<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
 --></style><title>Fwd: Re: [earthcare] Fw: [san] Pentagon Signals
Climat</title></head><body>
<div>Dear SAYMA and Atlanta Friends,  The following articles may
be of great interest to those of you who are concerned and active
environmentalists.  Janet</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 13:27:09 -0500</div>
<div>To: earthcare@yahoogroups.com</div>
<div>From: Janet Minshall <jhminshall@comcast.net></div>
<div>Subject: Re: [earthcare] Fw: [san] Pentagon Signals Climate
Change as Potential Threat to Nat'l Security: "An Abrupt Climate
Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National
Security."</div>
<div>Cc:</div>
<div>Bcc:</div>
<div>X-Attachments:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Dear Quaker Earthcare Friends:  Thanks so much for this long
and detailed message about abrupt climate change.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I have read articles and mentions of this possibility/probability
for years.   I understood, however, that the beginning of
global warming actually went back to the beginning of civilization, to
the transition from hunting and gathering to farming, not to the
beginning of the industrial revolution.  Indeed, there are
scientists who have written about how the warming of the climate on
Planet Earth, first from the advent of agriculture and the spread of
it around the world, and later from the industrial revolution, has
actually delayed the onset of another ice age which would otherwise
have occurred. Does this mean, perhaps, that environmental pollution,
while ugly and objectionable in its effect on our surroundings and on
our air and water resources, has actually given human beings and human
civilization the time to develop?</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>How much longer can we continue to stave off the onset of a new
ice age, a natural occurrence, which we may have delayed through the
development of agriculture and industrial production?  
Janet</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I sent a copy of the article below, from the New York Times, to
some of you a couple of months ago: </div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Subject: NYTimes.com Article: Scientist
Links Man to Climate Over the Ages</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 10:34:45 -0500
(EST)</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>December 10, 2003</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> By KENNETH CHANG</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>SAN FRANCISCO, Dec. 9 - Humans have
altered the world's</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>climate by generating heat-trapping gases
since almost the</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>beginning of civilization and even
prevented the start of</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>an ice age several thousand years ago, a
scientist said on</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Tuesday.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Most scientists attribute a rise in
global temperatures</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>over the past century in part to
emissions of carbon</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>dioxide by human activities like driving
cars and operating</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>factories.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Dr. William Ruddiman, an emeritus
professor at the</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>University of Virginia, said at a meeting
of the American</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Geophysical Union here that humans'
effect on climate went</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>back nearly 10,000 years to when people
gave up hunting and</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>gathering and began farming.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Dr. Ruddiman is also reporting his
findings in the Journal of</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Climatic Change.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>In a commentary accompanying the article,
Dr. Thomas J.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Crowley of Duke University, said he was
first taken aback</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>by Dr. Ruddiman's premise. "But when
I started reading,"</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Dr. Crowley wrote, "I could not help
but wonder whether he</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>just might be on to
something."</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>The climate of the last 10,000 years has
been unusually</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>stable, allowing civilization to
flourish. But that is only</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>because people chopped down swathes of
forest in Europe,</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>China and India for croplands and
pastures, Dr. Ruddiman</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>said. Carbon dioxide released by the
destruction of the</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>forests, plus methane, another
heat-trapping gas, produced</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>by irrigated rice fields in Southeast
Asia, trapped enough</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>heat to offset an expected natural
cooling, he said.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>"The stability is an accident,"
Dr. Ruddiman said.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Levels</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>of carbon dioxide and methane rise and
fall in natural</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>cycles lasting thousands of years, and
both reached a peak</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>at the end of the last ice age 11,000
years ago. Both then</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>declined as expected.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Both should have continued declining
through the present</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>day, leading to lower temperatures, and a
new ice age</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>should have begun 4,000 to 5,000 years
ago, Dr. Ruddiman</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>said. Instead, levels of carbon dioxide
reversed 8,000</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>years ago and starting rising again. The
decline in methane</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>levels reversed 5,000 years ago,
coinciding with the advent</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>of irrigation rice farming.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite
>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/10/science/10WARM.html?ex=1072070485<span
