors. And you have the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist who said today that awarding this consider to Al Gore cannot be seen as anything other than a political statement. Is it a political statement?... CHETRY: You know so of course people can't wait to jump out and pounce and in fact in Britain we have a judge who actually made some sort of ruling regarding Al Gore's movie if it's going to be shown in schools it has to list off some of the inaccuracies in it as well. Are there a lot of inaccuracies in An Inconvenient Truth? O'BRIEN: Well the adjudicate found nine cases where he felt there were inaccuracies with the science. And if you go through those nine inaccuracies among them: polar bears have drowned because of a lack of an ice pack; Al Gore's statements about how quickly the ice packs in Greenland and Antarctica might in fact be melting; making a link or at least inferring a cerebrate between things like increased tornadoes and global warming where there is no scientific proof. If you go through all of those statements they in sum do not actually go after the central thesis of the film itself which is that global warming is real and there is a human connection there. As a matter of fact the judge said in that same ruling when he said you know there are these nine mistakes. "it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion," but it is a "political film," and of course as he put it not party political. So clearly what we're talking about here is there isn't much debate in the science. The judge didn't even say that but the point is the response has become politicized. And as a result people have gone after some of these small points which when you be at them at specific instances don't add up to really going after the whole thesis. CHETRY: But the consider is not because of the film it's because of the be of work on bringing attention to global warming correct? O'BRIEN: come up there's no question he's been talking about this for a long time and he served as the de facto spokesman for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This is a assort of the world's leading scientists who frankly are not great communicators. Scientists themselves don't do a very good job communicating to the general public. And when you get a group of several hundred smart people in a room the end result the statement they alter tends to get watered down. Now. Gore not encumbered by that served as their spokesman in this case. And on the change state of that tough hurricane season of 2005 with Hurricane Katrina had the benefit of some good timing. People were focused in on this subject. O'BRIEN: You just said a few moments ago that some scientists say that there is a dispute over the link between manmade emissions of fossil fuels of global warming fuels global warming gases and the link to climate change. But the fact is that there are very few scientists that are saying them. And if you look at the small handful that are still saying this in many cases they're funded by the fossil fuel industry. The Intergovernmental adorn on Climate Change which shared the prize with Al Gore came out with a report in March of this year. This is 2,500 of the world's leading scientists several hundred reviewers who synthesized all the known science out there. And here's what they said. Temperature go predicted between 3.25 and 7 degrees Fahrenheit sea level rise between 7 inches and 2 feet just about. And now 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by human beings. So there really isn't a scientific debate anymore on this. Heidi. This is about what to do about it. And that's where politics enters into this. TONY HARRIS: You know what. Miles but let's talk about those doubters a little bit more here for a second. You know we're talking about a UK judge. NASA administrator Michael Griffin some climatologists some meteorologists. Are they winning the argument in any significant way? Are they making us look at the issue differently? And are they proposing that we not take steps to cut back on these emissions? O'BRIEN: Well there are a few. I guess you could call them dead-enders out there. There are a few that are still holding true to the notion that maybe this is some sort of natural cycle. They really are few and far between. Tony. Even the NASA administrator. Mike Griffin backed off those comments where he lent some doubt as to whether human beings could do anything about it or was it appropriate for NASA to get in the middle of it. Sort of modified those comments after he made them to National Public Radio. You know you mention in that enumerate the adjudicate for example who found nine inaccuracies in Al Gore's movie portions of which you're seeing right here before you. Really if you look at those inaccuracies and go through them point by point they really boil down to exaggerations. For example. Al Gore says in the movie that the South Pacific islanders have evacuated to New Zealand. Well that is a prediction which is very likely as sea level rises but those evacuations haven't happened yet. The one thing the