Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Any kind of attack on these cities is unthinkable. Cheney/Bush are incompetent and need to be impeached !!
Beirut, Lebanon. If Cheney/Bush thinks launching attacks into Syria will resolve anything he could not be more wrong and needs to think again. The attacks that were carried out SUCCESSFULLY in Beirut will only repeat over and over again to return Beirut to Civil War status if there are military attacks in the area. Haven't the people of the Middle East had enough? I think they have. The militants are the issue and the leaders of the area have more experience with them.
Before Cheney/Bush launches an attack they may want to recall all the tourists.
This is Damascus, Syria. You mean to tell me Bush is even contemplating military attacks on this city? He's nuts !!
Bush OVER REACHES again.
United States recalls ambassador to Syria
The New York Times was sensitive enough to mention the attacks in Beirut involved many more people than Mr. Rafik Hariri.
It was inappropriate of Bush to take the ambassador out of Syria. The Syrian Ambassador wasn't in danger. The violence occurred in Lebanon. An Ambassador to Syria is exactly what the situation needs. Bush is reacting to OLD BEIRUT so he can 'Do It His Way.'
Thanks to Bush's over-reaction to the events in Lebanon, Russia feels Syria has a right to protect itself from still another irresponsible and illegal invasion.
Sharon: Russia to go ahead with missile sales to Syria
By News Agencies
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Tuesday he has been informed by Russian President Vladimir Putin that Russia will go ahead with the sale of anti-aircraft missiles to Syria, despite Israel's misgivings.
ONCE AGAIN Bush has escalated a situation without regard to the safety of the region. What did he expect? This is the USA President that is going to bring PEACE to the Middle East?
No. Not in a long stretch of the imagination. Once again, it is upto the area to solve their own problems and find ways to trust each other.
The withdrawal from the territories continues as it should.
Ya'alon's term as IDF chief to end on schedule
By The Associated Press
Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Moshe Ya'alon will leave his post after his three-year term is up in July, just before Israel is to begin its pullout from the Gaza Strip.
THE USA needs to de-escalate their approach and rely on leadership in the area as displayed by Jordan's Abdullah to assess the violence and organize an approach that disarms Hezbollah.
The New York Times was sensitive enough to mention the attacks in Beirut involved many more people than Mr. Rafik Hariri.
It was inappropriate of Bush to take the ambassador out of Syria. The Syrian Ambassador wasn't in danger. The violence occurred in Lebanon. An Ambassador to Syria is exactly what the situation needs. Bush is reacting to OLD BEIRUT so he can 'Do It His Way.'
Thanks to Bush's over-reaction to the events in Lebanon, Russia feels Syria has a right to protect itself from still another irresponsible and illegal invasion.
Sharon: Russia to go ahead with missile sales to Syria
By News Agencies
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Tuesday he has been informed by Russian President Vladimir Putin that Russia will go ahead with the sale of anti-aircraft missiles to Syria, despite Israel's misgivings.
ONCE AGAIN Bush has escalated a situation without regard to the safety of the region. What did he expect? This is the USA President that is going to bring PEACE to the Middle East?
No. Not in a long stretch of the imagination. Once again, it is upto the area to solve their own problems and find ways to trust each other.
The withdrawal from the territories continues as it should.
Ya'alon's term as IDF chief to end on schedule
By The Associated Press
Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Moshe Ya'alon will leave his post after his three-year term is up in July, just before Israel is to begin its pullout from the Gaza Strip.
THE USA needs to de-escalate their approach and rely on leadership in the area as displayed by Jordan's Abdullah to assess the violence and organize an approach that disarms Hezbollah.
UN Sec. Council: Shaba Farms are Syrian - Needless to say Hezbollah is feeling self-righteous.
Hezbollah in Syria's Shaba Farms.
The "Triggers" to the NEW Instability in Lebanon are many, but the perpetrator all points to Hezbollah.
The biggest 'trigger' is Bush's big and irreverent mouth stating the Shia Crescent is a huge security issue for the region.
Some of the wisest words can be found in The Jordan Times this morning in that it treats Harini's death and the Shi'ite majority in Iraq as separate entities of the Middle East and it's persistent press for peace. They are correct in that what happened in Lebanon yesterday has nothing to do with Iraq regardless the childish rantings of an insecure Cheney/Bush occupation in Iraq.
