Does anybody notice that when it comes to the subject of rain or snow, the media announcer gets a serious air about them and reports like it's a bad thing. Sure, we can't drive a million miles an hour around town or we may have to use an umbrella or a raincoat or gloves or a beanie to be comfortable, but, hey, that's weather. Plus, in the case of snow, if you live north of 34 degrees latitude, it's very likely that you're going to see some in your lifetime. It's like people that live right next to a river and get "surprised" by a flood. Doesn't make sense to me. How about you?
So, Dear Weather Person, how about the next time something other than sunshine is in the forecast that you report it as a positive. Rain and snow bring water and rebirth to the world around us. So you need some kind of cover to make Life a little less uncomfortable but it's not a bad thing, just something different.
Have a Great Day, no matter what the weather is!
While perusing the Fox 13 website, I could not find anything about last night's opportunity for the public to personally address the DABC about support/non-support for the recent consideration of dropping the Class C & D private club laws. Fox 13 was there, as I caught a glimpse of it while getting ready for work this morning but NOTHING here on the website. The most recent is one from June 11th, which was the first session of public input. I did see two stories concerning this but both, when clicked upon, stated that website was not available.
Okay, maybe I'm a bit paranoid but this is news. MUCH bigger news than American Idiot or any of the other self-serving "news stories" that Fox runs. How about serving the populace and stop treating them like a bunch of kids?
As much as I like watching Fox 13 news, I am increasingly finding myself turning the channel or hitting the "mute" button when the self-serving commercial in the disguise of "news" comes on about the Fox show, American Idol. Now, this isn't a Fox Utah thing either. If you watch Fox news anywhere else in the country, you will get a dose of "what's the latest" concerning this TV show. What I want to know is why this qualifies as news. Maybe there could be a small mention of it in Carrie's entertainment segment but, with the continuous barrage of AI "news", it is more of a self-serving, blatant time grab of the news consumer. Personally, I could give a rat's behind what's going on concerning this show. What other show gets this kind of attention and why does this one? I watch the news to get NEWS, not gossip, and when that line is crossed maybe it's time to watch something else.
As some of you know, I have been providing articles and information that supports that GW is caused by man-made sources. Of course, there are dissenters and naysayers but I have yet to see any logical and intelligent arguements supporting them. I would also like you to check out this link, as it has some pretty comprehensive information:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/6528979.st
m
Stark picture of a warming world
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website, in Brussels
Industrial countries are asked to work on reducing emissions
Considering the fact they had been working intensively all through the night, the leaders of the UN panel on climate change were extraordinarily debonair and alert as they presented their conclusions to ranks of impatient journalists in the bright Brussels morning.
The chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group II, Rajendra Pachauri, apologised for not having shaved - a light touch from the unflappable Indian, who sports a fine beard.
The general view, after five years of scientific work and four days of discussions here between senior scientists and government bureaucrats, was that something pretty significant had been achieved.
"This report clearly assesses the impacts of climate change in different parts of the world," said Dr Pachauri.
"And we have far greater regional detail than in [our previous global assessment in] 2001 on things like glacier melting, and what the implications of that melting will be; on sea level rise, which clearly threatens a number of countries in the world including mega-deltas which are particularly vulnerable; and on agriculture, which has implications for food security."
'Observational evidence'
The extra detail is testament to the vast amount of scientific observation which has been undertaken in recent years. Twenty-nine thousand real-world observations were included in the analysis.
"There is observational evidence of regional impacts on every continent on physical and biological systems," said Cynthia Rosenzweig, a climate impacts specialist with the US space agency Nasa.
"There are multiple lines of evidence that human-induced climate change is happening now, and the impacts are being seen now."
Confidence maintained
This is pretty strong stuff; but not quite as strong as some would have liked.
The IPCC is an unusual organisation in that the evidence is supplied by scientists, but the summaries of its reports are agreed between scientists and representatives of governments.