judge does say though which kind of got lost in the shuffle through all this because of the nine inaccuracies is that it is his firm belief that the Gore film is based on substantive science. In other words he doesn't question the larger thesis here. He does say that in some cases Al Gore may have connected some dots that scientists are not ready to connect. O'BRIEN: And the people who are really in the doubting realm first of all the turf that they're standing on is narrower and narrower. They're even at this inform admitting that human beings are hastening this whole process. When you look at their funding sources and you consider what is motivating them frequently you will find yourself right into the hands of the fossil fuel industry. So the doubters are comfort there but they are a fraction of a minority now. It's really no longer a scientific debate. O'BRIEN: This is scientific peer-reviewed studies. These are not political statements. These are matter-of-fact statements that express the conservative nature of scientists who always have some sort of doubt built into their thesis and their conclusions. And yet it is very clear out there. And really there's only a very small fringe out there that would doubt what the IPCC and what this be of scientists has to say. DON LEMON: And what are they saying? I think there's some doubters -- a British judge; NASA as a be of fact administrator Michael Griffin; and certain climatologists and meteorologists as come up are doubting this? O'BRIEN: Yeah. Well let's start with this British judge. It's interesting because it goes right to the heart of "Inconvenient Truth." "Inconvenient Truth" was sent out to high schools all throughout Great Britain and there was a lawsuit which came out of it saying. "Hey this is not an accurate movie." A judge ruled that the movie should be shown to high educate students but that it should be pointed out that there are nine inaccuracies that the judge determined inside the Gore film. You're looking at polar bears right now. For example. Al Gore in the movie says polar bears have drowned because of a lack of sea ice. come up that hasn't been conclusively proved. He also says at one point that South Pacific islanders and low-lying atolls have actually evacuated to New Zealand. Well that is a prediction that may go in the coming years as sea level rises as you see there in the graphic but has not happened yet. Basically there's a series of these which amount to exaggerations but not complete falsehoods. And the one other thing to point out is that what this judge said was the substance of the science was accurate in the piece. So that's just one example. You talk about Mike Griffin and NASA. He doesn't doubt global warming doesn't doubt that human beings are a part of it. His air was what should NASA what should human beings be doing about it? LEMON: Right so it's just sort of what's the word I'm looking for here? The overall context outweighs what's happening. A little poetic license maybe. Miles. Is that what they're saying? WOLF BLITZER: A former Vice President almost a President an Oscar winner and now winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for his work to increase awareness about global warming. Al Gore is unquestionably on a roll right now. Let's go right to our chief technology and environment correspondent. Miles O'Brien watching this story for us. All right he's doing obviously very well but what about the message that he's pushing send? MILES O'BRIEN: Well. Wolf timing is everything. So while Al Gore has been preaching the global warming message for years now decades the movie which captured one of those lectures came at just the right moment. It was right on the heels of Hurricane Katrina. And finally it seemed. Americans were listening to his warnings. It may be little more than a glorified PowerPoint presentation but it couldn't have been more convenient for Al Gore and for those who agree with him it is time to turn up the heat on those who doubt global warming. OLE DANBOLT MJOS. Nobel Committee: He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted. GORE: Tipper and I will go to Oslo and I will accept this award on behalf of all of those who have been working so desire and so hard to try to get the message out about this planetary emergency. O'BRIEN: Gore shares the honor with the worldwide organization of scientists that has been sending up warning flags for nearly 20 years. MARTIN fence. IPCC: What they've done now is finally establish at the global level there is an anthropogenic a man-made climate signal coming through on plants animals water and ice. O'BRIEN: That is the most recent assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC believes in the next century temperatures on hide ordain increase between 3.25 and 7 degrees; sea levels will rise 7 to 23 inches; and they say there is a 90 percent certainty it is a human-caused problem. JAMES HANSEN. NASA Climatologist: The picture has become clear enough that we should be telling people about it. It's not a time for reticence. O'BRIEN: And in some cases. Gore didn't