Global warming 2012: After Warmest 12-Months On Record, U.S. Poised To See Warmest Year Ever In 2012

Read the stories you need to in order to understand the dire straits man and the planet are in!

 

After Warmest 12-Months On Record, U.S. Poised To See Warmest Year Ever In 2012: The August 2011-July 2012 temperature beat the previous pre-2012 record by over half a degree Fahrenheit! Of course, if we keep doing nothing about human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, these records will be broken on an increasingly frequent basis 

— see Our hellish future: Definitive NOAA-led report on U.S. climate impacts warns of scorching 9 to 11°F warming over most of inland U.S. by 2090 with Kansas above 90°F some 120 days a year — and that isn’t the worst case, it’s business as usual! And for those who actually care about future generations, there is every reason to believe that the Earth would just keep getting hotter and hotter: Science stunner — On our current emissions path, CO2 levels in 2100 will hit levels last seen when the Earth was 29°F (16°C) hotter: 

Remember last year? 7/18/2010 No global warming?  2010 will be the hottest year on record! Can anyone say water wars?

8/12/2010 Berserk weather: Russia fires reach Chernobyl, UN warns of 2nd wave of death in Pakistan, Rains threaten China mudslide disaster zone

8/9/2010 Global warming raising hell with worlds weather

4/10/2012 We wonder why some wantonly destroy our planet, now I remember why

8/10/2012 Top Ten Things Climate Change Is Making Worse Right Now By Rebecca Leber and Ellie Sandmeyer

3/2/2007 This is the closest To the truth I have heard yet about Global Warming and I'm afraid it's true!

I have to say that those who have read my articles on the state of the planet know these observations might not be pleasant but I am afraid it is as bad as all that.

James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
http://anaverageamericanpatriot.blogspot.com

I have a Question: Insurgents give Blair Farewell, U.S. Air Base Attacked, Surge Success Bush Style?

About 50 suspected fighters have attacked a US base in the center of a city north of Baghdad, sparking a battle with US soldiers and helicopters in which at least six fighters have died, according to the Iraqi army. Friday's fighting took place in Baquba, a Sunni antigovernment stronghold.
Separately six suspected fighters were detained during raids in northeast Iraq. They were accused them of being members of a cell that imports powerful weapons from neighboring Iran, and brings Iraqis to Iran for training as fighters. Plus two Iraqi journalists working for ABC News were ambushed and killed as they drove home from work. of course only one resident spoke up but refused to be identified for fear of being killed by so called insurgents.
Meanwhile the unsuccessful search for the three missing American soldiers continues and it only succeeds in getting three more American soldiers killed. Amidst all this surge success a 24-hour curfew remained in place in Mosul, 360km northwest of Baghdad, for a third day on Friday.
It was imposed after fighters used five suicide vehicle bombs, mortars and small arms fire to destroy two bridges and attack a police station and a jail where suspected fighters were being held. More Surge Success?
Plus A suicide car bomber hit a police patrol in the Sunni-dominated town of Jurf al-Sakhar, 65 km south of Baghdad, killing three officers and wounding two and In the oil-rich city of Kirkuk, 290 km north of the Iraqi capital, drive-by shooters killed an Iraqi army officer as he was heading to work, police said. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3CA4A694-1D3D-4A4A-9B95-21C2CD487C74.htm
This is just one days surge success for Bush! North, North East, North West, South of Baghdad, and Bush says his surge is working? Meanwhile at the same time Three explosions rocked Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone on Saturday as British Prime Minister Tony Blair arrived for meetings with Iraqi government leaders, officials said. The explosions wounded one person, said U.S. Embassy spokesman Lou Fintor. According to preliminary reports, there were no deaths. "At approximately 11:30 a.m. there were four explosions," three of them that hit inside the Green Zone, Fintor said. This is only a 4-square-mile area in central Baghdad that holds the Iraqi government and parliament as well as headquarters for the U.S. military and diplomatic missions. http://www.cnn.com/...
The Green Zone is frequently the target of mortar and rocket attacks but I have to ask, we cannot even secure the Green Zone and the chaos is spreading throughout Iraq. This is success? How is it that every time a western Dignitary has a "surprise" visit at the Green Zone they seem to be attacked? Are insurgents somehow receiving advanced inside information?
You have to wonder if this is all success then what is Bush's real goal? You are left to believe that as we have been saying for years now that our troops and equipment must stay on line amidst Bush's success" until he can "succeed" in finding his excuse to attack Iran.