The persistant bravery of King Abdullah is reflected in his words as stated from The Jordan Times:
"King Abdullah told Lebanese President Emile Lahoud over the telephone that Hariri was a "great statesman, who has remarkable contributions to the building of modern Lebanon and the development of its economy."
The King said Jordan will stand by Lebanon in such difficult circumstances to help maintain its national unity, sovereignty and security."
To understand why that is such a profound statement all one has to realize is President Emile Lahoud is primarily a Syrian in control of Lebanon. To realize that is to understand that Mr. Hariri resigned from the role of Prime Minister of Lebanon in October after President Emile Lahoud received backing from Syria to extend his place as President in Lebanon. After resigning in October Mr. Hariri became involved with opposition forces within Lebanon (which are considered to be destabilizing forces by any other government authority) and a call for the complete withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon and it's politics. In other words, Mr. Harizi now saw Lebanons' sovereignty as awash and was taking the only steps he thought he had left and that was to take up arms against the government to liberate Lebanon from Syrian domination.
Now if that isn't complicated enough one has to realize the dynamics of the Middle East is to maintain stability because of all the opposing factions within the region that can literally ignite it.
Now consider this. Mr. Harizi is a Sunni Muslim. The 'terrorist' network that 'works' the area is Hezbollah. Hezbollah is Shi'ite with it’s origins in the region of Lebanon coming out of Iran in 1982. Hezbollah also has names of 'Islamic Jihad', 'The Revolutionary Justice Organization' and 'The Islamic Resistance.’ Further Hezbollah is a global organization with roots in Europe where Mr. Chirac has come out denouncing such an act. There are cells of Hezbollah in the USA including one that was trading in illegal cigarette sales in North Carolina.
So, to refocus, it is more than likely Hezbollah that was responsible for the attacks yesterday as they claim to be Jihadists and the bombing was definitely a jihad style attack. It is definitely Mr. Hariri that was the target. Hezbollah is what one might call the ‘street military’ of Syria. However, Syria does not recognize Hezbollah as connected to it’s government but does allow it headquaters in Damascus. The problem with any of these Jihad organizations, including al Qaeda which is Saudi Arabia’s nemesis is that as a government attempts to close in on shutting them down the more the violence escalates and in small countries like Syria and even Saudi Arabia that is then a task to maintain order and sovereignty. In Lebanon, having a Syrian dominated government was to satisfy the Jihadists of Hezbollah. It worked and it worked for a very long time until Mr. Hariri stepped out of his ‘role’ as the counter balance to the Syrian dominated government to oppose it.
The other factor that comes to mind is the issue of Shaba Farms and the recent decision by the UN Security Council awarding that land along Israeli’s northern border to Syria and not Lebanon. That area is occupied by Hezbollah. So the militant Islamics are feeling not only secure but in control as Hezbollah’s ultimate goal is to have Lebanon as their own nation based in a government resembling that of Iran.
Now, I’ve tossed around a lot of ‘nations’ within one essay but to exonerate any wrong doing by Bush in inflaming the issue by prompting discussions of a Shia Crescent doesn’t forgive him or his insistence of now fearing that Iraq is a member of such a crescent.
To prevent this essay from becoming a book I’ll just say it is most likely Hezbollah in one form or another that is responsible for the attacks in Beirut yesterday among the very buildings Mr. Hariri contributed to the post Civil War Lebanon. For Bush to take any condemnation further than seeking out the militants, which I believe there is already an arrest in Lebanon, is wrong and further victimizes a very difficult situation while the region grapples with the new Palestinian state and better defined borders for all these countries.
Once again I state as I always do, the Arab nations are best left to the Arabs and NOW included in that brotherhood is Israel. The region needs to resolve it’s own problems and with STABLE and long lived leadership like Mubarak and Abdullah the problems of extremism can be defeated. I believe that whole heartedly. The USA needs to prove only financial support where needed IF it still can considering it’s ridiculous debt and other nations like Russia need to maintain a healthy but interested and stability distance to honor the men of leadership in the Middle East that can bring the area under control and free of extremists. It is doable and the leaders within those countries are capable and that includes for now Syrian backed Lebanese President Emile Lahoud. I don’t believe sanctions are important or effective unless nations of the Middle East call for them.