Map: Climate change impact
Because of this, "climate sceptics" and "climate catastrophists" alike have regularly contended that the conclusions are unreliable - that scientists' drafts are altered through political pressure to make them either too weak or too strong, depending on which direction the criticism is coming from.
Here, a number of governments have sought to tone down the degrees of certainty on various issues.
The draft for this meeting started off by stating with "very high confidence" that natural systems on land and sea are being affected by regional climate changes, which was badly received by Saudi Arabia, Russia, and China.
Deadlock continued until the early hours of the final day's negotiations, with Dr Rosenzweig presenting a note of protest to the chair on behalf of senior scientists, saying that their evidence-based conclusions were being ignored.
At one point she left the room, and the whole process could have unravelled. In the end it was diplomatic leadership by the US, favoured bogeyman of activists, that found a compromise which everyone could live with.
"The final document states that observational evidence on every continent and most oceans shows that natural systems are being affected by regional changes, particularly temperature increases," she said.
"And I'm very happy with that."
High table
Martin Parry, one of the co-chairs of this working group, had this observation on what the involvement of government representatives means for the IPCC's significance.
"The real secret is that governments buy in," he said. "Otherwise it would be just another report."
Governments will soon have the conclusions thrust under their noses at an unprecedented level.
Later this month, the United Nations Security Council will discuss the security implications of climate change, the first time this has ever happened.
Poorer countries will be the hardest hit experts say
In June, the G8+5 group which includes the world's most powerful and populous nations will also have the IPCC's conclusions on their negotiating table.
"The science has come across as so strong and so confident in this report that really governments have nowhere to hide," commented Catherine Pearce, international climate campaigner with Friends of the Earth UK.
That presumes, though, that each government speaks with a single voice on climate change - and the reality is very different.
Hard arguments
Many governments, including the UK's, have environment departments which include enthusiasts for tough action on emissions, even at the expense of a little economic hardship.
These views might not be shared, though, in departments of finance, transport, energy and industry.
And the arguments can be quite hard to win in rich northern countries which, as the IPCC report acknowledged, may actually benefit from a modest amount of warming, and where resources are enough to defend against rising sea levels and shrinking rainfall.
It is in the poorest countries that the climate axe will fall. Every delegate here I spoke to was convinced of that.
Unseasonably warm weather in north China has been linked to climate change
"There is strong commitment (in this report) to understanding the adaptation needs of Africa," said Anthony Nyong from the International Development Research Centre in Nairobi, a lead author on the chapter on African impacts.
"[But] mitigation is always the best form of adaptation. There is no way that you can effectively adapt to all the impacts of climate change; it's absolutely impossible.
"So while we work at adapting, let the main emitters of greenhouse gases work on reducing their emissions."
It is a call we have heard many times before. And there is little evidence to believe that a report painting severe consequences ahead for the poor of the world, however detailed and bought into by governments, will be enough to bring unprecedented change from all the well-off members of the community of nations.
Richard.Black- INTERNET@bbc.co.uk
Stark picture of a warming world
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website, in Brussels
Industrial countries are asked to work on reducing emissions
Considering the fact they had been working intensively all through the night, the leaders of the UN panel on climate change were extraordinarily debonair and alert as they presented their conclusions to ranks of impatient journalists in the bright Brussels morning.
The chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group II, Rajendra Pachauri, apologised for not having shaved - a light touch from the unflappable Indian, who sports a fine beard.
The general view, after five years of scientific work and four days of discussions here between senior scientists and government bureaucrats, was that something pretty significant had been achieved.
"This report clearly assesses the impacts of climate change in different parts of the world," said Dr Pachauri.
"And we have far greater regional detail than in [our previous global assessment in] 2001 on things like glacier melting, and what the implications of that melting will be; on sea level rise, which clearly threatens a number of countries in the world including mega-deltas which are particularly vulnerable; and on agriculture, which has implications for food security."
