See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: Escalating Ice Loss Found in Antarctica
Source:
The Washington Post
URL Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy ... 008011302753.html?hpid=topnews
Published: Jan 14, 2008
Author: Marc Kaufman
Post Date: 2008-01-14 10:27:14 by robin
Ping List: *Global Climate Change* Subscribe to *Global Climate Change*
Keywords: None
Views: 485
Comments: 43
Escalating Ice Loss Found in Antarctica By Marc Kaufman Climatic changes appear to be destabilizing vast ice sheets of western Antarctica that had previously seemed relatively protected from global warming, researchers reported yesterday, raising the prospect of faster sea-level rise than current estimates. While the overall loss is a tiny fraction of the miles-deep ice that covers much of Antarctica, scientists said the new finding is important because the continent holds about 90 percent of Earth's ice, and until now, large-scale ice loss there had been limited to the peninsula that juts out toward the tip of South America. In addition, researchers found that the rate of ice loss in the affected areas has accelerated over the past 10 years -- as it has on most glaciers and ice sheets around the world. "Without doubt, Antarctica as a whole is now losing ice yearly, and each year it's losing more," said Eric Rignot, lead author of a paper published online in the journal Nature Geoscience. The Antarctic ice sheet is shrinking despite land temperatures for the continent remaining essentially unchanged, except for the fast-warming peninsula. The cause, Rignot said, may be changes in the flow of the warmer water of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current that circles much of the continent. Because of changed wind patterns and less-well-understood dynamics of the submerged current, its water is coming closer to land in some sectors and melting the edges of glaciers deep underwater. "Something must be changing the ocean to trigger such changes," said Rignot, a senior scientist with NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. "We believe it is related to global climate forcing." Rignot said the tonnage of yearly ice loss in Antarctica is approaching that of Greenland, where ice sheets are known to be melting rapidly in some parts and where ancient glaciers have been in retreat. He said the change in Antarctica could become considerably more dramatic because the continent's western shelf, an expanse of ice and snow roughly the size of Texas, is largely below sea level and has broad and flat expanses of ice that could move quickly. Much of Greenland's ice flows through relatively narrow valleys in mountainous terrain, which slows its motion. The new finding comes days after the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said the group's next report should look at the "frightening" possibility that ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica could melt rapidly at the same time. "Both Greenland and the West Antarctic ice sheet are huge bodies of ice and snow, which are sitting on land," said Rajendra Pachauri, chief of the IPCC, the United Nations' scientific advisory group. "If, through a process of melting, they collapse and are submerged in the sea, then we really are talking about sea-level rises of several meters." (A meter is about a yard.) Last year, the IPCC tentatively estimated that sea levels would rise by eight inches to two feet by the end of the century, assuming no melting in West Antarctica. The new Antarctic ice findings are based on mapping of 85 percent of the continent over the past decade using radar data from European, Japanese and Canadian weather satellites. Previous studies had detected the beginning of ice loss in West Antarctica and substantial loss along the peninsula, but the current research found significantly greater changes. Rignot and his team found that East Antarctica, which holds a majority of the continent's ice, has not experienced the same kind of loss -- probably because most of the ice sits atop land rather than below sea level, as in the west. In several coastal areas of East Antarctica, however, small but similar losses have been detected, he said. In all, snowfall and ice loss in East Antarctica have about equaled out over the past 10 years, leaving that part of the continent unchanged in terms of total ice. But in West Antarctica, the ice loss has increased by 59 percent over the past decade to about 132 billion metric tons a year, while the yearly loss along the peninsula has increased by 140 percent to 60 billion metric tons. Because the ice being lost is generally near the bottom of glaciers, the glacier moves faster into the water and thins further, as a result. Rignot said there has been evidence of ice loss going back as far as 40 years. The new findings come as the Arctic is losing ice at a dramatic rate and glaciers are in retreat across the planet. At a recent annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union, Ohio State University professor Lonnie Thompson delivered a keynote lecture that described a significant speed-up in the melting of high-altitude glaciers in tropical regions, including Peru, Tibet and Mount Kilimanjaro in Kenya. Thompson, who has studied the Quelccaya glacier in the Peruvian Andes for 30 years, said that for the first half of that period, it retreated on average 20 feet per year. For the past 15 years, he said, it has retreated