She said people should plan vacations to beach resorts and spend alot of money, to help the Gulf Victims.

Then she ate a scoop of ice cream, stayed three hours and left for her vacation in Maine.

In light of this article, please do not take your children on vaction, for a swim in the Gulf.

Just days ago, NOAA released data showing that 2010 so far is the hottest year ever recorded:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100715_globalstats_sup.html

Why aren’t you writing about that?

everyone knows the extent of the damage done by this spill.

the uscg is not “hijacking free speech”, it is properly controlling the situation so that the work that is required to be done will be done with a minimum of interference from people who do not belong there. you have NO idea of how critical some of these situations can be; the air may be nearly as dangerous as the water.

there have been times when i have had to make similar decisions, based on the emergency at hand. the safety of everybody at the site is paramount, while proper reporting – factual, informed, current – is close behind.

i imagine that the uscg will select reporters and cameramen to report for the journalistic pool; allowing everybody and his uncle to tramp through this toxic, deeply contaminated area is unwise, stupid, and dangerous.

Cancer is not something that will show up after a week of exposure to toxic chemicals – it can and does take years to form and cause its insidious damage. Telling the Gulf Locals to stay inside is not the answer…. the poison is everywhere, carried, as it were on the winds…….

http://just-me-in-t.blogspot.com/2010/07/there-is-no-danger-from-that-oil.html

Making sure that all MSDS material, and proprietary {read incriminating} recipes for Corexit and raw crude and burning crude and any other toxics released into the air water or soil are provided to Doctors, Nurses and First Responders so that people who have been over-exposed {as if there was such a thing} could get proper treatments before they become chronically ill, disabled or DEAD!!

STop dumping Dispersant into the sea so that oil can be scooped up, right now all we have are underwater suspensions of oil and dispersant waiting to evaporate and be carried up to the clouds as gas, to be rained back down on the US as per video shot above.

What else can they do? Stop Lying. Stop Seizing cameras and camera phones of citizens like they have police powers and let folks document the death and destruction because trying to hide it only makes them {BP}look like bigger Jackholes

Put the Governing BoD on a chain Gang and make them do cleanup without respirators or safety gear, for the equal amount of time civilians have been exposed to this toxic, carcinogenic mess.

Put the people directly responsible for the lack of safety features in Jail, Hard Time, with nothing but Soap on a Rope and a flower in their hair.

Gosh–I just think I could go on and on, but I think you get the picture. These people have killed the gulf, and if this black rain keeps falling, when the Gulf Moisture crosses Texas into Tornado Alley, it will be carried directly to our grain belts and our cattle belts. It will most likely kill our domestic bees and our wild pollinators, and the acid rain alone from burning oil will damage crops, structures and roads.

Out Govt needs to pull their heads out of their butts, and they need to pull BP’s $%*^ out of their gobs and start doing their ding dang jobs–which is not selling the ENTIRE UNITED STATES down the river for a few measely dollars. Because at some point it wont matter how much money you got, because there won’t be no clean food or water left the buy, and then what?

And this whole time when oil was coming out of the asphalt on the streets during a rainstorm I guess I just never knew it was actually being rained down from the sky…

I can keep going if you want me to?

The reasons for all the above are simple. This is a disaster that was let go on purpose. This one oil field with 50 more wells could support the US for all of its oil needs and we would no longer need to import terrorist OIL PERIOD!

Now figure it out, that is why the government is doing what it is doing and that is why everyone must now use the judicial system to sue and criminalize this entire fiasco.

In the above discussion, I have seen many different arguments that clash in weird ways. They come, according to me, from : either relevant informations, or sometimes irrelevant informations, transformed numbers and percentages without meaning, or relevant numbers followed by wrong conclusions. I think the understanding of the Earth system is very complex for scientists already. Besides, it is a fact that some lobbies and think tanks produce numbers and ratios at different scales to promote the skepticism about global warming. Therefore, I am not surprised when I see the ambiant confusion about this topic (though many of the hereabove writings were indeed clever and relevant, according to me).