'Observational evidence'
The extra detail is testament to the vast amount of scientific observation which has been undertaken in recent years. Twenty-nine thousand real-world observations were included in the analysis.
"There is observational evidence of regional impacts on every continent on physical and biological systems," said Cynthia Rosenzweig, a climate impacts specialist with the US space agency Nasa.
"There are multiple lines of evidence that human-induced climate change is happening now, and the impacts are being seen now."
Confidence maintained
This is pretty strong stuff; but not quite as strong as some would have liked.
The IPCC is an unusual organisation in that the evidence is supplied by scientists, but the summaries of its reports are agreed between scientists and representatives of governments.
Map: Climate change impact
Because of this, "climate sceptics" and "climate catastrophists" alike have regularly contended that the conclusions are unreliable - that scientists' drafts are altered through political pressure to make them either too weak or too strong, depending on which direction the criticism is coming from.
Here, a number of governments have sought to tone down the degrees of certainty on various issues.
The draft for this meeting started off by stating with "very high confidence" that natural systems on land and sea are being affected by regional climate changes, which was badly received by Saudi Arabia, Russia, and China.
Deadlock continued until the early hours of the final day's negotiations, with Dr Rosenzweig presenting a note of protest to the chair on behalf of senior scientists, saying that their evidence-based conclusions were being ignored.
At one point she left the room, and the whole process could have unravelled. In the end it was diplomatic leadership by the US, favoured bogeyman of activists, that found a compromise which everyone could live with.
"The final document states that observational evidence on every continent and most oceans shows that natural systems are being affected by regional changes, particularly temperature increases," she said.
"And I'm very happy with that."
High table
Martin Parry, one of the co-chairs of this working group, had this observation on what the involvement of government representatives means for the IPCC's significance.
"The real secret is that governments buy in," he said. "Otherwise it would be just another report."
Governments will soon have the conclusions thrust under their noses at an unprecedented level.
Later this month, the United Nations Security Council will discuss the security implications of climate change, the first time this has ever happened.
Poorer countries will be the hardest hit experts say
In June, the G8+5 group which includes the world's most powerful and populous nations will also have the IPCC's conclusions on their negotiating table.
"The science has come across as so strong and so confident in this report that really governments have nowhere to hide," commented Catherine Pearce, international climate campaigner with Friends of the Earth UK.
That presumes, though, that each government speaks with a single voice on climate change - and the reality is very different.
Hard arguments
Many governments, including the UK's, have environment departments which include enthusiasts for tough action on emissions, even at the expense of a little economic hardship.
These views might not be shared, though, in departments of finance, transport, energy and industry.
And the arguments can be quite hard to win in rich northern countries which, as the IPCC report acknowledged, may actually benefit from a modest amount of warming, and where resources are enough to defend against rising sea levels and shrinking rainfall.
It is in the poorest countries that the climate axe will fall. Every delegate here I spoke to was convinced of that.
Unseasonably warm weather in north China has been linked to climate change
"There is strong commitment (in this report) to understanding the adaptation needs of Africa," said Anthony Nyong from the International Development Research Centre in Nairobi, a lead author on the chapter on African impacts.
"[But] mitigation is always the best form of adaptation. There is no way that you can effectively adapt to all the impacts of climate change; it's absolutely impossible.
"So while we work at adapting, let the main emitters of greenhouse gases work on reducing their emissions."
It is a call we have heard many times before. And there is little evidence to believe that a report painting severe consequences ahead for the poor of the world, however detailed and bought into by governments, will be enough to bring unprecedented change from all the well-off members of the community of nations.
Richard.Black- INTERNET@bbc.co.uk
Has anyone noticed that ESPN is screwing up Monday Night Football? You would think that after paying $1.1 billion (yes, that's BILLION) dollars for the rights to MNF that they would do it up right, considering sports is what they do.