></span>&ei=1&en=97676d7579640242</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> FYI...</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><a
href="mailto:greenebank@earthlink.net">greenebank@earthlink.net</a></blockquote
>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><i>-------Original
Message-------</i></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><b>From:</b> <a
href="mailto:san@lists.coopamerica.org">SIF Shareholder Action
Network</a></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><b>Date:</b> Tuesday, February 03, 2004
11:49:49 AM</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><b>To:</b> <a
href="mailto:san@lists.coopamerica.org">SIF Shareholder Action
Network</a></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><b>Cc:</b> <a
href="mailto:vic@igc.org">'vic@igc.org'</a>; <a
href="mailto:lance.lindblom@nathancummings.org"
>'lance.lindblom@nathancummings.org'</a>; <a
href="mailto:caroline.williams@nathancummings.org"
>'caroline.williams@nathancummings.org'</a></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><b>Subject:</b> [san] Pentagon Signals
Climate Change as Potential Threat to Nat'l Secu rity: "An Abrupt
Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States
National Security."</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> From Tom Paine.com</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> <a
href="http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9882"
>http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9882</a></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> Climate Change Alert</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> Patrick Doherty spent a decade in
the field of international conflict</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> resolution, working in the Middle
East, Africa, Southeastern Europe and</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> the Caucasus.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> First Paul O'Neill, now Andrew
Marshall. Marshall has just blown the lid</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> off another Bush administration can
of worms-namely, its unwillingness to</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> acknowledge and address the massive
threat posed by global climate change.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> Marshall is the founding director of
the Pentagon's Office of Net</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> Assessment, a quiet but powerful
think tank within the Pentagon. In 2001,</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> Marshall was tapped by George W.
Bush to lead the Pentagon's military</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> review that largely defined the
scope of Secretary of Defense Donald</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> Rumsfeld's "transformation"
agenda. Marshall, whose ONA has served every</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> president since Nixon, introduced
the term "revolution in military</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> affairs."</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> In an article published Jan. 26 in
Fortune magazine, Marshall released the</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> findings of an unclassified
report-written by Peter Schwartz and Doug</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> Randall of the Global Business
Network-entitled "An Abrupt Climate Change</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> Scenario and Its Implications for
United States National Security."</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> Global Warming Happens</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> Until now, the debate over climate
change in the United States has focused</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> on whether global warming exists and
if so, whether it can be attributed</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> to human activity. In their report,
Schwartz and Randall close that debate</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> and raise the stakes. They write
that "the IPCC [International Panel on</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> Climate Change] documents the threat
of gradual climate change," deftly</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> allowing Marshall to implicitly
acknowledge that the IPCC findings have</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> sufficiently established what the
report calls "the scientifically proven</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> link between CO2 and climate change"
as well as the international</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> consensus around climate change
itself. But, while fully recognizing the</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> reality of global warming, the
report argues that the gradualist view "may</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> be a dangerous act of
self-deception." The real threat to national</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> security is from global warming
triggering an "abrupt climate change</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> event."</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> Abrupt climate change is an
increasingly probable and, the authors show, a</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> historically precedented event in
which global atmospheric warming</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> triggers a rapid modification in
global oceanic patterns. The report</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> focuses on the threat receiving the
most concern from researchers, which</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> occurs when atmospheric warming
releases enough fresh water into the North</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> Atlantic to shut down the
"thermohaline conveyor"-currents including the</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> Gulf Stream-that move warm water
north from the tropics. That, in turn</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> would send much of the Northern
Hemisphere into a deep freeze, disrupting</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> energy, agriculture and fresh water
supplies around the world.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> This is no abstract hypothetical
scenario. The Fortune article cites a</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> presentation made by Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institute director Robert</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> Gagosian who, at last year's World
Economic Forum at Davos, "urged</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> policymakers to consider the
implications of possible abrupt climate</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> change within two
decades."</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> Thankfully, Marshall did just that.