James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com

Republicans take Bush to the Woodshed, Bush will accept Benchmarks on Iraq but not himself!

There is no news here so I will not supply links unless someone asks because they have not seen the old news. The story here as always is in the interpretation and I am posting this early for me because I hope to have a long discussion on the subject.
As of the last few days we have heard that Bush has lost his main ally in his push for an illegal war in Iraq. Tony Blair as you know announced his resignation Thursday in a poignant — almost apologetic — speech to the nation, thanking his compatriots for his successes during more than a decade as prime minister, and seeking understanding for leading Britain into an unpopular war in Iraq. I expect Gordon Brown to replace Blair and he will not give Bush the blind support he has enjoyed to the demise of Blair.
At the same time Republicans have finally taken Bush to the woodshed on his mispolicies concerning Iraq and has agreed to Benchmarks for Iraqi progress.
The president's remarks came day after reports that 11 moderate Republican members of Congress held a blunt meeting with Bush in the White House to express growing concern over the war and to warn that his political support was eroding.
In his comments to reporters on Thursday, Bush quickly dismissed the idea, backed by many House Democrats, of a funding bill that would dispense resources in two stages. Congress would subject release of the second stage to another vote. I and other concerned Democrats see the vehicle as a means to put pressure on Bush over his management of the war and to press for him to begin withdrawing troops.
Bush of course threatens a veto again saying it is wrong to play politics with this and hamstring our troops as he has done and is doing. I cannot believe the obvious idiocy of this guys ststements are just listened to and we have not been able to successfully take him to task. This has all been taking place as Cheney is in Iraq misinforming the troops once again. He is stupidly lying to our troops again. Cheney framed the troops’ efforts as part of the fight against global terrorism and made no promise that an end was in sight.
"We’re fighting a war against terror," the vice president said, according to the prepared text of his remarks. "We are here, above all, because the terrorists who have declared war on America and other free nations have made Iraq the central front in that war." What happened to what he stupidly said last time that the insurgency was in its deathythroes?
Like you I am sick of hearing the lie that we are in Iraq fighting terrorists who have declare war on us. There were no terrorists in Iraq in Saddam's day as you know. Bush has brought them there to fight supposedly so we do not have to fight them here.
However Bush has diverted from Afghanistan to attack Iraq and begin what he wrongly thinks will be his idea of a new middle east order. Bush is now willing to accept Benchmarks on Iraq such as the Iraqis passing a new oil-sharing bill, updating the Iraqi constitution, and holding provincial elections but no Benchmarks on Bush in his endeavor to stay in the middle of his created hell and civil wart in Iraq.
He will accept these benchmarks as he said, as he moves forward in Iraq. That means he will stay the course until he is able to find an excuse to atack Iran as was only part of his original plan for his new midle east order. this will all end in total chaos but can't we all see that this is what Bush is doing?

James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com

British Marines still incommunicado in Iran, Blair promises a different phase as U.S. shows force in Gulf!