an average of nearly 200 feet per year. "The information from Antarctica is consistent with what we are seeing in all other areas with glaciers -- a melting or retreat that is occurring faster than predicted," he said. "Glaciers, and especially the high-elevation tropical glaciers, are a real canary in the coal mine. They're telling us that major climatic changes are occurring." While the phenomenon of ice loss worldwide is well documented, the dynamics in the Antarctic are probably the least understood. Glaciers and ice sheets are sometimes miles deep, and researchers do not know what might be happening at the bottom of the ice -- but it clearly is being lost along the peninsula and West Antarctic coast. Rignot theorizes that the warmer water of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current is the cause. Douglas Martinson, a senior research scientist fellow at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, has studied the issue and agrees. Martinson said the current, which flows about 200 yards below the frigid surface water, began to warm significantly in the 1980s, and that warming in turn caused wind patterns to change in ways that ultimately brought more warm water to shore. The result has been an increased erosion of the glaciers and ice sheets. Martinson said researchers do not have enough data to say for certain that the process was set in motion by global warming, but "that is clearly the most logical answer." Pachauri, the IPCC's chief of climate science, will visit Antarctica this week with Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg to get a firsthand view of the situation. "You can read as much as you want on these subjects, but it doesn't really enter your system. You don't really appreciate the enormity of what you have," Pachauri said.
Poster Comment:
Sheets Melting in an Area Once Thought to Be Unaffected by Global Warming
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 14, 2008; A01
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-2) not displayed.
.
.
.
#3. To: farmfriend (#1)
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
There is more oil money behind your side than mine, don't you know that?
I think the Western peninsula sticks out into a warm ocean. There has been overall cooling of the continent and record ice. A New Record for Antarctic Total Ice Extent? Antarctic Ice Shelf Melt: Remember the Holocene! Bullshit. They are there to steer the discussion away from themselves as much as possible. But they would MUCH rather there was no discussion at all. www.motherjones.com/news/.../05/some_like_it_hot.html News: Forty public policy groups have this in common: They seek to undermine the scientific consensus that humans are causing the earth to overheat. And they all get money from ExxonMobil. EXXONMOBIL’S FUNDING OF THINK TANKS hardly compares with its lobbying expenditures—$55 million over the past six years, according to the Center for Public Integrity. Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! Do the research yourself. I'm telling you the truth, I've looked it up. One google search is all it takes. Seriously. You are not giving this thought or you would understand why. They make more money from restricting the market through regulation than they will otherwise. Or have you missed the record profits and increasing prices?
Thanks a lot, now I wont be able to sleep tonite worrying about this.
Don't forget the drowning polar bears. www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1938132,00.html And you had better visit the UK and those South Pacific islands now.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! The fact is, the Sun itself is probably emitting more intense energy than it used to, and the ozone layer is thinner than before (due in part to fluorocarbons in the atmosphere). That there ARE natural causes does not exonerate mankind from being part of the problem however, as anything that adds to the problem is part of the problem itself. Those that ignore these facts and attempt to ridicule those that voice concerns over the situation, are certainly not acting in the best interest of mankind. One must wonder what motivates such a person...
There are no doubt natural cycles involved as well. Whatever the cause, we need to keep an open mind and look at all possibilities. But denying that there is any global climate change is propaganda, IMO.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! No one has denied climate change, only that man is the cause. AGW is full of propaganda. Climate models are not science yet they are being pushed as fact. Follow the money.
One must wonder what motivates such a person... This from the master of personal attacks.
The rate of change has increased, so what is new? To keep an open dialog all options must be looked at. The consensus among scientists is that global warming is being caused by man. Do check the Inhofe list, all bought and paid for or not scientists. How can you swear that you know it is not manmade? You can't but you do anyway.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! No, it's not. Propaganda. I talk to them personally. I've read the papers they have written. David Wojick is the moderator of the forum we all post on. You'll note his name there. If you are that concerned about where the money comes from then you will be checking the funding sources of the AGW side won't you? Do you think they are altruistic?