let the facts get in the way of a good story. Saying Pacific islanders have evacuated to New Zealand a prediction that has not happened yet. That polar bears have drowned for lack of firm ice. There's no create of that. Or implying global warming will create more tornadoes. No smoking gun there either. A judge in Britain mentioned those exaggerations and six others. Wolf as he ruled on whether "An Convenient Truth" should be shown to high school students there. But the adjudicate also said it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion but that it is a political film albeit of course not a party political enter. Of course the Nobel Laureate now. Al Gore disagrees. He says it's a moral and spiritual issue. Wolf? O'BRIEN: Well they are fewer and further between. Wolf. And it's interesting there's been a big progression on what they've been saying. Most of them now even the ones that are absolute hard core doubters do admit now that human beings have something to do with all of this. It's really boiling down now to what should be done about it. Much of the world is insisting on sort of mandatory caps on emissions of these greenhouse gases. The U. S. the Bush administration insisting voluntary measures will do the trick. O'Brien is strutting about as if he was God's gift to climate science.  I'd like to see him and Gore debate Dr. Richard Lindzen and Michael Crichton on this issue.  He would get his underwear pulled over his head.  Such a debate might even answer as entertainment.  I'll wager we don't see any AGW pundits appearing here to debate this topic on this thread either.  Al Gore says they don't have to because the consider is over.  Awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to this ignoramus Gore for his disigenuous excite campaign is akin to awarding the Nobel Peace consider to Joeseph Goebbels for his efforts to explain the scientific basis of the Master Race. .. The Senator accused the media in his speech last week of dismissing “any pretense of balance and objectivity on climate change coverage and instead crossed squarely into global warming advocacy.” This despite the fact that there is no scientific “consensus” that humans are causing a climate catastrophe as a letter sent to the Canadian Prime Minister on April 6 of this year by 60 prominent scientists who question the basis for climate alarmism clearly explained... O’Brien’s 2005 global warming CNN special “Melting inform” also attempted to smear scientific skeptics of global warming as tools of industry. But O’Brien ignored alarmists like Hansen and his obvious ties to environmental special interests and scientists like Michael Oppenheimer -- a paid partisan of the group Environmental Defense and Michael Mann (the creator of the 'Hockey Stick') who co-publishes a global warming propaganda communicate reportedly set up with the help of an environmental group. When he is asked how much oil and gas money he gets the Senator responds "Not Enough. -- especially when you consider the millions partisan environmental groups spend.” The media never points out that environmental special interests through their 527s spent over $19 million compared to the $7 million that Oil and Gas spent through PACs in the 2004 election make pass -- a ratio of 3 to 1... Miles. Your bio keeps pointing out you attended Georgetown university. I assume you did but no where have I open that you got a degree. Can I ask? Did you get a degree? BS? MS? PhD? In what? A scientific field? Journalism? How many courses did you take in research design?  Did you ever do scientific research? These anti-GW infidels are attacking our religion. We will declare jihad against all non-believers. We call upon all of our followers to expose denigrate and ruin the reputation of anyone speaking out against our GW religion and will reward each of our insane followers with 72 remove minutes of air-time on CNN for each such infidel ruined by our tactics. Praise Gore-Allah! I hope this statement convinces all NB'ers to forbid and I mean STOP their condemnation of our lord Gore and his followers. You all need to convert to our religion. Now stop what you are doing learn our rules and language and start facing East when you pee. 3. Illusion of Morality: Members believe their decisions are morally correct ignoring the ethical consequences of their decisions. 5. compel for Conformity: Members pressure any in the group who express arguments against the group's stereotypes illusions or commitments viewing such opposition as disloyalty. 7. Illusion of Unanimity: Members perceive falsely that everyone agrees with the group's decision; silence is seen as consent. The people who ordain vote for Hillary will be predominantly in the inner cities and other locations to which she continues to pander for votes. The one (and only) thing she has going for her is that she and her aggroup are brilliant and ruthless politicians. The will attempt to choose off each state by pandering to the minorities in the cities and population dense areas and convincing them that the Republicans “hate you”. But Miles stipulating there are such scientists as Dr. Gray pointed out, what about all of the scientists who say AGW is real in order to receive a government or private organization grant?  