British Marines still incommunicado in Iran, Blair promises a different phase as U.S. shows massive force in Gulf! Does that help?
Looking at the recent confrontations with Iran on Iraq's land and water border with Iran and evaluating both instances I have come to the conclusion that Iran's Revolutionary Guard whose business it is to protect and defend The Islamic Revolution is instigating conflict with Britain and the U.S. http://www.dailykos.com/...
I understand that the captured Marine's will now be allowed contact with Embassy Officials but their location is not yet known and nothing has been resolved yet. I also understand that Tony Blair has vowed that Britain is prepared to move to a "different phase" if negotiations fail to free those held captive.
Asked what that meant, Blair said: "Well, we will just have to see, but what they should understand is that we cannot have a situation where our servicemen and women are seized when actually they are in Iraqi waters under a U.N. mandate, patrolling perfectly rightly and in accordance with that mandate, and then effectively captured and taken to Iran." British authorities we are told are confident that they have evidence to prove their insistence that the Royal Navy personnel never left Iraqi waters," and His office did say though that officials may have to make public evidence proving the Britons were seized in Iraqi -- not Iranian -- waters, if there is no swift release of the sailors. http://www.cnn.com/...
I just don't get it! If the Brits have evidence that proves the British were captured while in Iraqi or international waters then why are they not putting it out in the public? they say they want to resolve this quickly but seem to be allowing it to drag on. It is no coincidence that this has now gone on for four days and meanwhile the U.S. is putting a massive show of maritime and air force in the Gulf. The U.S. Navy on Tuesday began its largest demonstration of force in the Gulf since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, deploying two aircraft carriers and conducting simulated aerial attacks.
The maneuvers, involving 15 U.S. warships and more than a hundred planes, were certain to increase tension with Iran, which has frequently condemned the U.S. military presence off its coastline. According to navy Lieutenant John Perkins these maneuvers are only to demonstrate our flexibility and our capability to respond to threats to Maritime security and that we can keep the maritime environment safe and the vital link to the global economy open.
This supposedly was planned before the Revolutionary Guard incident but the Lieutenant declined to say when. So what does that tell you? We now have 2 carrier strike groups in the Gulf. Each carrier hosts an air wing of F/A-18 Hornet and Superhornet fighter-bombers, EA-6B Prowler electronic warfare aircraft, S-3 Viking antisubmarine and refuelers, and E-2C Hawkeye airborne command-and-control craft.
Also taking part were guided-missile destroyers USS Anzio, USS Ramage, USS O'Kane, USS Mason, USS Preble and USS Nitze; and minesweepers USS Scout, USS Gladiator and USS Ardent. Plus A French naval strike group, led by the aircraft carrier Charles DE Gaulle, was operating simultaneously just outside the Gulf but not participating in the exercise. http://www.cnn.com/...
With all this sea and air power concentrated in one small area it is just the perfect recipe for confrontation. No wonder we are beginning to collide. What else could be the expected outcome? Whose cause does this U.S. Naval exercise serve anyway, ours or Iran's? Both sides of this threatening conflict appear to be doing their damnedest to get this war going. There does not appear to be any way of stopping this desired war between Iran's Revolutionary Guard and Bush and his interests. Someone please tell me if I am wrong!

James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com

This is the closest To the truth I have heard yet about Global Warming and I'm afraid it's true!

I just finished reading this article and I was quite shocked at first but then I realized it is consistent with the investigation I did into Global climate change. The increased solar activity we've been having for the last 20 years or so could be an indication of a "polar shift". If or when this happens, England would indeed have a much colder climate. The article doesn't talk about the polar shift and the mainstream news reports minimize the importance of the changes we are seeing but there has indeed been a drastic shifting of the magnetic pole:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...

The article I've pasted at the end of this message, says the Bush WH ignored" and tried to "hide" the information because it doesn't want to accept climate change as a result of fossil fuels but this may not be the case. They could very well be keeping this quiet because nothing can be done except buy a few thousand acres as the Bush family has done.

Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us and this is not a new article!Sunday February 22, 2004The Observer:

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters. A secret report, suppressed by US defense chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.
The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents. 'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis.

'Once again, warfare would define human life.' The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defense is a priority. I hate to say it but in reality he won't bat an eye
.
The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defense adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network. An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is 'plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately', they conclude.
As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions. What pisses me off even more is that their are those that still ridicule Al Gore and call his movie "a Convenient Lie"
Last week the Bush administration came under heavy fire from a large body of respected scientists who claimed that it cherry-picked science to suit its policy agenda and suppressed studies that it did not like. Jeremy Symons, a former whistle blower at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said that suppression of the report for four months was a further example of the White House trying to bury the threat of climate change.

Senior climatologists, however, believe that their verdicts could prove the catalyst in forcing Bush to accept climate change as a real and happening phenomenon. They also hope it will convince the United States to sign up to global treaties to reduce the rate of climatic change.

A group of eminent UK scientists recently visited the White House to voice their fears over global warming, part of an intensifying drive to get the US to treat the issue seriously. Sources have told The Observer that American officials appeared extremely sensitive about the issue when faced with complaints that America's public stance appeared increasingly out of touch.

One even alleged that the White House had written to complain about some of the comments attributed to Professor Sir David King, Tony Blair's chief scientific adviser, after he branded the President's position on the issue as indefensible.

Among those scientists present at the White House talks were Professor John Schellnhuber, former chief environmental adviser to the German government and head of the UK's leading group of climate scientists at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. He said that the Pentagon's internal fears should prove the 'tipping point' in persuading Bush to accept climatic change.