The vast, overwhelming majority of scientists worldwide agree. A small bought and paid for by Big Oil disagree. www.motherjones.com/news/.../05/some_like_it_hot.html News: Forty public policy groups have this in common: They seek to undermine the scientific consensus that humans are causing the earth to overheat. And they all get money from ExxonMobil. EXXONMOBIL’S FUNDING OF THINK TANKS hardly compares with its lobbying expenditures—$55 million over the past six years, according to the Center for Public Integrity. Inhofe's list includes 413 people. (Score one Inhofe; the math holds up.) 84 have either taken money from, or are connected to, fossil fuel industries, or think tanks started by those industries. 49 are retired 44 are television weathermen 20 are economists 70 have no apparent expertise in climate science Several supposed skeptics have publicly stated that they are very concerned about global warming, and support efforts to address it. One claims he was duped into signing the list and regrets it. Before we get ahead of ourselves, here are some concessions and explanations: Taking money from companies that have an established stake in burning fossil fuels doesn't mean your science is junk, but it ought to sound alarm bells for anyone aiming for the label of "skeptic." Being retired doesn't mean you've lost your smarts, but it does make it harder to be considered "prominent" on a cutting-edge issue. Weathermen help us navigate the vagaries of weather on a local level every day, but this isn't a discipline that requires forecasting world climate conditions decades from now. (Prominent? In one sense: They are more frequently seen and heard.) Economists, clearly, are valuable participants in policy debates. Clearly, they aren't climate scientists. Finally, we could line up 59 regular people (hi Mom!) who don't have any particular expertise in climate science, but believe adamantly in it. You wouldn't care what they think. I'm not surprised you know and have talked to these people. Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! What makes it more egregious is when those that are trying to sell the idea that there is NO impact on global warming by man resort to "studies" performed by oil companies to "prove" their point, then turn around and claim that WE are the tools of big oil.... Big oil certainly doesn't want any serious look into alternative energy or ways in which to produce plastics and other common items without using petroleum as the prime ingredient. I can't see how those that wish to eliminate our dependence on oil can in any way be "shilling for oil"...
Eric Rignot feeds at the public trough and is not a climatologist. Rajendra Pachauri feeds at the public trough and is not a climatologist. Lonnie Thompson is a geologist and jumped on the alarmist Gore bandwagon in this decade and enjoys copious govt grants. Bottom line, I don't see anywhere in the article citing human influence as responsible.
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
Are you trying to say that man-made pollutants have ZERO impact on global warming?
Gee why would anyone think these groups are a tool of Big Oil.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! This article merely states that there is global climate change. There are others that point to man made causes. As has been voiced above by a few here, it is important to keep an open mind, not insist that the global climate change cannot possibly be man made; just as it is important to consider that natural cycles may be part of the problem as well. Considering who is trying to control the discussion, and sway public opinion away from man made causes is important. http://www.motherjones.com/news/.../05/some_like_it_hot.html Forty public policy groups have this in common: They seek to undermine the scientific consensus that humans are causing the earth to overheat. And they all get money from ExxonMobil.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! I am so sick of corporate indifference to the health and welfare of the earth's population that I don't accept a thing they claim at this point. It's not just about money, but unlimited power, including the power of life or death. These entities view themselves as gods, as they are virtually untouchable from a legal standpoint, and "neutralize" any opposition to their agenda, in whatever way they see fit.
When Big Corp was just doing this to 3rd world countries only a few people were aware or cared. But now that they are doing it to US, there is an outcry, but probably too late.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! Multiple hits on Google. Just damn those eevil, all powerful earth creatures!
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
They've been doing this to us in the US for close to 100 years, it's just that they would outright lie about what they were "offering" us, and ridicule anyone that found fault with their product or service.
You are a victim of NWO propaganda. More to be pitied than scorned.