The ONA-commissioned report, using the</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> well-established scenario-planning
techniques developed at Shell's</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> planning unit, generated a plausible
future scenario in which the</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> thermohaline conveyor collapses in
2010. What follows that oceanic</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> shut-down sounds apocalyptic and yet
the authors contend, is quite</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> plausible.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> By 2020, average rainfall in Europe
drops 30 percent; "megadroughts"</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> affect Southern China and Northern
Europe; massive boatlifts of people</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> from the Caribbean attempt to enter
the United States and Mexico; China is</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> unable to feed its population due to
the combination of droughts and</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> violent monsoons and flooding;
Eastern European countries invade a</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> weakened Russia to seek minerals and
energy; nuclear India, Pakistan, and</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> China go to war over water, land,
and refugees. In all 400 million people</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> could be forced to migrate from
uninhabitable regions. In the United</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> States, the East Coast population
areas experience severe shortages of</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> freshwater; flooding creates an
inland sea in California's Central Valley</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> and disrupts freshwater supplies for
Southern California; and energy</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> disruptions are commonplace due to
storms, ice and conflict. The authors</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> make the point clear: this is not a
prediction, this is a plausible</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> scenario given what we know
now.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> Overcoming Resistance</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> While the content of this release
raises the alarm, Marshall is sending</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> multiple messages. The timing of the
Fortune article, for instance. For a</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> man of Marshall's long legacy of
discretion to directly challenge the</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> current administration's line on
global warming at the beginning of a</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> presidential election year speaks
volumes. That he chose to do so by</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> releasing a report by respected
business consultants in Fortune magazine</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> seems to say he wants the business
world, Bush's most important</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> constituency, to understand clearly
that the status quo is untenable.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> This extraordinary act by a senior
Defense Department official implies</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> high-level recognition that the Bush
administration's resistance to the</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> near global consensus on climate
change-a consensus that includes the vast</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> majority of the scientific
community, many corporations including General</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> Motors, Alcoa, IBM, DuPont, Johnson
& Johnson, and all the remaining</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> governments of the OECD-is a threat
to national security itself. Indeed,</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> last month in the journal Science,
the United Kingdom's Chief Scientific</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> Advisor declared that "climate
change is the most severe problem that we</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> are facing today-more serious even
than the threat of terrorism." Perhaps</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> inoculating itself from future
criticism the report states, "Many</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> scientists would regard this
scenario as extreme. . . But history tells us</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> that sometimes the extreme cases do
occur, there is evidence that it might</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> be [occurring] and it is DOD's job
to consider such scenarios."</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> And that resistance has been
staunch. In the battle over climate change,</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> according to a report from the group
Environment2004, the Bush</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> administration has both
misrepresented the science and misled the public.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> According to The New York Times, the
Bush administration acted to distort</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> and omit EPA findings on global
warming. The group notes that the</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> administration has dismissed the
findings of the International Panel on</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> Climate Change set up by the first
President Bush and the findings of a</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> panel of the National Academy of
Sciences that Bush himself requested.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> They document how administration has
tried to mislead the public by</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> substituting the absolute indicator
of total emissions with emissions per</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> unit of GDP, which can go down while
total U.S. emissions continue to</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> rise-and then asking emitters
(unsuccessfully) to voluntarily commit to</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> reducing emission intensity. And
they highlight how the administration has</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> stalled the debate by calling for a
research agenda which The New York</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> Times described as a "redundant
examination of issues that had largely</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> been settled, bereft of vision,
executable goals and timetables-in short,</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> little more than a cover-up for
inaction."</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> It's The Emissions,
Stupid</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> Ultimately, "Abrupt Climate
Change" is a report for the Department of</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> Defense. But not entirely. While DoD
is primarily concerned with</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> predicting the arrival of and
managing the security nightmare caused by</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> abrupt climate change, the report
also calls for prevention measures which</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> can only happen through a
transformation of the U.S. economy.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> "It's important to understand
human impacts on the environment-both what's</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> done to accelerate and decelerate
(or perhaps even reverse) the tendency</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> toward climate change. Alternative