Several facts:
1) Greenhouse gases do cause a greenhouse effect on Earth. Without water, methane, CO2 and other gases, the temperature would be much lower on average at the surface of the Earth.
2) There are fluxes of CO2 (that may be calculated as annual fluxes) between at least three important systems: the biosphere, the atmosphere, and the ocean. When you take them into account, you see that these fluxes are in a dynamic steady state, i.e. a constant equilibrium on the long term which includes variations on the short term. This steady-state has dramatically varied in history at the geological scale. The changes were happening slowly as a consequence of different long-term biogeochemical transformations. It has also been varying dramatically for the last two centuries, because of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions (industrial revolution). And these anthropogenic fluxes, small in absolute, are sufficient to create a significant imbalance on the annual budget of CO2. I take the example of the article that states that 95% of CO2 emissions come from the biosphere and 5% only come from fossil stocks. Actually, these are only the out-fluxes (the author could have mentioned it). If you also take the in-fluxes into account (absorption of CO2 by plants to produce biomass), what remains in the atmosphere is approximately the 5% of fossil CO2 (which then constitutes 100% of surplus). On an annual average, the biosphere captures approximately as much CO2 as it releases (otherwise the budget of CO2 would have increased non-stop since plants exists). And it is the annual average that counts in the long-term assessment of whether there is or not an increase in CO2. After every year, the net increase in atmospheric CO2 is mainly due to fossil stocks that are released and burned (man-made), and to deforestation which releases the carbon accumulated in trees.
3) One of the first consequences is an acidification of ocean waters because the atmospheric CO2 is in equilibrium with the oceanic CO2, and the ocean can still absorb CO2… but it then becomes more acid, with consequences for living organisms, especially corals, but also crustacean and organisms having a shell made of calcium carbonate.
4) This oceanic absorption of CO2 masks the relatively high atmospheric increase. The observable effects of an increase in atmospheric CO2 are, for the moment, masked since most of this CO2 dissolves into the ocean water.
5) More atmospheric CO2 (or H2O, gas water, or CH4, methane) increases the greenhouse effect, and hence the global mean temperature of the Earth. The consequences are difficult to predict. A higher temperature will cause more water evaporation, and hence more greenhouse effect. But atmospheric water tends to form clouds, which in turn reduce the solar irradiance at the surface of the Earth. Also, a higher temperature causes the permafrost to melt ; and under the permafrost of Siberia, for instance, are huge stocks of methane. If this methane reaches the atmosphere, the warming machine could really go crazy…
6) A global increase in Earth temperature may have different local effects on climate because of the complex interplay between atmosphere-ocean-biosphere systems. In general, a warmer system gets an accelerated water cycle. This is not always good for humans. For instance, the river floodings would become more intense, and the overall system would become even less predictable. Also we would see adverse effects locally; for instance, some specific regions could cold down on an annual average because of a change in wind directions or in oceanic currents.
7) On the short term, a small elevation in temperature will cause an elevation in seawater levels because of the dilatation of surface waters. Hence, the salinisation of coastal subterranean freshwater stocks, and the scarcity of freshwater stocks.
About ecosystems, the important fact is that, by opposition to other warming periods that occurred in the past (geologic time), the change occurs VERY rapidly in the present case. This, in turn, does not leave much opportunities to ecosystems to adapt. This has been shown experimentally several times in Europe and the US in terrestrial systems, and similar suppositions are also made for aquatic systems (though without clear evidence at this stage). More generally, the observed slight increase in temperature combines with other effects to perturbates the environment as we used to know it. Even if it is not yet a “driving force” by itself, the regional warmings aggravate most of the time the nuisance effects linked to other phenomena, such as the occurence and duration of dead zones in the sea, for instance, or the predominance of jellyfish over fish.
9) About IPCC, they make an extraordinary work, and they deserve respect especially because their production of knowledge is based on the consensus between all participants (which is so hard to obtain when so many people are involved). Their analyses of the present situation are rigorous and reliable. Their projections, however, are associated with uncertainties because of the complexity of the study. That is why IPCC merely submit “ranges” of projected effects associated with “reasonable” socio-economic scenarios.