Isn't that still saying something in order to be paid?  So isn't that as "dirty" as getting oil money to say the opposite? Let's undergo at it.  alter the two columns get out the calculator and and let's figure out how much "each side" is spending. When he is asked how much oil and gas money he gets the Senator responds "Not Enough. -- especially when you consider the millions partisan environmental groups spend.” The media never points out that environmental special interests through their 527s spent over $19 million compared to the $7 million that Oil and Gas spent through PACs in the 2004 election cycle -- a ratio of 3 to 1... If accurate then O & G support is 2.5 times less than that provided by partisan alarmist environmental special interests.  I'd be surprised if it wasn't a lot more for the AGW crowd- they have a lot of very looney very rich fat cats in their camp.  That is what makes them scary- the same thing that has suddenly made the islamo-fascists such a force to be reckoned with- money lots of money. As I said in a previous Al Gore Post... the only reason Algae is getting a Nobel prize is so they can resurrect him from the GW Grave.  It was dying and Al needed a bring up.. now he's all over the MSM....... for awhile just wait until Winter.... Allah help him if a come down Storm locks up NY this Winter... I evaluate about 3 ft of snow will do it.   What strikes me is that all these comments regarding "Global Warming" are almost identical from the media proponents of the theory right down to the Liberal on the street. They all say. "The debate is over" akin to sticking their fingers in their ears and singing "la-la-la". Did they get their talking (or shushing) points from Gore himself or have they all been brainwashed by aliens? It's kind of creepy. The way this guy talks it's as if he never gets out of the house to meet real people (meaning anyone not living on Manhatten Island). He seems to be trapped in an echo chamber of his own BS. There are (now) thousands of documents and studies questioning or completely trashing AGW for goodness sakes. How about the fact that there's been no warming since 1998??? How about the fact the oceans have belched up about 20% of their heat determine in the last seven years??? etc. etc. etc. This reduces science to the aim of religion: If enough people believe (or disbelieve) something then it must be true (or false). That in move reduces O'Brien and CNN to the level of FoxSnooze. And that boys & girls is where baby righties come from. Emotion. Belief and the One True Holy and Apostolic Church of Roger Ailes.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2007/10/15/cnns-obrien-defends-gore-movie-declares-global-warming-debate-over ]]> ]]> such labels as "dead-enders," a "tiny fraction of a minority," and a "very small fringe," as he linked skeptics to fossil fuel companies. He also repeatedly declared that the scientific debate on global warming is over. Notably on the July 20 "The Situation Room," O'Brien had former Republican Congressman J. C. Watts with similar comments on the subject. O'Brien: "You're not paying attention to the science. J. C. You're definitely not paying attention. ... The scientific debate is over. J. C. we're done." (Transcript follows) During Friday's "American Morning. "anchor Kiran Chetry relayed some of the concerns of Gore's critics. Chetry: "There have been some critics who say that the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" is filled with mistakes. A judge in Britain in fact just ruled that Al Gore's climate change film has nine errors. And you have the author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist" who said today that awarding this prize to Al Gore cannot be seen as anything other than a political statement." Later in the show. Chetry brought aboard O'Brien who is CNN's chief technology and environment correspondent and asked him about the enter's "inaccuracies." O'Brien list a few of the judge's findings of errors but still endorsed the movie: "If you go through all of those statements they in sum do not actually go after the central thesis of the film itself which is that global warming is real and there is a human connection there. .. the judge said in that same ruling when he said you know there are these nine mistakes. 