There is also no reason to escalate this into an idea that the new Iraqi Shi'ite majority is anything more than what it is and there is a mass movement toward instability. That is Bush propaganda. Any movement by the USA in that direction should be received with sharp and quick criticism.
Some of the wisest words can be found in The Jordan Times this morning in that it treats Harini's death and the Shi'ite majority in Iraq as separate entities of the Middle East and it's persistent press for peace. They are correct in that what happened in Lebanon yesterday has nothing to do with Iraq regardless the childish rantings of an insecure Cheney/Bush occupation in Iraq.
The persistant bravery of King Abdullah is reflected in his words as stated from The Jordan Times:
"King Abdullah told Lebanese President Emile Lahoud over the telephone that Hariri was a "great statesman, who has remarkable contributions to the building of modern Lebanon and the development of its economy."
The King said Jordan will stand by Lebanon in such difficult circumstances to help maintain its national unity, sovereignty and security."
To understand why that is such a profound statement all one has to realize is President Emile Lahoud is primarily a Syrian in control of Lebanon. To realize that is to understand that Mr. Hariri resigned from the role of Prime Minister of Lebanon in October after President Emile Lahoud received backing from Syria to extend his place as President in Lebanon. After resigning in October Mr. Hariri became involved with opposition forces within Lebanon (which are considered to be destabilizing forces by any other government authority) and a call for the complete withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon and it's politics. In other words, Mr. Harizi now saw Lebanons' sovereignty as awash and was taking the only steps he thought he had left and that was to take up arms against the government to liberate Lebanon from Syrian domination.
Now if that isn't complicated enough one has to realize the dynamics of the Middle East is to maintain stability because of all the opposing factions within the region that can literally ignite it.
Now consider this. Mr. Harizi is a Sunni Muslim. The 'terrorist' network that 'works' the area is Hezbollah. Hezbollah is Shi'ite with it’s origins in the region of Lebanon coming out of Iran in 1982. Hezbollah also has names of 'Islamic Jihad', 'The Revolutionary Justice Organization' and 'The Islamic Resistance.’ Further Hezbollah is a global organization with roots in Europe where Mr. Chirac has come out denouncing such an act. There are cells of Hezbollah in the USA including one that was trading in illegal cigarette sales in North Carolina.
So, to refocus, it is more than likely Hezbollah that was responsible for the attacks yesterday as they claim to be Jihadists and the bombing was definitely a jihad style attack. It is definitely Mr. Hariri that was the target. Hezbollah is what one might call the ‘street military’ of Syria. However, Syria does not recognize Hezbollah as connected to it’s government but does allow it headquaters in Damascus. The problem with any of these Jihad organizations, including al Qaeda which is Saudi Arabia’s nemesis is that as a government attempts to close in on shutting them down the more the violence escalates and in small countries like Syria and even Saudi Arabia that is then a task to maintain order and sovereignty. In Lebanon, having a Syrian dominated government was to satisfy the Jihadists of Hezbollah. It worked and it worked for a very long time until Mr. Hariri stepped out of his ‘role’ as the counter balance to the Syrian dominated government to oppose it.
The other factor that comes to mind is the issue of Shaba Farms and the recent decision by the UN Security Council awarding that land along Israeli’s northern border to Syria and not Lebanon. That area is occupied by Hezbollah. So the militant Islamics are feeling not only secure but in control as Hezbollah’s ultimate goal is to have Lebanon as their own nation based in a government resembling that of Iran.
Now, I’ve tossed around a lot of ‘nations’ within one essay but to exonerate any wrong doing by Bush in inflaming the issue by prompting discussions of a Shia Crescent doesn’t forgive him or his insistence of now fearing that Iraq is a member of such a crescent.
To prevent this essay from becoming a book I’ll just say it is most likely Hezbollah in one form or another that is responsible for the attacks in Beirut yesterday among the very buildings Mr. Hariri contributed to the post Civil War Lebanon. For Bush to take any condemnation further than seeking out the militants, which I believe there is already an arrest in Lebanon, is wrong and further victimizes a very difficult situation while the region grapples with the new Palestinian state and better defined borders for all these countries.