I hope this may help.

I personally would demand to put Tennessee’s Al Gore in prison for cover up and misleading the public on the real issues, as his so called science totally ignores the major role that water vapor and its state plays in the climate change processes. It is a big Dollar Game afoot and Gore is the Wizard of Oz leader of the biggest cover up conspiracy with national security industries.

There is very much corruption on climate science these days as it relates to Global Warming. Al Gore is the center of the biggest corruption and to see why one only has to follow the money and blame trail. Al Gore’s CO2 game is a “Straw Man” hatched up in Oak Ridge to cover it their anthropologic connections to destroying the natural order of the environment and the climate change factors linked to that industry’s cover up. Oak Ridge used one chemical in massive quantities and even is linked to its invention and huge losses to the environment that is the biggest factor in Anthropologic Climate Change.

The main problem with climate change is the levels of water vapor in the atmosphere and human mistakes that changed the rates and area coverage of water vapor into reflective water aerosols. CO-2 is pure non-sense to hatched by Gore’s good ole boy networks in Oak Ridge to get the environmentalist blame game’s attention off the real major culprit of Freon and disruption of the Ozone and UV-b protective layer. This rise in UV-b then directly associated to harming the Ocean’s phytoplankton growth rates and their conversion to DMS and DMSO that is directly tied to cloud making and cloud cover over the Oceans that keep things cooler.

Since this chemical’s looses are causing the loss of cloud cover over the oceans there is a net increase in the amount of heat reaching the oceans from the Sun. This sets up a rise in the ocean’s temperatures that change the levels of CO-2 they can absorb and convert. It is worst around the Southern Oceans and is directly tied to the rise of CO-2 in the atmosphere, the changes in ocean current and melt rates in ice caps, even the “El Nino” effects. It isn’t really correct to call this effect “Global Warming,” but more correct to call it “anthropologic linked climate change” that sets up warming in many critical zones and regional cooling in others.

Hence, We find one more big reason to point the finger at Al Gore as to another reason that Tennessee has been named as the most corrupt state in the US. Al Gore is the sponsor of major political lies to the public to protect industry, particularly Oak Ridge, from being blamed for highly damaging the environment. So, lets part the waters to show the world what we need to do with corrupt politicians. Put him and his partners in prison, and do the real science on water vapor’s dominance of the warming / change equation.

I remember learning it a very long time ago when teachers actually taught instead of indoctrinating.

The Amazon rain forest is so important to the earth that its destruction would cause CO2 to increase in the earth atmosphere.

They are cutting it down and it is just as predicted.

A rise in CO2.

The link this time, I expect.
http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/

O.K I may not trust Al Gore.
O.K. the CO2 content and greenhouse effect might not be the main climate driving force, and CO2 increase may follow temperature instead of preceding it.
Still I haven’t read an argument concerning the difference between “natural” CO2 that is part of a cycle, released and reabsorbed, versus the oil and charcoal derived CO2 that will not be recycled (not in 800 years). Does it make any noticeable difference, I do not know.
Some arguments exposed are completely insane and discredit the discussion, as an example plants not getting enough CO2 because they need some; even if we cut man made CO2 emission by half, plants will not suffer.

What is crystal clear is that to save the world we must abandon this dogma of necessary growth (supposedly the only way to increase wealth) at the cost of plundering the world, it’s fossil and living resources and bring war to secure the access to those resources.

What about this one to save the world:

http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_stamets_on_6_ways_mushrooms_can_save_the_world.html

James Hoggan and desmogblog , a public relations man and his public relations blog are nothing more then shills for Al Gore and his money making ventures.(Generation Investment)

I have done some digging on my own, well actually lots of digging…

you may be interested in

http://pennyforyourthoughts2.blogspot.com/2009/12/from-al-gores-investment-management-to.html

Also some latest news on dropping temperatures
http://pennyforyourthoughts2.blogspot.com/2010/05/temperature-monitors-report-widespread.html

I concur completely, getting Al Gore away from the environment and humanity would be the best thing on both counts