What I'm talking about is the incessant chatter that overrides the game action when they have a "celebrity" in the booth chattering about whatever the team of Tirico, Kornheiser and Jaws can come up with. And who the hell is Tony Kornheiser?? His "questions" segment, also during the game action, is boring and, mostly irrelevent because it's an attempt at humor, not analysis, but he's not good at either. I guess because he was already on PTI for ESPN they thought that he would be a good fit. Frankly, if you're looking for humor, go with Dennis Miller but most football fans don't understand his brand of humor.
So, who would be your suggestion for the MNF booth? Mine would be Tirico (play-by-play) and Jaworski (analysis/color commentary) and bag the third position. Use Suzy Kolber and Michele Tafoya more for up-to-the-minute reports. Oh, and get rid of the guest spots unless they don't interfere with the game action.....
Good Morning Everybody,
Well, the biggest naysayer group on GW has now come forward and stated that GW is, in fact, man-made:
Bush aide says warming man-made
By Roger Harrabin
Environment analyst, BBC News
Professor John Marburger (left) is Mr Bush's top science advisor
The US chief scientist has told the BBC that climate change is now a fact.
Professor John Marburger, who advises President Bush, said it is more than 90% certain that greenhouse gas emissions from mankind are to blame.
The Earth may become "unliveable" without cuts in CO2 output, he said, but labelled targets for curbing temperature rise as "arbitrary".
His comments come shortly before major meetings on climate change at the UN and the Washington White House.
There may still be some members of the White House team who are not completely convinced about climate change - but it is clear that the science advisor to the President and director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy is not one of them.
In a BBC interview, Professor Marburger said climate change was unequivocal, with mankind more than 90% likely to blame.
The CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere and there's no end point, it just gets hotter and hotter 
Marburger interview
Despite disagreement on the details of climate science, he said: "I think there is widespread agreement on certain basics, and one of the most important is that we are producing far more CO2 from fossil fuels than we ought to be.
"And it's going to lead to trouble unless we can begin to reduce the amount of fossil fuels we are burning and using in our economies."
Trouble ahead
This is an explicit endorsement of the latest major review of climate science from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Professor Marburger said humanity would be in trouble if we did not stop increasing carbon emissions.
The US sees technologies such as biofuels as the way ahead
"The CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere and there's no end point, it just gets hotter and hotter, and so at some point it becomes unliveable," he said.
Professor Marburger said he wished he could stop US emissions right away, but that was obviously not possible.
US backing for the scientific consensus was confirmed by President Bush's top climate advisor, James Connaughton.
The chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality told BBC News that advancing technology was the best way to curb the warming trend.
"You only have two choices; you either have advanced technologies and get them into the marketplace, or you shut down your economies and put people out of work," he said.
"I don't know of any politician that favours shutting down economies."
'Arbitrary' targets
Mr Bush has invited leaders of major developed and developing nations to the White House later this month for discussions on a future global direction on climate change.
It will follow a UN General Assembly session on the same issue.
Last week the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum in Sydney backed the UN climate convention as the right body for developing future global policy.
The European Union wants such a policy to adopt its own target of stabilising temperature rise at or below 2C.
But Mr Marburger said the state of the science made it difficult to justify any particular target.
"It's not clear that we'll be in a position to predict the future accurately enough to make policy confidently for a long time," he said.
"I think 2C is rather arbitrary, and it's not clear to me that the answer shouldn't be 3C or more or less. It's a hunch, a guess."
The truth, he said, was that we just do not know what the 'safe' limit is.
Penn, Millie, CS, as I've said before, new evidence is apparent every day and we have to keep ourselves informed on an on-going basis. Am I saying that because the Bush Administration says it's true that it's true? Not at all. I am saying that another scientist has come forward and supported the theory (yes, we're still a theory) that man-made CO2 is a the major contributor to GW with "90% certainty". That's pretty good.
Let the blogging begin!