Once again I state as I always do, the Arab nations are best left to the Arabs and NOW included in that brotherhood is Israel. The region needs to resolve it’s own problems and with STABLE and long lived leadership like Mubarak and Abdullah the problems of extremism can be defeated. I believe that whole heartedly. The USA needs to prove only financial support where needed IF it still can considering it’s ridiculous debt and other nations like Russia need to maintain a healthy but interested and stability distance to honor the men of leadership in the Middle East that can bring the area under control and free of extremists. It is doable and the leaders within those countries are capable and that includes for now Syrian backed Lebanese President Emile Lahoud. I don’t believe sanctions are important or effective unless nations of the Middle East call for them.
There is also no reason to escalate this into an idea that the new Iraqi Shi'ite majority is anything more than what it is and there is a mass movement toward instability. That is Bush propaganda. Any movement by the USA in that direction should be received with sharp and quick criticism.
February 12, 2005
By conti2005
The Revolt and the Revolting
In God I Trust, Everyone Else I Monitor Dirty Politics
February 15, 2005
By Steve Freeman and Josh Mitteldorf
When Elections Go Bad Elections were always laced here and there with tails of wrong doing of one kind or another, but, in the year 2000 the humor left and scandal ridden voter irregularities became the focus of people who had no control over the outcome of an election they knew was rigged in one way or another.
And let's face it, Florida 2000 is a scandalous outcome. Bigoted and controlled to enforce that bigotry. So here we are in the year 2005 still digesting the results of November while accepting that election will go down in history as 'The Time when America nearly dissolved it's Constitution or still might.'
I've pondered whether voter irregularities (which is something that sounds like one needs a laxative for) was actually worse or whether it just never showed up so dramatically. Statistically, there are more voters voting so the incidence is bound to go up. In addition, Bush's cronies got their fair amount of 'chronic change' winning money bids that brought atrocities like computer balloting.
So, all in all when one takes a look at the margin of error, especially in Ohio where a 'patch' was actually applied to the software in at least forty districts after the fact to seal it during a recount, it is safe to say 'THE ELECTIONS OF 2004 WERE THROWN.' In true statistical form, the smaller the populous studied when a polling irregularity is at play the greater the chaos and the less realistic the outcome. THAT, in opinion is what is being witnessed with these smaller elections where the 'error' or 'irregularity' in the method of polliing (which is a statistical process) is notably and outrageously lacking an understanding of common ground.
There is no clear path of resolution as the 'enormity' of the 'irregularity' has to play so much into a national voting pool that the smaller ones spun out hideous results. While Bush only won by 2.4% of the over all popular vote, he won by less than 100,000 votes in Ohio. I don't believe the results of this election was fair. I believe there was a lot of problems where they shouldn't have been.
I don't believe in the democratic process in the USA anymore, it just doesn't work out on paper for me. The to realize the democracy itself is under attack by the very people elected just cements my belief in disbelief. Explain it away if you like. The courts have ruled to make sense of nonsense. But in the bigger picture when one realizes all the issues at play including the corruptable ads and propaganda media of this election; "The United States of America no longer has a democracy." THE USA IS FOR SALE and the deficit proves it. Coalition anyone?
By conti2005
The Revolt and the Revolting
In God I Trust, Everyone Else I Monitor Dirty Politics
February 15, 2005
By Steve Freeman and Josh Mitteldorf
Recall the Election Day (click here) exit polls that suggested John Kerry had won a convincing victory? The media readily dismissed those polls and little has been heard about them since.
Many Americans, however, were suspicious. Although President Bush prevailed by 3 million votes in the official, tallied vote count, exit polls had projected a margin of victory of 5 million votes for Kerry. This unexplained 8 million vote discrepancy between the election night exit polls and the official count should raise a Chinese May Day of red flags.
The U.S. voting system is more vulnerable to manipulation than most Americans realize. Technologies such as electronic voting machines provide no confirmation that votes are counted as cast, and highly partisan election officials have the power to suppress votes and otherwise distort the count....