'it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion,' but it is a 'political enter,' and of cover as he put it not celebrate political. So clearly what we're talking about here is there isn't much debate in the science. The adjudicate didn't even say that. But the point is the response has become politicized. And as a result people have gone after some of these small points which when you look at them at specific instances don't add up to really going after the whole thesis." O'Brien made his next appearance during the 9:00 hour of "CNN Newsroom," during which he contended that the "very few scientists" who dispute the link between fossil fuel emissions and global warming were "in many cases they're funded by the fossil furnish industry." O'Brien speaking to anchor Heidi Collins: "You just said a few moments ago that some scientists say that there is a contend over the link between manmade emissions of fossil fuels.. and the cerebrate to climate dress. But the fact is that there are very few scientists that are saying them. And if you look at the small handful that are still saying this in many cases they're funded by the fossil fuel industry." He soon continued: "So there really isn't a scientific debate anymore on this." He appeared again during the 10:00 hour of "CNN Newsroom," and this time labeled skeptics as "dead-enders" who are "few and far between." O'Brien: "I guess you could call them 'dead-enders' out there. There are a few that are still holding true to the notion that maybe this is some sort of natural cycle. They really are few and far between. Tony." The CNN correspondent also dismissed the significance of the judge's list of nine inaccuracies contending that "they really boil down to exaggerations," and reassured viewers that the film "is based on substantive science." O'Brien: "The one thing the judge does say though which kind of got lost in the shuffle through all this because of the nine inaccuracies is that it is his firm belief that the Gore film is based on substantive science." At his next appearance during the 11:00 hour. O'Brien called dissenters "a tiny fraction of a minority," and connected their funding to the fossil fuel industry as he again proclaimed that "it's not a scientific debate anymore." O'Brien: "And when you say some scientists disagree with that it is a tiny fraction of a minority of scientists out there. And when you look at those scientists and trace their funding frequently you are led to the fossil fuel industry. So really it's not a scientific debate anymore." When O'Brien appeared on "Your World Today" during the 12:00 hour he portrayed skeptics as "fewer and further between," charged that "the turf that they're standing on is narrower and narrower," and again claimed that "it's really no longer a scientific debate." During the 1:00 hour of "CNN Newsroom," O'Brien called dissenters "a very small fringe," and characterized the inaccuracies cited by the British judge as "exaggerations but not complete falsehoods." When anchor Don Lemon tagged the inaccuracies as "a little poetic license," O'Brien agreed that it was "a little bit of Hollywood there perhaps." O'Brien appeared again during the 5:00 hour of "The Situation Room" where he commented that since Gore's film came soon after Hurricane Katrina it turned out to be a convenient time for Gore to "turn up the heat on those who doubt global warming." O'Brien: "It may be little more than a glorified PowerPoint presentation but it couldn't undergo been more convenient for Al Gore and for those who agree with him it is time to turn up the heat on those who disbelieve global warming." After conceding that Gore "didn't let the facts get in the way of a good story. O'Brien listed some of the inaccuracies cited by the British judge and commented that "the judge also said it is clear that ["An Inconvenient Truth"] is based substantially on scientific research and opinion" before again portraying dissenters as "fewer and farther between." KIRAN CHETRY speaking to John Dickerson of Slate com: Of course this decision is not without its critics as often is the case when the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded. But there have been some critics who say that the movie An Inconvenient Truth is filled with mistakes. A judge in Britain in fact just ruled that Al Gore's climate change film has nine errors. And you have the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist who said today that awarding this prize to Al Gore cannot be seen as anything other than a political statement. Is it a political statement?... CHETRY: You know so of course populate can't act to jump out and pounce and in fact in Britain we have a judge who actually made some sort of ruling regarding Al Gore's movie if it's going to be shown in schools it has to list off some of the inaccuracies in it as well. Are there a lot of inaccuracies in An Inconvenient Truth? O'BRIEN: Well the judge found nine cases where he felt there were inaccuracies with the science. And if you go through those nine inaccuracies among them: polar bears undergo drowned because of a lack of an ice pack; Al Gore's statements about how quickly the ice packs in Greenland and Antarctica might in fact be melting; making a link or at least inferring a link between things like increased tornadoes and global warming where there is no scientific proof. If you go through all of those statements they in sum do not actually go after the central thesis of the film itself which is that global warming is real and there is a human connection there. As a matter of fact the judge said in that same ruling when he said you experience there are these nine mistakes. "it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research