fuels, greenhouse gas emission controls</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> and conservation efforts are
worthwhile endeavors."</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> Only a month ago, Democrats' best
chances in the 2004 general elections</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> relied heavily on the undesirable
combination of continued failure in Iraq</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> and sustained economic
underperformance. That began to change two weeks</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> ago, when the Institute for
America's Future brought together coalition of</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> labor and environmental groups
called the Apollo Alliance and issued a</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> report describing the core of a new
economic engine based on shifting</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> America from suburban sprawl and
fossil fuels towards smart growth and</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> renewable energy. (See Democrats'
Moon Shot</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> <<a
href="http://tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9820"
>http://tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9820</a>> )</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> Democrats now have a powerful
opportunity to reframe the 2004 elections</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> and focus their agenda around an
integrated agenda of triage and</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> transformation. Terrorism is still a
real threat and Iraq, Afghanistan,</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> Israel/Palestine and HIV/AIDS must
be stabilized and resolved. The larger</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> threat of abrupt climate change,
however, means we must comprehensively</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> transform our emissions-ridden
economy. Apollo is a good start, but now</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> Marshall's warnings make it clear
that America has no time to waste on low</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> emissions reduction targets and
wasteful subsidies, much less Bush's</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> stalling and deception. Global
emissions markets are the best answer.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> Research has shown that emissions
trading is the leading pathway to</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> eliminating emissions, energy
independence and reducing agricultural</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> subsidies that impoverish the
developing world-all of which will reduce</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> conditions that fuel terrorism and
the medium-term threat of abrupt</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> climate change while building a
booming new economic engine for America</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> and the world.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> Marshall's sense of patriotic
responsibility may just save the lives of</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> hundreds of millions of people
around the world and usher in a new era of</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> prosperity, sustainability and
peace-but only if Democrats reframe the</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> 2004 elections starting
now.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> Click here to subscribe to our free
e-mail dispatch</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> <<a
href="http://www.tompaine.com/subscribe.cfm"
>http://www.tompaine.com/subscribe.cfm</a>> and get the latest on
what's new</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> at TomPaine.com before everyone
else! You can unsubscribe at any time and</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> we will never distribute your
information to any other entity.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> Published: Feb 02 2004</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> Related links:</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> International Panel on Climate
Change Summary for Policy Makers</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> <<a
href="http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf"
>http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf</a>></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> Fortune.com "Climate Collapse:
the Pentagon's Weather Nightmare"</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> <<a
href=
"http://www.fortune.com/fortune/technology/articles/0,15114,582584,00.html"
>http://www.fortune.com/fortune/technology/articles/0,15114,582584,00<span
></span>.html</a></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> ></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> Environment 2004: Bush's Record on
Global Warming</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> <<a
href="http://www.environment2004.org/global_warming.php"
>http://www.environment2004.org/global_warming.php</a>></blockquote
>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> Tracey Rembert</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> Shareholder Action
Network</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> A Project of the Social Investment
Forum</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> 1612 K Street NW, Suite
650</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> Washington, DC 20006</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> (202)872-5313</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> <a
href="http://www.shareholderaction.org">www.shareholderaction.org</a
></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> Social Investment Forum</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>> <a
href="http://www.socialinvest.org">www.socialinvest.org</a></blockquote
>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>---</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>You are currently participating as: <a
href="mailto:greenebank@earthlink.net">greenebank@earthlink.net</a></blockquote
>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>To remove yourself, send a blank email to
<a
href="mailto:leave-san-883V@lists.coopamerica.org"
>leave-san-883V@lists.coopamerica.org</a></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial"
size="-1">____________________________________________________</font
></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><a
href="http://www.incredimail.com/redir.asp?ad_id=309&lang=9"><img
src="cid:p05210602bc483b98b5fc@[192.168.1.101].1.0"></a><font
face="Comic Sans MS" size="-1"> <i> IncrediMail</i> -<b> Email
has finally evolved</b> -</font> <a
href="http://www.incredimail.com/redir.asp?ad_id=309&lang=9"><font
 face="Times New Roman"><u><b>Click
Here</b></u></font></a></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>
<hr width="500"></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><tt><b>Yahoo! Groups
Links</b></tt></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><tt><br></tt></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>
<ul>
<li><tt>To visit your group on the web, go to:
<li></tt><a
href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/earthcare/"><tt
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/earthcare/</tt></a><tt>
<li> 
<li>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<li></tt><a
href="mailto:earthcare-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe"
><tt>earthcare-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com</tt></a><tt>
<li> 
<li>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the</tt> <a
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/"><tt>Yahoo! Terms of
Service</tt></a><tt>.</tt></ul>
</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
</body>
</html>