...Grasping at explanations
Last November in the United States, as in Ukraine, the discrepancy between the presidential exit polls and the tallied count was far beyond the margin for error. At the time, Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International, the two companies hired to do the polling for the National Election Pool (a consortium of the nation’s five major broadcasters and the Associated Press), didn’t provide an explanation for how this happened. They promised, however, that a full explanation would be forthcoming.
On Jan. 19, on the eve of the inauguration, Edison and Mitofsky released their report, “Evaluation of Edison/Mitofsky Election System 2004,” which generated headlines such as MSNBC’s “Exit Polls Prove That Bush Won.” But, the report does nothing of the sort. It restates a thesis that the pollsters previously intimated—that the discrepancy was “most likely due to Kerry voters participating in the exit polls at a higher rate than Bush voters.” But the body of the report offers no data to substantiate this position. In fact, data presented in the report serve to rebut the thesis, and bolster suspicions that the official vote count was way, way off.
The report states that the difference between exit polls and official tallies was far too great to be explained by chance (“sampling error”), and that a systematic bias is implicated.
With that statement the pollsters confirm the discrepancy we initially documented. The exit polls were based on more than 70,000 confidential questionnaires completed by randomly selected voters as they exited the polling place. The overall margin of error should have been under 1 percent. But the official result deviated from the poll projections by more than 5 percent—a statistical impossibility....
...
Corollary evidence
The exit polls themselves are a strong indicator of a corrupted election. Moreover, the exit poll discrepancy must be interpreted in the context of more than 100,000 officially logged reports of irregularities during Election Day 2004. For many Americans, if not most, mass-scale fraud in a U.S. presidential election is an unthinkable possibility. But taken together, the allegations, the subsequently documented irregularities, systematic vulnerabilities, and implausible numbers suggest a coherent story of fraud and deceit....
...Apparently, the pollsters at Mitofsky and Edison have found it more expedient to provide an explanation unsupported by theory, data or precedent than to impugn the machinery of American democracy. Unfortunately, their patrons in the media find it correspondingly preferable to latch onto a non-confrontational thesis, however implausible, than to even suggest the possibility of foul play.
A comprehensive analysis of the Edison/Mitofsky report has been posted here.
Below is an opinion by an anonymous source on this day in an alternative news media:When Elections Go Bad Elections were always laced here and there with tails of wrong doing of one kind or another, but, in the year 2000 the humor left and scandal ridden voter irregularities became the focus of people who had no control over the outcome of an election they knew was rigged in one way or another.
And let's face it, Florida 2000 is a scandalous outcome. Bigoted and controlled to enforce that bigotry. So here we are in the year 2005 still digesting the results of November while accepting that election will go down in history as 'The Time when America nearly dissolved it's Constitution or still might.'
I've pondered whether voter irregularities (which is something that sounds like one needs a laxative for) was actually worse or whether it just never showed up so dramatically. Statistically, there are more voters voting so the incidence is bound to go up. In addition, Bush's cronies got their fair amount of 'chronic change' winning money bids that brought atrocities like computer balloting.
So, all in all when one takes a look at the margin of error, especially in Ohio where a 'patch' was actually applied to the software in at least forty districts after the fact to seal it during a recount, it is safe to say 'THE ELECTIONS OF 2004 WERE THROWN.' In true statistical form, the smaller the populous studied when a polling irregularity is at play the greater the chaos and the less realistic the outcome. THAT, in opinion is what is being witnessed with these smaller elections where the 'error' or 'irregularity' in the method of polliing (which is a statistical process) is notably and outrageously lacking an understanding of common ground.
There is no clear path of resolution as the 'enormity' of the 'irregularity' has to play so much into a national voting pool that the smaller ones spun out hideous results. While Bush only won by 2.4% of the over all popular vote, he won by less than 100,000 votes in Ohio. I don't believe the results of this election was fair. I believe there was a lot of problems where they shouldn't have been.
I don't believe in the democratic process in the USA anymore, it just doesn't work out on paper for me. The to realize the democracy itself is under attack by the very people elected just cements my belief in disbelief. Explain it away if you like. The courts have ruled to make sense of nonsense. But in the bigger picture when one realizes all the issues at play including the corruptable ads and propaganda media of this election; "The United States of America no longer has a democracy." THE USA IS FOR SALE and the deficit proves it. Coalition anyone?