Sir John Houghton, former chief executive of the Meteorological Office - and the first senior figure to liken the threat of climate change to that of terrorism - said: 'If the Pentagon is sending out that sort ofmessage, then this is an important document indeed.'

Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added that the Pentagon's dire warnings could no longer be ignored. 'Can Bush ignore the Pentagon? Why not? It won't be the first time but It's going be hard to blow off this sort of document. Its hugely embarrassing. After all, Bush's single highest priority is national defense. The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group, generally speaking it is conservative. If climate change is a threat to national security and the economy, then he has to act. There are two groups the Bush Administration tend to listen to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon,' added Watson.

'You've got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and acrossthe Potomac river you've got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars. It's pretty scary when Bush starts to ignore his own government said Rob Gueterbock of Greenpeace.

Already, according to Randall and Schwartz, the planet is carrying a higher population than it can sustain. By 2020 'catastrophic' shortages of water and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome, plunging the planet into war. They warn that 8,200 years ago climatic conditions brought widespread crop failure, famine, disease and mass migration of populations that could soon be repeated.

Randall told The Observer that the potential ramifications of rapid climate change would create global chaos. 'This is depressing stuff,' he said. 'It is a national security threat that is unique because there isno enemy to point your guns at and we have no control over the threat.'

Randall added that it was already possibly too late to prevent a disaster happening. 'We don't know exactly where we are in the process. It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years,'he said.
'The consequences for some nations of the climate change are unbelievable. It seems obvious that cutting the use of fossil fuels would be worthwhile.'

So dramatic are the report's scenarios, Watson said, that they may prove vital in the US elections and that better mean election for Al Gore who knows climate change as a real problem.

Symons, who left the EPA in protest at political interference, said that the suppression of the report was a further instance of the White House trying to bury evidence of climate change. 'It is yet another example of why this government should stop burying its head in the sand on this issue.'
Symons said 'This administration is ignoring the evidence in order to placate a handful of large energy and oil companies,' he added.

I have to say that those who have read my articles on the state of the planet know these observations might not be pleasant but I am afraid it is as bad as all that.

James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
http://anaverageamericanpatriot.blogspot.com

Britain Deflates Russia's threat to attack U.S. MDS in Poland and Czechoslovakia! What's next?

In light of the fact that I have been posting regularly on the threats by Russia to the U.S., Czechoslovakia, and Poland over the missile defense systems that were set to be installed there I originally thought these threats by Russia to attack the host countries was not to counter what they perceived as a threat to them but as an excuse to come to Iran's aid not that they need any more mind you. However now I don't know! http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/21/10018/0362
Any way I am very pleased to see this threat at least diffused I hope but what is next? Recently we have learned that Britain is preparing to decrease its troops in Iraq and yesterday I for one was pleased to hear that Britain was increasing its troops in Afghanistan. finding this out last night took some more additional weight off my mind anyway.
Britain and the United States said yesterday that they were discussing the stationing of the American anti-ballistic-missile defense system on British soil.
Knowing these discussions were under years makes me think there is some validity behind Russia's concerns. Why hasn't this been mentioned before?
As we discussed The United States had previously offered to locate the missile system in the Czechoslovakia and Poland provoking strong objection from Russia, though Washington argues that the system is not built to defend against Russia but against Iran, principally, and other potential threats. As I said, now that I am finding out that talks between Britain and the United States have in going on for quite a while I am no longer sure of Bush's intentions what about you?
According to Blair's spokeswoman, Britain has been secretly lobbying for inclusion in the system for some time. Again I have to ask why has this not been mentioned to Russia? Is there any benefit to having the systems in Czechoslovakia and Poland unless threatening Russia was the ulterior motive?
Britain seems to genuinely want to be chosen to house the systems. I say be careful what you ask for you may get it. It seems to me like this will only bring major trouble for whoever bases these systems. What do you think? "The prime minister thinks it is a good idea that they are part of the consideration by the United States.
Blair believe it is an important step towards providing missile defense coverage for Europe, of which they are part." but myself I don't know. Now I hear that the radar systems were already in final testing in Britain. What gives? http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/23/news/shield.php
Just reading the above story on The recent discussions over the missile defense systems, Britain's troop deployments in Iraq, the Balkans, Northern Ireland, and the announcement to add more troops in Afghanistan I am finding Bush has torn apart and stressed out Britain and its military and people as much as he has ours and the rest of the world it seems. What will be the end results of this idiots messes around the world?

James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com