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
So corporations are not part of the NWO? Okie dokie, nice to see that you understand the big picture.... / sarcasm
The NWO does not want anyone to be aware of the evil caused by some Big Corporations. You have the shoe on the wrong foot.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! In my little corner of the world the Cuyahoga River doesn't ignite anymore, we fish Lake Erie without any longer cleaning the guck off our lures, Pittsburgh is barely recognizable to us oldtimers. Give it up America haters ....... we got lots of problems, but this ain't one of 'em.
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
You are not only confused on the warming phenomena but even more so on NWO objectives.
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
Really? In your opinion, what are the NWO objectives?
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! In my little corner of the world the Cuyahoga River doesn't ignite anymore, we fish Lake Erie without any longer cleaning the guck off our lures, Pittsburgh is barely recognizable to us oldtimers. And this all happened out of the kindness and generousity of the corporations that polluted the water in the first place? Give me a break, if it weren't for concerned citizens, the situation would be the same or worse than it ever was. Give it up America haters ....... we got lots of problems, but this ain't one of 'em. Thanks for identifying yourself as a NWO whore, as only a REAL America hating shillster would call those that care about America and her People enough to try to correct serious problems caused by greed driven individuals that care about nothing but money and power, "America haters"... People like you seem to think is some sort of silly game. If you and your oil company friends are wrong, the consequence could well be the end of life as we know it here on earth. Are you prepared to roll the dice with that in mind? If so, who gives you or anyone else that authority?
The NWO consists largely of multi-national corporations, that are primarily owned and controlled by international banking tychoons and various other powerful and influential individuals. Those that claim otherwise are either self-deluded, ignorant, or on the NWO's payroll.
Fear is the engine of the NWO'ers. You think big Corporations are going to be the losers in one-world government? Gigantic LOL You two need a big swat on the head from "the big picture".
Republicans (Democrats for that matter) ....... HAD ENOUGH?
Of course not, as they ARE the one world government. A government of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation. I take it you side with them. So exactly what is in it for you?
Oh and BTW, did you forget your glasses, as if you had actually looked at what I posted you would have noticed the sarcasm tag. You DO understand sarcasm, do you not?
Yep, Il Duce would love all this corporate fascism.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! Really? Try reading this on just how much money the Pew foudation has put into AGW. Pew money is all oil money. Pew, the Energy Foundation and the Turner Foundation spent $400,000 to organize the council from 1998 to 2000. BELC members have included Lord John Browne, group chief executive of British Petroleum (BP); Sir Phillip Watts, chairman of Royal Dutch Shell before he was forced to resign in a scandalous overstatement of oil and gas reserves; George David, CEO of United Technologies Corporation; and John G. Drosdick, CEO of Sunoco. Ironically, Sunoco is the restructured successor to Sun Oil, the source of the $3.7 billion endowment that powers the Pew Charitable Trusts’ opposition to fossil fuels. This is just a drop in the bucket. The US has spent billions on AGW.
The Pew, Packard and other such trusts are the ones pushing the NWO. They are also the ones behing AGW. And all that money is oil money. Pew is Sunco.
Gee, that proves it then. It's perfectly fine to pollute the earth till the sky is brown, and it's perfectly ok to rely on oil for virtually everything. Of course the kind hearted oil companies are truly concerned about our health, and have our best interests in mind, because YOU say so. Uh huh.
Of course the kind hearted oil companies are truly concerned about our health, and have our best interests in mind, because YOU say so. Uh huh. You really don't understand what it is I'm telling you do you? Or what game is being played? It's not about pollution, never has been. It's about government regulation and the control of natural resources.
So what sort of regulation are you complaining about, and what sort of conservation do you have a problem with?