Monday, February 14, 2005
February 14, 2005
By conti2005
The Revolt and the Revolting
In God I Trust, Everyone Else I Monitor This is proof positive ...
Shiites Win (Americans grill top Shia Leaders) (click here)
By Hamza Hendawi
Baghdad, Iraq (AP) - With a Shiite coalition (click here) set to take power in Iraq, American officials have begun grilling top Iraqi Shiite politicians to try to gauge the extent of their relationship with neighboring Iran, a predominantly Shiite nation ruled by its clergy....
...In recent talks, U.S. diplomats have bluntly asked the leaders how a Shiite-dominated government would react if Iran came under attack by an outside power because of its suspected nuclear weapons program, according to a high-ranking member of one Shiite party.
The Iraqi Shiite leaders have reassured the Americans that they are mostly concerned about how any such attack would affect Iraq, and they have stressed their independence from Iran, said the Shiite party official, who is familiar with the U.S. talks but would speak only on condition of anonymity....
...The U.S. government hasn't openly threatened military action against Iran, but believes the country is using its nuclear energy program to conceal an effort to manufacture nuclear weapons. For the time being, the Bush administration is relying on France, Britain and Germany to negotiate with Iranian leaders to curb any such atomic bomb efforts, which Tehran denies....
By conti2005
The Revolt and the Revolting
In God I Trust, Everyone Else I Monitor This is proof positive ...
Shiites Win (Americans grill top Shia Leaders) (click here)
By Hamza Hendawi
Baghdad, Iraq (AP) - With a Shiite coalition (click here) set to take power in Iraq, American officials have begun grilling top Iraqi Shiite politicians to try to gauge the extent of their relationship with neighboring Iran, a predominantly Shiite nation ruled by its clergy....
...In recent talks, U.S. diplomats have bluntly asked the leaders how a Shiite-dominated government would react if Iran came under attack by an outside power because of its suspected nuclear weapons program, according to a high-ranking member of one Shiite party.
The Iraqi Shiite leaders have reassured the Americans that they are mostly concerned about how any such attack would affect Iraq, and they have stressed their independence from Iran, said the Shiite party official, who is familiar with the U.S. talks but would speak only on condition of anonymity....
...The U.S. government hasn't openly threatened military action against Iran, but believes the country is using its nuclear energy program to conceal an effort to manufacture nuclear weapons. For the time being, the Bush administration is relying on France, Britain and Germany to negotiate with Iranian leaders to curb any such atomic bomb efforts, which Tehran denies....
Climate change and the Kyoto Protocol: A timeline
Climate Change. A photo from The New York Times.
Here is a timeline on the science of climate change and the UN's Kyoto Protocol on global warming, which takes effect on Wednesday:
1827: French scientist Jean-Baptiste Fourier is first to consider the "greenhouse effect," the phenomenon whereby atmospheric gases trap solar energy, stoking Earth's surface temperature, rather than let the heat radiate back into space.
1896: Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius blames the burning of fossil fuels (oil, gas and coal) for producing carbon dioxide (CO2).
1958: US scientist Charles David Keeling detects yearly rise in atmospheric CO2 as use of fossil fuels surges in post-World War II boom.
1970s: European and US scientists identify other gases (chlorofluorocarbons, methane, nitrous oxide) as greenhouse gases.
1979: Landmark report by US National Academy of Sciences pins greenhouse effect to climate change and warns "a wait-and-see policy may mean waiting until it is too late".
1988: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is set up under UN auspices. Milestone in forging scientific consensus on how to measure and analyse global warming.
1992: UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), popularly called the Rio Summit, calls for voluntary cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions.
1997: UNFCCC countries sign the Kyoto Protocol, which requires industrialised countries to reduce emissions of six greenhouse gases by 5.2 percent by a target of 2008-2012 compared with their 1990 levels. The protocol is a "framework". Fleshing out its complex and legally-binding rulebook is left to further negotiations.
2001 (Jan-March): The IPCC issues three reports, declaring the evidence for global warming to be incontrovertible although the consequences for the climate are difficult to pin down.
(March): United States, the biggest single CO2 polluter, abandons Kyoto. President George W. Bush questions the scientific evidence for global warming and says Kyoto is unfair and too expensive for the US economy.