I was absolutely dismayed and shocked today to see the stories of Alexandre Vinoukourov testing positive for a banned blood transfusion and an as yet unnamed rider testing positive for testosterone. As an avid cyclist, I will honestly say that this puts a serious damper on my faith in the intelligence and motivations of pro cyclists. I am a big fan of Floyd Landis, the 2006 winner of the TdF, who is waiting for a ruling on his positive testosterone test last year. (I am also reading his book, "Positively False", which gives his viewpoint on pro cycling and the anti-doping entity under the UCI. Highly recommended read....)
What I do like about this is that eight teams from France and Germany staged a protest of not starting Stage 16 on time. "The teams, Agritubel, AG2r, Francaise des Jeux, Bouygues Telecom, Cofidis, Credit Agricole, Gerolsteiner and T-Mobile, have formed a Movement for a Credible Cycling (MPCC), asking for all teams to abide by their good behaviour charter of 2005." (Yahoo Sports, 7/25/07) These teams have it right but I wonder why the Discovery Channel team hasn't aligned themselves with this group as well. I truly feel that these guys train harder and more scientifically than any other team in cycling (they are, after all, funded very well) and it would show some solidarity that the sport really needs.
Do you watch the TdF? Does it matter to you that one of the top sporting events in the world is being tarnished by individuals that seem to only care about their "15 minutes of fame"? Should we just say, "To hell with the anti-doping rules! Take anything you want and if you die, you die?"
Is the orange barrel the official "Welcome to Utah" symbol? If you are a motorist visiting Utah, you would think it was! I have often wondered why UDOT has so many projects going on that take so long to complete. Referencing the "UDOT Guide to Road Construction 2007" brochure, there are no less than 21 different projects going on in Utah. Some of the more annoying projects are:
- I-15 NOW - Ogden - There are many of you that have been subjected to the closures that this project has put you through. Get used to it: the project is scheduled to continue until fall of 2008.
- State Street, 9000 S. to 10600 S. - Sandy - "Improving traffic flow" will have to wait until this project is complete sometime in the spring of 2008.
- 800 N. - Orem - Roads six lanes wide will be your reward for putting up with UDOT presence until fall of 2008.
- U.S. 6 - Helper - A new interchange at this location will take until March of 2008 to complete.
- State Street TRAX bridge - Murray - TRAX expansion (a good thing) will take this area into one lane "in all directions at all hours" until late 2008.
Now, these are only five of the 21 projects outlined in the brochure but they don't seem to include 2100 S. monster project that has snarled traffic for well over a year, which is interesting. In the other mentioned category, the I-215 West (3800 S./4100 S.) bridge project is scheduled to take 6-8 months to complete.
What this all begs to question is:
- Does UDOT bite off more than they can chew? Do they plan too many projects at one time?
- Could they manage their resources better? What's the deal where miles of highway are barreled off with no construction personnel in sight and no visible work started?
- Why does it take so long to perform smaller jobs?
What I would like to know is if you, the blogger and Utah motorist/taxpayer, feel satisfied with the job that UDOT is doing. Should UDOT be subjected to an "efficiency audit"? Give any suggestions, comments, etc. to state your piece!!
Since most of you are familiar with the "haze" that we have in the Salt Lake Valley, I'd like you all to consider these facts (REF: www.scorecard.org):
SL Co. is considered one of the most polluted counties in the country. It ranks in the top numbers in toxic chemical releases, air pollution and water quality. In general, this is due to the nine Superfund sites located in the immediate SLC area. Chemicals, such as arsenic and lead, are released into the air you breathe, the water you drink and the land you inhabit on a daily basis. Companies with names you all know (ATK, EDO, Tesoro, Kennecott) are responsible for these releases and, in the case of Kennecott Mining, are one of the top polluters in the country for emitting pollution packed full of cancinogens and toxicants that affect everything from your blood to your kidneys to your lungs.
Is this information enough for you to take a look and write a Senator or Congressman? Is it even enough for you to consider further personal investigation? There has to be a better way to manufacture the materials we use as a modern society without slowly killing us all in the process....