I don't have a problem with conservation. I have a problem with government, the UN and NGOs. I have a problem with "charitable" foundations who are energy investors using government regulations to eliminate competition and control supply. I have a problem with them funding lawsuits and buying politicians to force regulations. I have a problem with them buying scientists favorable to their ends. They have done it in industry after industry, AGW is just the latest. It's a vertically integrated protection racket. The key to cracking the Constitutional system was international law, a loophole in Article VI Clause 2 of the Constitution, governing the adoption of treaties and the scope of their powers (IMO the rat Patrick Henry and others smelled only too clearly; if you want a good chuckle read Hamilton's defense of the manner of treaty ratification in Federalist #75). To implement the plan European investors needed a foothold in the US before they could get into the market. Until the Civil War, corporations were haltered in the US because they were not allowed to own land and were not protected under the Constitution in a manner co-equal to citizens. After the Civil War the US was deeply in debt to that very European investor class. The 14th Amendment changed that balance of power between the individual and corporate. Once the appropriate Supreme Court cases were in place interpreting persons "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as including corporate persons, corporations then derived equal protection under the laws and could own property, the investment floodgates opened, and that not only created an American industrial colossus, it produced an American investor class owning enormously influential private tax-exempt foundations. So it isn't exactly by coincidence that it is those same colossal foundations that are making all those "charitable" donations to those icky Greens. The Environmental Grantmakers Association? That's Rockefeller. The Pew Charitable Trusts? That's Sunoco. W. Alton Jones? That's Citgo. The World Wildlife Fund? BP and Shell. You do see a pattern, don't you? These are more than investors in energy, their assets include timber, mining, banking, food production… They aren't fools. They use the same simple and ancient recipe as did their European forbears by which to manufacture a predictable return: Kill the competition with regulations, create a shortage, and cash in. It's become so common there is even an excellent book out on the topic that I suggest you read, . It's a simple process that has accelerated over the last five decades. It's been done in industry after industry: timber, energy, mining, beef, fish, agriculture, real estate development, soon water… ALL taking advantage of economies of scale in environmental compliance and sometimes selective enforcement. Tax-exempt foundations buy the research "data" they need, fund a few ideological groups trained by the same professorate that lives off their grant money, and not a word need be breathed to the companies in which they are invested. CO2 is not a pollutant. Logging didn't hurt the salmon or the owls. Grazing didn't hurt the environment, the plains were adapted to grazing by buffalo. Now you have Arnold putting one fifth of our state into a conservancy. Over 60% of the water comes off those mountains. His enviro policy was written by Robert Kennedy Jr and the NRDC. The same people who needed Kyoto to mine methane hydrates. Check out the funding charts Carry has in that post. Where do you think Arnold was going to get his hydrogen for his hydrogen highway? Why do you think he has been so practive in cutting emissions? It's not about the environment, it's about the energy market. Always!
#4. To: robin (#2)
And Exxon is still very pleased with your efforts no doubt.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#5. To: ghostdogtxn (#3)
Do you then not draw any conclusions from this data, or do you think the data is false?
Earlier this year in an article in Quaternary Science Reviews, Carole Pudsey of the British Antarctic Survey and three of her colleagues reported on their investigation of the Holocene history of the northern Larsen Ice Shelf of the Antarctic Peninsula. Their work, “Ice shelf history from petrographic foraminiferal evidence, Northeast Antarctic Peninsula,” aimed at determining if the recent retreat of the ice shelf is unique to the current climate or if it has previously occurred on a millennial time scale. Pudsey and her colleagues explain that small ice shelves and their associated glaciers are possible indicators of climate and oceanographic change during the Holocene. They further note that ice cores from the Antarctic Peninsula extend back only a few hundred years and their temperature records do not match each other or instrumental records. The researchers conclude that the environmental record for the Holocene must be obtained from sediments on the continental shelf. Most importantly, Pudsey and her colleagues note that small Antarctic ice shelves have varied due to natural climate forcing during the Holocene, “which suggests that the recent decay may not result entirely from anthropogenic climate perturbations.”
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#6. To: farmfriend (#4)
(Edited)
The Revolution will not be televised!
#7. To: robin (#6)
Bullshit.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#8. To: robin (#0)
The Antarctic ice sheet is shrinking
#9. To: Cynicom (#8)
The Revolution will not be televised!
#10. To: robin (#0)
The Antarctic ice sheet is shrinking despite land temperatures for the continent remaining essentially unchanged, except for the fast-warming peninsula.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#11. To: FormerLurker (#10)
The Revolution will not be televised!
#12. To: robin (#11)
But denying that there is any global climate change is propaganda, IMO.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#13. To: FormerLurker (#10)
Those that ignore these facts and attempt to ridicule those that voice concerns over the situation, are certainly not acting in the best interest of mankind.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#14. To: farmfriend (#12)
The Revolution will not be televised!