(November): Kyoto signatories, minus the US, agree on the treaty's rulebook.
2002 onwards: Flurry of scientific studies fuels concern that global warming is accelerating, with dangerous and irreversible effects on the climate. Poor tropical countries will be affected most.
(April); US pressure forces out IPCC chairman Robert Watson, a leading scientist warning about climate change.
2003 (December): Insurance giant Munich Re puts the cost of climate-related disasters in 2003 at 60 billion dollars.
2004 (November): After several years' hesitation, Russia ratifies Kyoto. Its approval is needed to turn the draft pact into an international treaty under the arithmetic of its ratification clauses.
(December) The International Energy Agency (IEA) says China is now the world's second-biggest carbon polluter, due to surging use of fossil fuels to power its fast-growing economy.
2005 (February): Major conference of scientists in Exeter, England, determines that the climate is already being affected by global warming and that the potential consequences are worse than was previously thought.
February 16: Kyoto Protocol takes effect.
(November): Scheduled start of talks to negotiate the follow-on to Kyoto after 2012.
Here is a timeline on the science of climate change and the UN's Kyoto Protocol on global warming, which takes effect on Wednesday:
1827: French scientist Jean-Baptiste Fourier is first to consider the "greenhouse effect," the phenomenon whereby atmospheric gases trap solar energy, stoking Earth's surface temperature, rather than let the heat radiate back into space.
1896: Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius blames the burning of fossil fuels (oil, gas and coal) for producing carbon dioxide (CO2).
1958: US scientist Charles David Keeling detects yearly rise in atmospheric CO2 as use of fossil fuels surges in post-World War II boom.
1970s: European and US scientists identify other gases (chlorofluorocarbons, methane, nitrous oxide) as greenhouse gases.
1979: Landmark report by US National Academy of Sciences pins greenhouse effect to climate change and warns "a wait-and-see policy may mean waiting until it is too late".
1988: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is set up under UN auspices. Milestone in forging scientific consensus on how to measure and analyse global warming.
1992: UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), popularly called the Rio Summit, calls for voluntary cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions.
1997: UNFCCC countries sign the Kyoto Protocol, which requires industrialised countries to reduce emissions of six greenhouse gases by 5.2 percent by a target of 2008-2012 compared with their 1990 levels. The protocol is a "framework". Fleshing out its complex and legally-binding rulebook is left to further negotiations.
2001 (Jan-March): The IPCC issues three reports, declaring the evidence for global warming to be incontrovertible although the consequences for the climate are difficult to pin down.
(March): United States, the biggest single CO2 polluter, abandons Kyoto. President George W. Bush questions the scientific evidence for global warming and says Kyoto is unfair and too expensive for the US economy.
(November): Kyoto signatories, minus the US, agree on the treaty's rulebook.
2002 onwards: Flurry of scientific studies fuels concern that global warming is accelerating, with dangerous and irreversible effects on the climate. Poor tropical countries will be affected most.
(April); US pressure forces out IPCC chairman Robert Watson, a leading scientist warning about climate change.
2003 (December): Insurance giant Munich Re puts the cost of climate-related disasters in 2003 at 60 billion dollars.
2004 (November): After several years' hesitation, Russia ratifies Kyoto. Its approval is needed to turn the draft pact into an international treaty under the arithmetic of its ratification clauses.
(December) The International Energy Agency (IEA) says China is now the world's second-biggest carbon polluter, due to surging use of fossil fuels to power its fast-growing economy.
2005 (February): Major conference of scientists in Exeter, England, determines that the climate is already being affected by global warming and that the potential consequences are worse than was previously thought.
February 16: Kyoto Protocol takes effect.
(November): Scheduled start of talks to negotiate the follow-on to Kyoto after 2012.
Rafik Hariri was a member of the generation of success in the Middle East. (Click on for his speech to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council.)
Rafik Hariri did not come to Lebanese leadership by family reputation or privelege. Quite the contrary is was a poor Sunni Muslim from Sidon. As a young man he became a teacher. He eventually found his way into the construction business as a laborer. He learned the trade in Saudi Arabia eventually putting together his own company called, Saudi Oger. He eventually became the private contractor to Prince Fahd. It was this opportunity that allowed him to return to Lebanon now ready to 'literally' rebuild Beirut.
In 2000, he was believed to be worth approximately $2 billion including a vast media interest.
Rafik Hariri took an interest in Lebanese politics and became a frequent voice for the people of Lebanon criticizing the government for the poor status of the people there.
I will let Rafik Hariri speak for himself below. But, before I do that I would like to propose an idea. Rafik Hariri was a prominant Sunni Muslim. I believe this attack may have been engineered by those who would lead the area into believing this was an act of the Shia Crescent. I don't believe that is true. A Shia Cresent has never before manifested in violence. I personally would not be surprised if this was engineered by those that are ambitious in The West who want suspicions to fall on the new Shi'ite government leadership in Iraq. I beseach the world to be careful how they blame those responsible. These are militants or henchmen, but, either way it should not lead to direct 'indictment' of the new Iraqi government. The Grand Ayatollah al Sistani's coalition leadership had attempted murder attempts on them and in no way do I believe that coalition is capable of this level of violence. The Grand Ayatollah al Sistani has always been and continues to be a man of peace.
Thank you.
My deepest sympathies to the people of Lebanon.
His Excellency Rafik HaririPrime Minister of Lebanon
"On the Reconstruction of Lebanon: Achievements and Impediments"
Lebanon is a country deeply rooted in the principles of democracy, human rights, and free enterprise. The Constitution of Lebanon guarantees democratic and economic liberty for the Lebanese people. We are committed to national unity and an effective government, combining security and prosperity. The Lebanese people are living testimony to the fact that there can be no military solution to conflicts. Today, after the events of last April, this testimony has become obvious to all concerned. The solution can only be political, and one that the international community can support - and later on, reconstruction and modernization efforts. The Lebanese are committed to the peace process based on the principles of the Madrid Conference. We have every interest that a just, comprehensive, and lasting peace takes hold in the Middle East. Seventeen years of war and turmoil have had a major impact on the Lebanese economy and society. The impact on social conditions and human resources was equally grave. However, Lebanon throughout her history, and even during her darkest days, never wavered from her long tradition of a democratic political system and open exchange and trade regime.
In 2000, he was believed to be worth approximately $2 billion including a vast media interest.
Rafik Hariri took an interest in Lebanese politics and became a frequent voice for the people of Lebanon criticizing the government for the poor status of the people there.
I will let Rafik Hariri speak for himself below. But, before I do that I would like to propose an idea. Rafik Hariri was a prominant Sunni Muslim. I believe this attack may have been engineered by those who would lead the area into believing this was an act of the Shia Crescent. I don't believe that is true. A Shia Cresent has never before manifested in violence. I personally would not be surprised if this was engineered by those that are ambitious in The West who want suspicions to fall on the new Shi'ite government leadership in Iraq. I beseach the world to be careful how they blame those responsible. These are militants or henchmen, but, either way it should not lead to direct 'indictment' of the new Iraqi government. The Grand Ayatollah al Sistani's coalition leadership had attempted murder attempts on them and in no way do I believe that coalition is capable of this level of violence. The Grand Ayatollah al Sistani has always been and continues to be a man of peace.
Thank you.
My deepest sympathies to the people of Lebanon.
His Excellency Rafik HaririPrime Minister of Lebanon
"On the Reconstruction of Lebanon: Achievements and Impediments"
Lebanon is a country deeply rooted in the principles of democracy, human rights, and free enterprise. The Constitution of Lebanon guarantees democratic and economic liberty for the Lebanese people. We are committed to national unity and an effective government, combining security and prosperity. The Lebanese people are living testimony to the fact that there can be no military solution to conflicts. Today, after the events of last April, this testimony has become obvious to all concerned. The solution can only be political, and one that the international community can support - and later on, reconstruction and modernization efforts. The Lebanese are committed to the peace process based on the principles of the Madrid Conference. We have every interest that a just, comprehensive, and lasting peace takes hold in the Middle East. Seventeen years of war and turmoil have had a major impact on the Lebanese economy and society. The impact on social conditions and human resources was equally grave. However, Lebanon throughout her history, and even during her darkest days, never wavered from her long tradition of a democratic political system and open exchange and trade regime.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)