#15. To: robin (#14)
The consensus among scientists is that global warming is being caused by man.
Do check the Inhofe list, all bought and paid for or not scientists.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#16. To: farmfriend (#15)
The consensus among scientists is that global warming is being caused by man.
The Revolution will not be televised!
#17. To: robin (#11)
But denying that there is any global climate change is propaganda, IMO.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#18. To: robin (#0)
#19. To: iconoclast (#18)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#20. To: FormerLurker (#17)
News: Forty public policy groups have this in common: They seek to undermine the scientific consensus that humans are causing the earth to overheat. And they all get money from ExxonMobil.
The Revolution will not be televised!
#21. To: iconoclast (#18)
The Revolution will not be televised!
#22. To: robin (#20)
Gee why would anyone think these groups are a tool of Big Oil.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#23. To: FormerLurker (#22)
The Revolution will not be televised!
#24. To: robin, farmfriend (#6)
Global warming on other planets
#25. To: robin (#23)
When Big Corp was just doing this to 3rd world countries only a few people were aware or cared. But now that they are doing it to US, there is an outcry, but probably too late.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#26. To: robin (#23)
When Big Corp was just doing this to 3rd world countries only a few people were aware or cared. But now that they are doing it to US, there is an outcry, but probably too late.
#27. To: iconoclast (#26)
You are a victim of NWO propaganda.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#28. To: iconoclast (#26)
The Revolution will not be televised!
#29. To: FormerLurker (#25)
They've been doing this to us in the US for close to 100 years, it's just that they would outright lie about what they were "offering" us, and ridicule anyone that found fault with their product or service.
#30. To: robin (#28)
The NWO does not want anyone to be aware of the evil caused by some Big Corporations. You have the shoe on the wrong foot.
#31. To: iconoclast (#30)
The Revolution will not be televised!
#32. To: iconoclast (#29)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#33. To: robin (#28)
The NWO does not want anyone to be aware of the evil caused by some Big Corporations.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#34. To: FormerLurker, robin (#27)
So corporations are not part of the NWO? Okie dokie, nice to see that you understand the big picture....
#35. To: iconoclast (#34)
You think big Corporations are going to be the losers in one-world government?
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#36. To: iconoclast (#34)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#37. To: FormerLurker (#35)
Of course not, as they ARE the one world government.
The Revolution will not be televised!
#38. To: robin, formerLurker, *Agriculture-Environment* (#16)
(Edited)
EXXONMOBIL’S FUNDING OF THINK TANKS hardly compares with its lobbying expenditures—$55 million over the past six years, according to the Center for Public Integrity.
Co-opting Big Business: The Business Environmental Leadership Council To implement its upbeat little-by-little strategy Pew has assembled a thirty-eight member “Business Environmental Leadership Council” (BELC) to carry its message.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#39. To: iconoclast, FormerLurker, robin (#34)
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#40. To: farmfriend (#38)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#41. To: FormerLurker (#40)
Gee, that proves it then. It's perfectly fine to pollute the earth till the sky is brown, and it's perfectly ok to rely on oil for virtually everything.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#42. To: farmfriend (#41)
It's not about pollution, never has been. It's about government regulation and the control of natural resources.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#43. To: FormerLurker (#42)
So what sort of regulation are you complaining about, and what sort of conservation do you have a problem with?
The supply regulation game is at least as old as the Dutch East India Company's manipulation of coffee prices by controlling access to the plants. Understanding that sorry history of economic tyranny by European corporate royalty, the founders of this nation tried to design a limited government, one that didn't have the power to control private property or have control of resources. Control of access to resources is too much temptation for the wealthy to purchase corrupt influence that depresses everybody else. They Founders failed.
It's a vertically integrated racketeering system that extends over the entire planet. American investors in multinational operations are perfectly happy taking a hit on US operations destroying domestic production because their investments abroad get the business. They either convert domestic resource land to real estate or mothball it under tax exempt conservancies, Federal monuments, and such.
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles,
and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest