Smoking and Global Warming

From a hotel room in Central Jakarta, Indonesia news agency Pena's final report describes the development of the tobacco industry today. This report in the form of 65 pages thick magazine with the headline on the front page "Hypocrisy & Myths Behind the Tobacco Industry".

Pena Indonesia claims this report is based on investigative reports on various search tobacco industry documents. Also includes two CD or compact disk that contains thousands of documents multinational industries in Indonesia. As the documents from British American Tobacco or BAT, Philips Morris and others.

The workshop was attended among journalists and health activists. Aim to provide insight into the existence of secret documents related to the coming of the giants of the world tobacco industry and its relationship with Indonesia.

This workshop also received support from the world health agency WHO's Indonesia representative, IAKMI-Public Health Specialist Association of Indonesia and SEATCA-The Southeast Asia Tobacco Control Alliance.

Pena Indonesia to work for three months and glared through the computer. Digging thousands of documents online from seven giant cigarette recorded in the period 1960 until the early 2000s. At least there are about 28,000 of thousands more documents from British American Tobacco or BAT Indonesia is stored in digital libraries of the University of California, San Francisco, United States.

Walk through also take place in the site's Legacy Tobacco Documents Library that contains an internal document of Philips Morris, RJ Reynolds, Lorillard and Brown & Williamson. The result is reported and written by Farid Gaban and Alfian Hamzah from Pena Indonesia news agency and Mardiyah Chamim of Tempo Magazine. Coverage and support in the form of grant funding from Essential Action Global Partnership for Tobacco Control, based in Washington.

This story began in 1998. This year may be spelled out in the most unfortunate for the cigarette industry in America. Attorney General State of Minnesota, United States, Hubert Humphrey III blew the whistle loud warning to cigarette industry. Attorney General asked the seven smoking industry giants to open all their secret documents to the public. Aim to find the truth.

These documents are internal documents containing various letters to the authorities, scientists, media tricks to boost the tobacco business. Seven giant companies, among others, from Philip Morris Incorporated, RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company, British American Tobacco (BAT), Brown and Williamson, the Ligget Group and The Tobacco Institute and The Council for Tobacco Research and the Lorillard Tobacco Company.

American courts have six million documents with 35 million pages. Each page is a seal and code number of lawyers the industry to ensure its authenticity. The court also requires the tobacco industry parties in order to deposit the documents until the year 2008.

While in England, the mountains of British American Tobacco documents typically stored in the warehouse Guilford, Surrey, England. BAT archiving online documents is done by the University of California, San Francisco, United States.

There are seven million documents in the form of scanned documents. And spent about four years to make efforts for their hard work. Unfortunately, according to Duncan Cambell, an American investigative journalist who helped search smoking industry documents, the claim that there are about 181 file that contains thousands of pages of documents had been lost. These missing documents are not clear and it is possible rimbanya associated with regions of other countries, like Indonesia.

One of the investigations of this American smoking industry had contrived movie "The Insider" that tell about the search an American television journalist uncover fraud in the levels toxins. Media in the United States to encourage and influence the people that smoking is a threat. Cigarettes became citizen issues and then encouraging the birth of a strict smoking regulations and basic.

Tobacco industry should be controlled and strictly controlled. For owners in the U.S. tobacco industry is not a condition of a good climate. And ask the American government to the strict rules that only apply in the United States alone. And does not apply to international business networks in different parts of other countries. Post-1998 invasion was in progress. And objectives that cigarette owners are the countries that enter the third country groups.

How to countries in the region, especially Indonesia in association with the document? Indonesia belonged to a third country is not it? Indonesia is a land tender and a haven for the global tobacco industry of the world. Tobacco industry in Indonesia incarnate and was like a "kingdom" of its own. He played many roles and automatic movements do not get a lot of obstacles and barriers.

Either statutory, economic, social to the political path. The smoking industry in Indonesia grew rapidly and slippery. Borrowing the term's largest daily newspaper in West Java, the People's Mind, the tobacco industry as "Spreads and entrenched". Not a lot of media in Indonesia to criticism, preaching especially to make a profound statement relating cigarette industry is. Indonesia received with open field every movement, ideas, and the influence of the tobacco industry in developing its business extensively.

We can learn many things from the tobacco industry documents. Learn how they work, determine the position and influence policy makers, economic, media until the "buy-sell" research. The document gives a clear and detailed. We just need to work hard, carefully detailing, and built of sheets of documents to obtain a complete picture of the building of the world tobacco industry as a whole.

According to the Southeast Asia Tobacco Control Alliance (SEATCA)-based institutions in Thailand, in its report Profiting from Death: Exposing the Tobacco Industry Tactics in ASEAN Countries, October 2007, explained that until now the region cigarette consumption of about 50 per cent of world tobacco consumption. And Asia considered as an important market future of the world tobacco industry.

While 10 countries joined to the ASEAN approximately 31 percent or 125.8 million ASEAN youth population are smokers. Or about 10 percent-1, 25 billion-from the number of young smokers smokers of the world continue to increase and the country joined ASEAN contributed to the death rate from smoking as much as 20 percent!

SEATCA is a partnership network of state agencies that merged into the ASEAN which undertakes research, advocacy and capacity building in each of its members. SEATCA work and build advocacy mission to its members who have made ratification of the WHO convention, tobacco control over the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) - including Thailand, Malaysia, Cambodia and Vietnam. While Indonesia is the only country in Asia which until this moment has not ratified these conventions.

WHO convention on tobacco control is essential to apply in the cigarette industry in Indonesia. This Convention will regulate and control the tobacco industry. There are about 38 articles in the convention and aims to improve the quality of global health.

Business development to move the tobacco industry is not in the form of a single strategic one. Business strategy will follow the situation in each area of development. He worked to organize and determine the target groups, facilitate the political policies that support good business that comes from the government or the people's representatives, to work with anyone to make promotional efforts and form a fully market.

Tobacco industry to build its image through a variety of ways. From the ad creates a direct communication with consumers by placing cigarette products through billboards, print ads and electronic media, posters, accessories, colors and logo outlets that causes the image of tobacco products.

Promotional activities by distributing free cigarette samples, offers coupons, contests, lotteries, tickets to watch sports games and racing, music concerts, fund a film, talk shows, street party to its activities in the form of corporate social responsibility or Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR ) which supports scholarships, environmental aid projects and other activities under the company name or the name of the tobacco industry products. Including providing scholarships to journalists and school children are achievers.

SEATCA survey research on the control status of the rules about promotion, advertising, CSR and sponsorship in seven ASEAN countries in 2007. Including in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam. Five countries have quite strict rules to regulate the issue ads, prmosi, sponsorship and CSR.

These five countries include Laos, Malaysia, Philippines, Vietnam and Thailand. Of these five countries, Thailand has very strict rules against tobacco industry and conduct strict limits. Two of the most free, no rules, no control and no restrictions are Cambodia and Indonesia!

Cambodia and Indonesia is a paradise for the tobacco industry. The two countries are relatively poor country is not it? Indonesia is estimated to have poverty rates of 49 percent with the cost of living average of two dollars per day for America. Both do not have rules and restrictions governing tobacco control issues closely.

For the tobacco industry is the most profitable opportunities. Cigarette industry has any power and capital to boost its business and profit maximization. The industry offers a dream potion and promotional advertising to the public to climb out of poverty.

And offer words suggestive ads and interesting success. This is a dream and the dream for all people. Tobacco industry's success by offering a cigarette. Giving up tobacco are one of the main way for each person to climb out of poverty and live success quickly.

Poverty became the land for profit. And the industry was well aware of this condition. Poverty, lack of regional representation and the role of government, lack of political consciousness, and the role of the media who are helpless in cigarette advertising.

AC Nielsen figures show the year 2006 tobacco sector advertising expenditure of Rp 1.6 trillion. Which moron media would lose and the offer of money for it? One media in Indonesia may be conscious and choose not to accept tobacco ads. But the question is the extent to which the power of this medium will survive? And refrain from the onslaught of cigarette advertising.

Cigarettes became the main consumption for the poor. Cigarette consumption throughout the year reached 225 billion sticks. Cigarettes have a 4000 toxic chemicals. And cigarettes are the leading cause of cancer-causing disease, heart and other diseases that cause death in the long run. Every year people die as indicated by the cigarette causes as many as 400 thousand in Indonesia!

The number of smokers Indonesia increased sharply. Based on the national economic survey Statistic The Central Bureau in the period 2001-2004, there has been surge in novice smokers and under the age of 10 years rose 0.4 percent to 2.8 percent. National Commission on Child Protection also get a number that 90 percent of teenagers smoke because of advertising Indonesia. Teenagers became the main target for the tobacco industry.

This figure is worrying, and then in February 2007 several members of the legislature moved to make some rules to restrict smoking. These rules are expected to restrict, control and restrict tobacco issues involving the activities of young children. This rule also requires an increase in cigarette excise tax by 60 percent to minimize people buy cigarettes. And encouraged to expand research on the impact of smoking on health.

In 1999, Indonesia has issued Government Regulation 81 / 1999 concerning Security Cigarettes For Health, Government Regulation 38/1999 on Procedures for the Tobacco Product Advertising Media and Government Regulation 19/2003 regarding the obligations of cigarette manufacturers to include warnings on product packaging.

Indonesia also benefited from this condition. From the cigarette industry sector contribution in the form of tax revenue amounting to Rp 38.5 trillion last year. And this year is expected to increase to Rp 42 trillion.

Cigarette business in Indonesia is very sweet. Two Indonesian families who do business in the ranks of cigarettes in the world's richest list of Forbes Magazine. Rachman Halim family including Gudang Garam owners with assets of U.S. $ 1.9 billion and occupies 538 warning. Budi Hartono and family of the order of Djarum 664 with assets of U.S. $ 1.5 billion.

Indonesia's cigarette tax mostly cheap compared with other countries. Australia, Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore set the cigarette tax by 70 percent. While in Indonesia, just set the highest cigarette tax by 40 percent. With this tax rate retail price of cigarettes in Indonesia is the fifth of the price compared to the price of cigarettes in Malaysia.

The price of cheap cigarettes is boosting consumer smokers in Indonesia. Access to cigarettes is very easy. Based on the last survey the WHO and the American Cancer Society, about 70 percent of Indonesian smokers are male. And 3 percent of women smokers Indonesia.

Indonesia plays a dual role misleading. One side of the income he earned from cigarette but on the other hand many of Indonesia will lose its human resources because of damage caused by cigarettes. But health insurance companies in Indonesia which would warranty his client about the consequences of smoking?

Anti-smoking campaign world continues to strengthen. Rich countries and educated aware of the dangers from smoking. Anti-smoking movement harder and try to campaign on this issue at the level of the global movement. Federation of Football Association (FIFA) and even signed an agreement with WHO to regulate and prohibit tobacco sponsorship in the football field.

MTV supports anti-smoking campaign and urged teenagers not to smoke. Countries in Europe and other Asian and ratify the convention followed tobacco control (FCTC).

But resistance to the cigarette industry in Indonesia is still very weak. Anti-smoking movement both from citizens, communities, doctors, including from the media yet strong. WHO Indonesia chose a few names of artists and athletes for the national sports anti-smoking campaign. Among tennis champion Angelique Widjaja, bodybuilder Ade Rai, and model Tracy Trinita.

But not enough to represent all three and move the people of Indonesia to establish anti-smoking movement. Indonesia needs a great figure and steady for anti-smoking movement. Not just a slogan anti-smoking course. But the anti-smoking movement is broad and strategic.

In short, the anti-smoking movement in Indonesia is still classified as impotent. He needs power and a strong force to stem the solid and aggressive opposition from the tobacco industry. And the journalist is to write the movement and continue to oversee the expansion of logging from the cigarette industry.

Advertising and propaganda war going on in the struggle of black smoke world. And Indonesia is a powerful combat areas to map the world of today's global cigarette. This is also related to the local cigarette industry in Indonesia. As the local industry in the Spirit, Malang, Jember and Kediri. Local cigarette industry in Indonesia has also played an important role in influencing the smoking community.

In Indonesia, known as clove cigarettes while smoking outside the product known as white smoke. Local cigarette industry is small kings tobacco and many are in Java. Expansion of the world tobacco industry bosses squirm with aggressive and strong and try to master the current market share. White cigarettes clove cigarettes fight.

Who is most powerful? The smoking industry to build myths, facts and misleading research about smoking. And we know that the victims of the battle is the health of everyday citizens will decline. Indonesia and countries allow their citizens health downfall.

The facts of the dangers of cigarettes and dark tobacco industry's propaganda is clear. Cigarettes are not for compromise but should be controlled and regulated by the government and the legislature. Indonesian society should be aware that cigarettes are now become an alarming epidemic.

The event will end in 2007 Indonesia was elected to conduct a global discussion about global warming. Took place in December in Bali. Global discussions is very important to discuss and take strategic steps related to the issue of global warming and the environment. Indonesia is also classified as bad in the environmental area.

Indonesia, including the red-prone areas in environmental issues such as illegal logging, mining, industrial pollution and waste emissions from motor vehicles. This global discussion will produce decisions and policies are very important. The result will encourage each state leaders and citizens to support and implement strategic measures to curb global warming today.

I was shocked when he read a daily newspaper, the National Journal. At the bottom of the column main page newspaper ads plastered on the implementation of a global warming in Bali later. With a dominant ads with light green color close to the color icon environmental issues.

This print ad includes a statement or countdown days in December 2007. These ads also put the name of a cigarette company, Sampoerna and have the word "Green" which could also be interpreted to refer to one of the main products of the Sampoerna cigarette.

I am sad to see the discussion of global warming will have to obtain sponsorship from the tobacco industry. The business and its profits are the majority coming from Indonesia's poor. Perhaps the sadness I continue to dissolve and be a voice lost and forgotten in the noisy turmoil of global warming event later.

This should be an important note, the mirror itself and becomes a question of us all. Environmental issues are common issues. He departed from his conscience and our common sense. What is worthy of global warming event comes from a tobacco company? Cigarettes, however, the toxin and one of the main causes of death. Is not nothing wrong that the global warming program would come from the tobacco industry?

A pile of tobacco industry internal documents they provided a clear answer. Problem tactics, plans, strategies, political lobbying and build awareness about the error and dirty cigarettes.

I am very sorry critical discussion of global warming there are stains and thorns. This becomes a wedge and a slap on the cliches of the world. As if life and life is going on and started from a cigarette.

Cigarette slogan is not lip service. And strength in the cigarette industry in Indonesia indicate that fact. And this is not true. Tobacco industry is seen to make traps and myths. Cigarettes are an important issue of humanity. Life of the cigarette world full of compromise power, deceit and dark strategy.

And it is probably true in the world struggle of cigarettes, as he had been written by Ben Jonson long ago in The Alchemist (The Alchemist) that "Alchemy was a kind of game, Like a card trick, to deceive man, with great charm".

Conrad really loves his home and family and lives life to the full and has been writing about his knowledge and experience. Feel free to see some of his material at Lawn Tractor Attachments and juice Dispenser [http://juicedispenser.net].

Global Warming - Everything You (Don't) Want to Know About it!

A wise, cynical, political maxim "Follow the money" - is global warming for real? Global warming and human causation - are they two sequential scientific truths - or do they represent political ideology running amok? Is global-Earth really warming from carbon emissions and a greenhouse effect - and is it a true threat to the planet: oceans on the rise to inundate urban centers? Is it caused by mankind's flagrant disregard of pollution from fossil fuels - spewed wantonly for almost a century: fireplaces, factories, automobiles, airplanes? Or (per rightist-extremism fears) is it only a "propaganda tsunami" from radical left-wing ideologists, using politicized pseudo-science to "level-the international-industrial-playing-field" by penalizing capitalism and the US?

The shocking reality (to those of casual interest) is the unprecedented recent gathering at Copenhagen of all world leaders in December, 2009 - 193 countries, with entire staffs and entourages: democracies, kingdoms, dictatorships; from first-world industrial nations to third-world consortiums of famine-fighting villages - all of-a-common purpose: to impose severe civilization-disrupting constraints and financial penalties upon efficient industrial activity! What could be the forcing function to organize such a gathering with such an agenda?

Two considerations should give a reasonable person pause - in view of the drastic changes and penalties contemplated - shouldn't there have been a science-session preamble, establishing unquestionable proof of the premise before such extreme decisions were sought? On the disclosures of leaked emails from Great Britain just prior to the conference - admissions of falsified temperature data - where was a stunned reaction by the scientific-community to this challenge to trust-worthiness; where was a scurrying to reestablish faith in their global temperature-rise conclusion? Instead, what the world saw was "cooked" temperature disclosures swept "under the rug", a media effort to "shoot the messenger" (email hackers). How can that not be disturbing to objective minds? Absent any preliminary scientific presentation to prove the global-warming scenario, then the media cover-up - is a conclusion of powerful political machinations and agenda not unreasonable?

Consider also, the US House of Representatives has already passed a Cap-and-Trade bill, as if - again -man-caused global warming is proven fact - with hundreds of billions-of-dollar-consequences to American industrial life ($1700 to $2000 per family per year estimated; worth billions to GE, etc.); it awaits only comparable Senate action to be signed into law by President Obama! Or even worse - with the authority of presidential decree, the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) has now assumed the executive power to establish costly pollution standards for US industry (not even awaiting a US Senate bill)!

On the other hand - if one does accept the scenario of global warming - man-made pollution from industrial nations being a major cause, emerging countries (e.g. India and China), do then have a compelling argument: since everyone shares planet Earth, where heretofore industrialized countries have had a gigantic head-start advantage - using cheap energy and causing emission/carbon pollutants - should not ascending countries be given their right to "catch up"; shouldn't the US and other industrialized countries pay heavy compensation (perhaps a trillion dollars per year - most by the US)?

The international unanimity of purpose and size of the Copenhagen conference has never before been seen: not world rebellion against military powers; nor against dominant religions; nor political ideologies - only one single objective, to reduce carbon and impose penalties. Right-wingers see an unleashed political ideology in this unprecedented international undertaking: a combination of left-wing governments and media joining with openly communist dictators in every hemisphere. Even thoughtful commentators upon the world scene, like Charles Krauthammer, see something amiss!

So what do true scientist-experts in the specific technical field of Earth's atmosphere say? Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D., is a Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and has written extensively on the subject. His analysis is summarized below in an effort to separate "wheat from chaff" for lay-man understanding - whether global warming is, in fact, really occurring; whether man-made industrial emissions are the proximate cause; and whether the threat to planet Earth is truly imminent. Below are Prof. Lindzen's talking points:

Despite exaggerated emotion-evoking statements, surface temperatures have shown cycles of global cooling as well as warming for over a century: cooling from 1875 to 1910, warming from 1911 to 1943, cooling from 1944 to 1976, warming from 1977 to 1998, but no warming since - we are now experiencing an 8th year of cooling. While all these changes were happening, carbon dioxide levels has continually risen.
There are five major world centers which collect global temperature data: the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (where recent email leaks of doctored data occurred); Remote Sensing Systems; the University of Alabama at Huntsville; the Goddard Institute for Space Studies; and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. All of these temperature data centers show no warming since 1998, and all show cooling by varying degrees since.
Significant problems (for honest scientific projections) arise when using surface temperature records to track global changes: the number of worldwide climate-measuring sites has dropped from 6,000 in 1970 to under 2,000 today; two-thirds of the closed weather stations were in country areas (colder night-time temperatures); whereas those remaining include a high percentage of urban stations (warmer night-time readings due to concrete pavements, buildings and urban sprawl). This fact alone biases the overall temperature record, as urban areas around the world have grown exponentially in the last 50 years - studies indicate that perhaps half of indicated "warming" in the data base during the last fifty years is due to land-use changes - not increases in energy emission. Urban growth is thus the major cause of man-made temperature-increase data.
NASA is quoted as stating that the oceans were warmer in the summer of 2009 than ever before - arrived at by subtracting satellite-measured ocean temperatures from ocean temperature base data - however, NASA does not use the (over 3300) ARGO buoys deployed in world oceans - which, contrarily, show ocean heat-content falling ever since the buoys were deployed in 2003.
No statistical relationship exists between carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and temperatures during the last 150 years - however, a strong statistical relationship does exist between the cyclic Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and global temperature. The PDO shows a 60 year cycle of warming and cooling of the Pacific Ocean - in every instance over the last 150 years: when the PDO was cooling, the global temperature cooled; when the PDO was warming, the global temperature rose. The PDO has now shifted back to a cooling phase - as has air temperature.
The total carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is only 4 hundredth of one percent (0.0004 of total atmosphere). The total increase by volume of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the last 150 years is only one hundredth of one percent (0.0001). This has actually benefited agriculture and plant life, which grow faster with more carbon dioxide (the well-known animal-plant symbiosis - oxygen and carbon dioxide exchanges), and are more resistant to drought.
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant - everything that grows on earth needs it, the source being irrelevant. If all carbon dioxide were removed from air (which animals breathe), earth would die.
Ice cores show that increases in carbon dioxide in the past were the result of warmer temperature, not the cause of it. The laws of nature have not changed. Most of the increases in carbon dioxide in the air are the result of nature, the human component being small, perhaps 3 percent. Also, half the carbon dioxide emitted into the air by human activity each year, is immediately absorbed into the biosphere. Carbon dioxide is 3.5 percent of the greenhouse effect - water vapor is 95 percent. Since human activity only adds 3 percent a year, with half of that absorbed into the biosphere, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect each year is about one-tenth-of-one-percent. Reducing this amount by some fraction will have no significant effect on global temperatures.
There is a strong relationship (ignored by pro-warming advocates) between the strength of the solar wind and global temperature. Strong solar wind equals a warmer earth, weak solar wind equals a cooler earth. Variations in cosmogenic isotopes of carbon 14 and beryllium 10 in ice cores prove this. Right now the solar wind is weaker than anytime that NASA has been able to measure it (nearly 50 years) and the earth is cooling. The solar magnetic index is the lowest since measurements began in 1932, and continues to lessen. The Pacific Ocean is in a cool phase and will be so for another 25 years. The Atlantic is showing signs of cooling. The heat source of the sun is weak and will likely be so for the next two solar cycles. We are heading for colder temperatures, not warmer.
The downward cyclic trend in the amount of ice remaining in the Arctic at the end of summer has ended. Polar-orbiting satellites clearly show the extent of arctic ice, which is increasing - there is 25 percent more ice today than two years ago (dramatic Arctic photos of drastic ice reductions over very many decades are misleading - probably intentionally).
Satellite measurements show there is more ice in the Antarctic than 30 years ago - news media report only shrinking ice in the Arctic, never about ice growth in Antarctica.
The melting of glaciers is not new. The "Little Ice Age" was from 1400 to 1850. The coldest temperatures were in the 1600s. Global temperature has been rising unevenly for 300 years. Glaciers have been retreating unevenly for at least 250 years.
Data from the Earth Radiation Budget Satellite show outgoing longwave radiation (heat) increased by 4 watts per square meter in the 1980s and 1990s, while the oceans were undergoing a cyclic warming. Computer models predicted outgoing longwave radiation would decrease as oceans warmed. All the models used by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were wrong. (Note, more on IPCC later.)
Indicating a clear intent to present a political viewpoint on environmentalism rather than honest fact, an April 2009 Time magazine article, with major input from environmental groups, reported there were "only" 25,000 polar bears remaining in the arctic today - omitting the fact that in the 1960s, the number was but 5,000,

Some significant comments by Dr. Lindzen get to the heart of his concerns about the scientific accuracy of the global warming "sellathon" and its possible motivation - with "follow the money" considerations; his specific quoted words are;

CO2 - what is it? Not a pollutant, CO2 is a product of every living creature's breathing; it's the product of all plant respiration; it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis; it is a product of all industrial burning; it is a product of [automobile] driving - I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from human exhalation to travel, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.
Large environmental groups, political "leaders" and eco-activists believe: just reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and we can regulate the world temperature. People who think this way are far more dangerous than global warming itself (if it were true), because some of these people wield great power.
Computer models say that there should be a rapid warming of the upper troposphere - between 30 degrees north and south of the equator - if global warming is proceeding. However, measurements with weather balloons over the last 50 years show no such warming. This proves the computer models do not predict how the climate system works - [predicting] the climate 50 to 100 years in the future. Computer model forecasts of warming are not evidence of climate change. They are marketing tools for research institutions and universities to continue their funding from our government. Despite concerns re motivation, this means the models make wrong assumptions about how climate-complexity works, and are scientifically useless in making any climate policy.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed in the late 1980s to "prove" human burning of fossil fuels causes global warming - from its beginning it was never a scientific organization - it was formed with a biased political agenda. The true goal is to capture political power from dominant countries through climate treaties (Kyoto)- partly to insure the institutions own survival. These treaties give the UN the legal power to redistribute the wealth of developed nation. The concept of "climate debt" owed to third world countries is justification. The debt would be retribution for the industrialized nation's sin of "polluting" the climate with carbon dioxide - using all the available carbon space in the air. It is the UN's goal to use global warming to extract money from developed nations without having to work for it. Recently the chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, announced "We're at a stage where the warming is happening at a much faster rate." Apparently, he does not look at real world data.
As for Al Gore, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 - his message of fearing global warming has the third world now demanding "climate reparations" for damage that the western world has inflicted on climate over the last 150 years. They now say we owe 'Climate Debt' because we have used up all the carbon space in the air. This is not promoting peace, it is causing tension and anger in the developing countries towards the west - Gore's "peace prize" is having the opposite effect. As for Gore's financial investments in green companies, "beware of prophets seeking profits". The urge to save the world is always a cover for the need to rule it."
The "climategate" emails prove that there is at best, blind ambition among some of the worlds leading climate scientists - and at worst, criminal activity. The reaction of much of the mainstream media in the United States is proving to be very revealing. They either don't report the story or they defend the actions of the climate scientists. Some of these leading scientists were caught intimidating scientific journals to keep skeptics prom publishing, and altering data to make the case for man-made global warming. The emails also reveal that these scientists have deleted data or refused freedom-of-information requests; and have deleted emails relevant to those requests, a criminal offence. NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies has also been stonewalling freedom-of-information efforts. It is clear from the emails that a small but powerful group of leading climate scientists have used their lofty positions to pervert the science of climate change.

Beyond the realm of of hard scientific data points such as temperature, velocity and direction; air and sea; locations and dates, Dr. Lindzen extrapolates his knowledge of the limitations of atmospheric mathematical modeling into conjecture as to motivation for weather-scientists proclamations of man-caused global warming. The phrase "Follow the money" has often proved reliable as a roadmap to explain otherwise puzzling activities. Many powerful groups and organizations have strong financial interests in American belief that carbon dioxide is pollution: domestically this includes influential environmental groups, brokerage houses, corporations, universities, media outlets and political parties, as well as third world governments. The evidence is widespread - cash-strapped states and cities, with hundreds of millions of federal monies earmarked for "green energy" development, decades away from practicality - while essential infrastructure programs, such as water mains, highways and bridges, are unfunded. On the UN scene, conscience and liberal guilt have become the means to international spreading of the wealth.

Some of Dr. Lindzen's observations warrant notice:

On the day the Copenhagen conference opened, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency claimed jurisdiction over the regulation of carbon emissions in the US - flatly declaring them an "endangerment" to human health.
Since the US has an overwhelmingly carbon-based economy, the EPA is thus claiming authority to regulate practically everything. No institution that emits more than 250 tons of C02 a year will be beyond EPA control - over a million building complexes, hospitals, plants, schools, businesses and similar enterprises.
This naked assertion of vast executive (presidential) power in the name of the environment becomes the perfect fulfillment of the prediction of Czech President Vaclav Klaus that environmentalism is becoming the new socialism. Going into the possibility of even darker motivation, Dr. Lindzen points out a world socialistic scenario - the conceding of US sovereihnity to the UN, with the domination of the UN by ultra-liberal groups and (numerically controlling) Islamic-Arab oil controlling countries.

Similar grave concerns are expressed by other scientists, including charges of U.N. "fraud"on climate change - Dr. Philip Lloyd, an honorary research fellow at the Energy Research Center at the University of Cape Town in South Africa, has been a coordinating lead author for the United Nations IPCC. According to Dr. Lloyd, the IPCC should be dismissed as an authority on global warming - in an article that appeared on South Africa's BusinessDay Web site. Dr. Lloyd writes about the "flaws behind the whole process" of the IPCC:

The IPCC "claims that it has thousands of scientists and almost as many reviewers producing their reports." However, Lloyd says there was no review "in the accepted sense of the word - there was no independence of review, and the reviewers were anything but anonymous. The result is not scientific."
Another problem cited by Lloyd is that the IPCC issues a Summary (for Policy Makers) four months or more before the scientific report (on which it is supposedly based) is published.
Lloyd concludes: "It isn't necessary to list all the changes I have identified between what the scientists actually said and what the policymakers who wrote the Summary for Policy Makers said they said. The process is so flawed, that the result is tantamount to fraud. As an authority, the IPCC should be consigned to the scrapheap without delay."
Lloyd's article was before the so-called climategate scandal, which has called into question the validity of some of IPCC's science that supports the conclusion of man-made global warming.

In a related note, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, following the eruption of the climategate controversy, acknowledged that the science supporting man-made global warming may not be "as certain as its proponents allege." Even common-sense commentators on the world scene, like Charles Krauthammer, trying to find explanation for the global warming phenomenon, describe it as "Environmentalism - the new religion of the liberal left".

Aaron Kolom qualifies as a "rocket scientist" with over 50 years aerospace engineering: Stress Analyst to Chief of Structural Sciences on numerous military aircraft, to Corp. Director Structures and Materials, Asst. Chief Engineer Space Shuttle Program through first three flights (awarded NASA Public Service Medal), Rockwell International Corp.; Program Manager Concorde SST, VP Engineering TRE Corp.; Aerospace Consultant.

Aaron L. Kolom: "The Passover Saga, Myth or History?" (PublishAmerica); "Brainwashed* and Miracles**" (* The Perceived Mind-Set of the Secular Elite re Darwin Evolutionism!, ** To Believe in Them - Have Faith - In Science and Logic! - AuthorHouse)

Emergency Managers Deal With Global Warming

For Seattle residents, rain - and lots of it - is a fact of life. But they'd never seen a month quite like November 2006. With 15.59 inches of rain - including snowfall and hail - it set the record for wettest month, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center. It was the most rain the Emerald City had ever seen in a one-month span, in 115 years of record keeping.

If that weren't enough, mid-December brought supercharged winds of 60 to 90 mph that cut power to about 1 million people, some of whom lived in the dark for prolonged periods.

"It wasn't just for a couple of hours, a couple of days," said Eric Holdeman, former director of the King County, Wash., Office of Emergency Management. "There were folks without power for 10 days in isolated areas, or even longer than that."

That same month, drought plagued parts of Minnesota, Wyoming, Nebraska, Texas and Oklahoma; thunderstorms and tornadoes whipped through the South; a cyclone lashed the Eastern coastline from South Carolina to Virginia; and the earliest snowfall on record fell on Charleston, S.C., and Savannah, Ga., according to the National Climatic Data Center.

Worldwide patterns show an increase in heavy precipitation and intense droughts caused by a warmer atmosphere, increases in water vapor and a rising sea-surface temperature - all results of global warming.

Holdeman, now principal at ICF International's Emergency Management and Homeland Security team, holds last winter's unusually hazardous weather events as anecdotal evidence that our weather reality is shifting.

"Whatever the cause is, the weather is changing," Holdeman said. "There's been any number of extreme weather events happening."

Scientists may not agree on some of the possible effects of global warming, but most do agree that it's happening, said Gabriel Vecchi, research scientist at the NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, N.J.

According to a February report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the nation is already seeing warming effects in the Western mountains and melting of the snow pack; with increased winter flooding and summer warming; through pests and wildfires plaguing forest environments; with the intensifying of heat waves; and in hurricanes pounding coastal cities.

Unfortunately any changes related to the planet's increased temperature will be magnified in developing countries, where resources won't be available to delay or minimize effects. But in richer nations, like the United States, where the resources are forthcoming, it's time to adapt and plan for changes we might see, or are seeing now.

Lemming-Like March

The most egregious global warming effects will occur on global warming's frontlines - at the poles, where there's damage to ecosystems and thawing of glaciers and ice sheets, and on small islands, where beach erosion and storm surges are expected to further deteriorate coastlines, according to the IPCC.

Though most scientists agree that global warming is happening, the question of how exactly it will manifest remains. Many believe, however, that warming oceans may be contributing to more devastating hurricane seasons.

The 2004-2005 period was one of the most active 24 months ever witnessed in the Atlantic basin, setting records for number of hurricanes and tying the 1950-1951 record for most major hurricanes with 13.

But hurricanes don't just endanger lives; they also threaten people's livelihoods, businesses and homes, and cities' economies. And because tropical storms tend to hit the United States in its sweet spot - expensive and growing coastal stretches from Texas to Maine - they represent one of the country's gravest storm challenges.

Hurricanes that hit the Gulf Coast region during the 2004 and 2005 storm seasons produced seven of the 13 costliest hurricanes to hit the United States since 1900 (after adjusting for inflation), according to an April 2007 report by the National Hurricane Center in Miami.

This year's hurricane season, from June 1 to Nov. 30, already looks grim. Experts at the NOAA Climate Prediction Center project a 75 percent chance the season will be above normal. They predict a strong La Niña - which favors more Atlantic hurricanes, while El Niño favors fewer hurricanes - will cause three to five major hurricanes.

Also a factor is a phenomenon called "the tropical multidecadal signal" - the notion that two or three decades of lessened storm activity are followed by two or three decades of increased activity. The period since 1995 has wreaked conditions for more hurricanes.

Yet despite signs of a rough hurricane season ahead, a surprising phenomenon is occurring: People are increasingly moving to the Atlantic coast. Census Bureau data shows that in 1950, 10.2 million people were threatened by Atlantic hurricanes; today more than 34.9 million are threatened, according to USA Today.

"The areas along the United States Gulf and Atlantic coasts where most of this country's hurricane-related fatalities have occurred are also experiencing the country's most significant growth in population," the National Hurricane Center report confirmed.

But since coastal communities won't stop corralling newcomers, the report concluded that communities themselves should take action.

Jim O'Brien, professor emeritus of meteorology and oceanography at Florida State University, said emergency managers and policymakers should address the hurricane issue by enforcing stricter building codes, readdressing evacuation strategies and educating people about the imminent problem.

However, more drastic action must be taken to stop people's risky behavior, according to Kerry Emanuel, an atmospheric scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge.

The coastal migration is made possible, he said, through an unwise mix of state and federal policies, like government regulation of property and flood insurance (which covers storm surges), and federal disaster relief given to flooded regions. While such policies help people in the short term, Emmanuel explained, they also enable the risky behavior to continue.

Scientists have long feared America's vulnerability to hurricanes because its shores are lined with some of the nation's wealthiest residents. Emanuel, in conjunction with nine scientists, released a July 2006 statement about the U.S. hurricane problem: "We are optimistic that continued research will eventually resolve much of the current debate over the effect of climate change on hurricanes. But the more urgent problem of our lemming-like march to the sea requires immediate and sustained attention."

Preparedness Challenge

Paul Milelli, director of public safety for Palm Beach County, Fla., contends that global warming's effects may inherently force people to change their ways.

"If we start having to build homes to meet a 200 mph wind, the cost would probably stifle some growth," he said, "and then [there's] the fear factor of people moving in."

Because the county uses an all-hazards approach, emergency planning won't change much with global warming in the equation, he said.

"The economy is just going to be affected tremendously, and that, to me, is going to be the biggest concern. Because we can prepare our people for a hurricane, whether it's a Category 1 or a Category 5, and how we prepare the people really doesn't change - except that as the categories get higher, we start asking people to make their plans earlier and earlier."

For a statewide evacuation, Floridians would have to begin leaving days before the hurricane hit - a logistic impracticality.

"It's bigger than me. It's bigger than what I can plan for as a planner of the county," said Milelli, whose 31-year emergency management career ends in January when he plans to retire in Wisconsin - far away from hurricanes.

To help combat storm destruction, the Gulf Regional Planning Commission in Mississippi focuses on hurricane preparation as well as planning and redevelopment.

"We're certainly well aware of the dramatic impacts of climate change and also the need for looking outside of our localized area when we're starting to talk about the impacts of climate change," said Elaine Wilkinson, the commission's executive director.

The commission is working to build bridges that withstand high winds (similar to the effects of an earthquake), and building up seawalls to match the roadbed.

After Hurricane Katrina, the commission took an extra year to engineer its long-range transportation to plan for major storms. Transportation planning is important to ensure safe evacuation, she said.

Wilkinson was also involved in a U.S. government study on how global warming could affect the nation's coastal transportation systems. The study, which just released its first phase for scientific review, concluded that with climate change, the sea level is rising and the land is sinking, according to a National Public Radio news report.

Listening to scientists provided a good opportunity for Wilkinson, who said scientists must share global warming findings with people who can effect change.

"We need to find a way to bring the scientific data into the planning process," Wilkinson said. "That's something that'll challenge us. But we're very much in need of information to make some good decisions."

Ask the Question

Working with science, King County integrated global warming policies into its government. In October 2005, the county sponsored a conference to understand Washington's climate changes in the coming 20, 50 and 100 years, and identify approaches to adapt to climate change predictions.

The Climate Impacts Group (CIG), along with King County, developed conference materials, including Pacific Northwest climate change scenarios. CIG, which is funded by Washington University's Center for Science in the Earth System in Seattle and by NOAA, explores climate science with an eye to the public interest in the region. The group is one of eight NOAA teams that assess regional climate change in the United States.

From the conference, the CIG and King County established a relationship and jointly wrote Adapting to Global Warming - a Guidebook, to be released this November following a peer review process.

As a resource for regional leaders, the guidebook outlines King County's global warming approach, addressing its water supply, wastewater and floodplain management, agriculture, forestry and biodiversity. The county approved an aggressive levee improvement plan and adopted a climate plan in February that includes a two-page outline for the King County Office of Emergency Management to revise its strategies given projected climate changes.

In the guidebook, the CIG tells how scientists can communicate climate change information to emergency managers and policy leaders. But government officials are also responsible for opening the dialog.

Elizabeth Willmott, global warming coordinator for King County, stepped into her position upon its creation in January 2007, and works to coordinate projects, ideas and information related to the county's climate change mitigation and preparedness plans.

"What we suggest simply," Willmott said, "is that regional leaders ask the climate question, 'How is climate change going to affect my region?'"

Just asking, she said, can plant the issue in people's minds.

Though weather seems to be telling us something about how climate change will impact our future, there's uncertainty in many circles about what to do to prepare and how to mitigate its consequences.

ICF's Holdeman said we must focus on finding global warming's regional effects and work to lessen them now.

"We end up being so reactive as a society, and certainly the United States is," he said. "We don't address issues - like Social Security or Medicaid. Everybody knows it's a problem, but we're not going to do anything about it until it's staring us in the face, and there's a trillion dollar deficit."

It's up to emergency managers, he said, to spread the word and ensure global warming consequences are known.

"For emergency managers themselves," Holdeman said, "if we're not talking about it generally and trying to educate elected officials about it and the hazards, then you're counting on them to stumble on it as an issue."

---------------------------------------------------------------

RELATED STORY: The Scientific Community Has Yet to Agree on How Climate Change Really Impacts Tropical Storms [http://www.govtech.com/em/133367?utm_source=ezine&utm_medium=article&utm_campaign=em]

MORE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT STORIES: Emergency Management magazine

Emergency operations, whether they are for natural disasters or terrorist incidents, require all stakeholders: elected officials; police, fire, EMS, volunteers and others to go beyond their every day responsibilities and work together to save lives.

Emergency Management magazine is there to help. Designed to meet the unique information needs of the entire emergency management community, Emergency Management provides all the key leaders new insights and understandings about their critical role in joint operations and planning.

The Case of Global Warming and Extreme Weather

"We know who the culprit is, we just can't prove it - yet." Detective Dick Tracy

The Case. That statement could have been uttered by climate scientists. They know global warming is the cause of the more extreme weather events we are experiencing, but it is hard to prove it. Global warming has increased the energy and moisture in the atmosphere, and that combination makes conditions ripe for severe storms and floods. Certainly, hurricanes occur and intensify over low-pressure areas fed by moisture and warmer oceans. To be accurate, however, climate scientists could only say, "When weather events occur, global warming is likely to make them more extreme." However, the case against global warming is growing stronger. A number of recent research papers have shown global warming is the cause of extreme weather events, and the business community, particularly insurers, are beginning to take notice.

The Link. The vapor pressure of water is one of the most important factors in determining weather. Water will evaporate from the surface until the air above it reaches its saturated vapor pressure. The saturated vapor pressure depends only on the temperature, which makes temperature the determining factor controlling the amount of moisture that the air can hold. If a mass of air saturated with moisture moves to higher altitudes or encounters a cold front and is cooled, the air becomes supersaturated, which leads to precipitation. Over the last century, the Earth's average temperature has increased by about 0.8°C, which translates into an increase in the saturated vapor pressure of water of about 7%. When precipitation occurs, on the average, 7% more moisture is available. It is a reasonable conclusion that when it rains, it will rain more and when it snows, it will snow more. So strangely enough, global warming could actually lead to greater snowfall. However, it has been very difficult to prove, and certainly even more difficult to convince skeptics that that might be the case.

Floods. Two recent research papers have established a link between global warming, increased rainfall, and flooding. A recent paper in Nature reported that the observed increase in rainfall in the Northern Hemisphere in the past 50 years and climate change are linked. The researchers analyzed the rainfall data in areas prone to flood and found that the rainfall has increased due to the warmer temperatures of the Earth. Their results "were based on a comparison of observed and multi-model simulated changes in extreme precipitation over the latter half of the twentieth century analyzed with an optimal fingerprinting technique." They also found that the models seem to underestimate the observed increase in heavy precipitation with warming temperatures. Extreme precipitation in the future may be even more severe than now predicted.

The second paper, also published in Nature, has linked the increasing floods in England and Wales and global warming. The researchers generated several thousand climate model simulations of the autumn 2000 weather by using actual conditions and also by assuming conditions as they would have been had no greenhouse gas emissions or global warming occurred. They concluded that "the precise magnitude of the anthropogenic contribution remains uncertain, but in nine out of ten cases our model results indicate that twentieth-century anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions increased the risk of floods occurring in England and Wales in autumn 2000 by more than 20%, and in two out of three cases by more than 90%.

Rivers in the Sky. Normally, when an air mass saturated with water moves ashore and is forced upward, it cools and precipitation falls until the clouds are no longer over-saturated. However, that is not the case for "rivers in the sky, weather patterns that carry a stream of air saturated with water into coastal regions continually for days. These "rivers in the sky", cause flooding rains in coastal and inland mountains causing untold costs in property damage and human lives. One such river produced more than 40 inches of rainfall in the mountains of southern California in only four days in early January 2005. It caused widespread flooding and massive mudslides such as the one in La Conchita, California, which took 10 lives. The researchers say these "rivers in the sky" will become more common as global temperatures rise since warmer air means that the atmosphere can hold more water vapor. That is, unless global warming changes the weather patterns that produce them.

Droughts. The link between global warming and droughts has not been yet established by research. Areas that receive little moisture from the oceans would not benefit from the fact that the air can hold more water. Though higher temperatures mean that more water evaporates into the air, it also means that the air can hold more moisture before becoming saturated. Areas that normally experience droughts are much more likely to have less rainfall in the future. This past year has seen droughts in Russia, China, and South America that have limited the production of grain and increased the chances that some species may become extinct. The heat waves in Europe in 2003 and 2010, that caused widespread crop failure and wildfires, may have been the worst in 500 years. Certainly, more frequent and extensive droughts may occur in a warming world.

The Smart Money. The widespread damage caused by weather events related to global warming has caught the attention of the business community, particularly those who pay out insurance claims or invest large sums of money. Insurance companies ranked 2010 among worst years ever for climate disasters. Climate change is the culprit in many of the catastrophic natural disasters in 2010, according to insurance company Munich Re, one of the largest global insurance carriers. It added that trends are pointing to more frequent and riskier events in the future. Recently, a group of International investors, responsible for more than $15 trillion in assets, issued a global warming warning. They called for the world's nations, particularly the United States, to move decisively to combat climate change or face the possibility of economic disruptions even worse than the global recession of the last two years. They also pointed out that "The economic opportunities are enormous for nations with the foresight to seize them while the risks of inaction are potentially catastrophic."

(C) 2011 J.C. Moore

For references for this article, please see http://jcmooreonline.com/2011/03/22/the-case-of-global-warming-and-extreme-weather/.

Dr. J.C. Moore is a physical chemist whose interests are spectroscopy,computational chemistry, professional ethics, and science education. He taught chemistry, physics, and general science at the college level for 38 years. Since retirement, he has established http://JCMooreonline.com, a website that examines current events from a science and research perspective.

Will Global Warming Produce More Intense Hurricanes Such As Katrina?

Although the 2005 hurricane season is finally over, the intense

beating our southeastern coastline and its residents took still

has us shaken. Many of us are also starting to connect the dots

between global warming and the more intense hurricane activity we

are experiencing, such as with Katrina this past year. Even to a

layman, logic dictates the warmer air and water temperatures may

have something to do with what appears to be a change for the

worst in hurricane acitivity along our Atlantic coasts.

Unfortunately, research indicates these suspicions may not be

unfounded. According to information gathered from the PEW Center

on Global Climate Change in Arlington, Va., due to the effect

global warming is considered to have on the intensity of

hurricanes we may have more years such as we experienced in 2005.

In addition, the center predicts this may be the case for at

least the next decade or two.

The PEW Center reports because of the link between higher ocean

temperatures and hurricanes, there is speculation that hurricanes

will increase in frequency or intensity in a warmer world, with

higher wind speeds and greater precipitation. In other words,

even though studies show the frequency of hurricanes has not

increased on average over the long term, scientists believe that

global warming will result in more intense hurricanes, as

increasing sea surface temperatures provide energy for storm

intensification.

Higher ocean temperatures may also increase the likelihood of

hurricanes tracking through the Caribbean or making landfall on

the U.S. east coast. Although the phenomenon is not yet

completely understood, a track of unusually deep and warm water

appears to have led Katrina directly to the Gulf Coast when it

struck.

In addition, a recently published MIT study provides the first

data analysis indicating tropical storms are indeed becoming more

powerful over time. The following statistics recorded by the

National Hurricane Center seem supports this data.

The NHC describes the 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as having

had "well above-normal activity," and it predicted even greater

activity for 2005. With the season at its end, the past year has

exceeded those expectations, as well as all previously recorded

activity for a single season.

The Atlantic hurricane season runs from June 1-Nov. 30. An

average season produces 10 tropical storms, with six becoming

hurricanes, two of which reach sustained wind speeds at or above

100 miles per hour (i.e. category three or higher). This is based

on a long-term average, but there are variabilities from year to

year.

As of Nov. 22, 2005, the following activity has been recorded:

** 24 named tropical storms for the first time since systematic

record keeping began about 150 years ago;

** 13 hurricanes, with seven major hurricanes;

** The most powerful hurricane ever recorded in the Atlantic

basin (Wilma);

** Three of the six most powerful hurricanes ever recorded in the

Atlantic basin (Katrina, Rita, Wilma);

** The first time three category five hurricanes have ever been

recorded in the same year in the Atlantic basin;

** The most destructive hurricane in U.S. history (Katrina).

The PEW Center informs although the average number of hurricanes

between 1995 and 2005 is probably unprecedented, we have not seen

a long-term increase in hurricane frequency during the 20th

century overall. Instead, we have seen periods of high-hurricane

activity that last for several decades, followed by decades of

low activity. (The 1920s-30s and the 1950s-60s were active

periods.) In 1995, we entered and are currently in the latest

natural phase of high hurricane frequency, which i

Laurie Huffman is a reporter for several northeastern Ohio newspapers owned by Dix Communications. She won two awards in 2005 from the Ohio Newspaper Association for best feature and best overall news covera

Cancer, Diet and Global Warming With the Producer of Healing Cancer From the Inside Out

In this article, Mike Anderson shares on cancer, diet and global warming. Mike Anderson, is a medical researcher, author of The Rave Diet and film maker/producer of "Eating" and "Healing Cancer from the Inside Out."

Kevin: So, Mike. If all this stuff isn't working, what is?

Mike: Food. I site some studies in the film... the Office of Technology Assessment funded the Gerson Therapy. It beat the pants off conventional treatments. This was in different stages of melanoma. It just beat the pants off of conventional treatments. They don't like these studies. They don't want to fund them. It's very hard.

Macrobiotics went in front of the NIH, National Institute of Health and they tried to get funding because they presented six terminal cases, cancer cases, where the cancers were totally reversed. They were all biopsied and they were all confirmed and everything. Now, wouldn't you think that people should be interested in this? That they should fund more studies? No, they can't get any money for anymore funding for any.

You know allopathic medicine doesn't, their history is to shut down any nutritional approach because they are so threatened by it. Even, this was around the turn of the century, 2001 or so. It's on the website, the Sushi Institute. Anyway, they're totally threatened because it does work. It is more effective. Instead of destroying the body, you're trying to build it up.

I specifically included Macrobiotics because they have a long history, 100- year history. In fact, the founder of Macrobiotics reversed cancer. But they have a long history of reversing cancers. So I look at Macrobiotics and that's almost 100% cooked. Then I look at raw, and that's 100% raw, uncooked. And I think the bottom line here is that, the common ground is that they are all plant-based, 100% plant-based. They are all organic. Organic is very, very important because organic food is much higher in micronutrients, the anti-oxidant families. Those are the ones that are going to fight cancer effectively. It's a whole-foods organic diet and that's it. Whether it's raw or whether it's cooked is partly personal preference, in terms of case and stuff.

Kevin: You knew that this film was going to cause some waves. So, one, how did you prepare for it? Two, what kind of feedback have you gotten from people who were not happy?

Mike: I actually did not prepare very much for it. What I did was try and make it as credible as I can and close the loop on all the arguments. To make it as tight as possible. I'll tell you a story. I don't know if Brian Clement wants me to tell this or not, he was interviewed in the film, but he and his wife watched it for seven hours, seven hours looking for a loophole. They were primarily looking at some angle conventional doctors could use to attack me and they couldn't find it. So my approach was just make it as tight as possible and as credible as possible. As a result of that, I haven't had much negative feedback except that people don't want to talk to me.

I have been on KPFK, they are a nonprofit, local station here in L.A. I've been on there and they were very receptive and so was the audience. I mean, people are hungry for this new. But getting it out there is very, very difficult.

People will say, "Oh, my gosh. You should be on major news shows," and stuff like that. And I say, "Well, have you looked at the sponsors of those news shows? They'll never have me on." You know, you've got meat and dairy and drugs and I'm preaching against all of those. So, it's difficult to get it out, but word of mouth is extraordinarily strong; it's pushing this whole thing. And thanks to shows like your and others, more and more people are getting on the bandwagon.

I was at the Raw Spirit Festival in Sedona this weekend and I had a lady and her husband come out, specifically to see me. They flew out from Tampa. And it was because they saw "Healing Cancer" a month ago. Her father started off with colon cancer, it spread to his liver, now it's in his lungs. He's had one round of chemo; he couldn't take it anymore. So they were looking for something. They put him on the diet and within a month all of his cancer markers had dropped dramatically. They were just thrilled by the whole thing. They wanted to fly out and just thank me because of it.

The strange thing is most people they have it in their mind that cancer is this dreaded disease that kills people. Well, you know, cardio vascular disease kills over twice as many people a cancer, that's a pretty scary disease. But people have it in their minds that cancer is more scary, but it's not. It can be controlled through food. People have this idea that, well, gee, cancer's a dangerous disease you need strong medicine. You need something that will make people's hair fall out and make them throw up all day for days on end and make them just sick. That's strong medicine. You need just the opposite. You need something that's going to build up the body. People, if they'll get off this toxic diet they're on and get on a good diet, they'll see miraculous things happening. Not just with cancer, but the whole body will be healing.

Kevin: Let's talk a little bit about the Rave diet. There's a lot of people who are on this call who don't know what that is. So, let's give a little bit of information on that and...

Mike: OK. I wrote the book primarily because people were asking me for something to accompany the "Eating" DVD. Because after they see the "Eating" DVD, they'll say, "OK, I'm ready to change my diet, but what do I do?" And even though I list, at the end of the film, all kinds of books, and on the website even more, they wanted something from me. So, I put it together primarily as a very short, it reads very easily, very short guide, if you will, to how to change to this diet.

I have a transitional diet, too, because sometimes it's difficult for people to go on the full Rave diet. So I have an easier transitional diet so they can evolve into it. One guy, for example, it was too much for him because he had been eating processed foods all of his life and he had horrendous gas because of all the fiber. So I tell people, "Ease up on it. You can go slowly," you know, unless you have some terrible disease you're fighting. But what it stands for, Rave is an acronym, it means no refined foods. The A is no animal foods, the V, which gets me in trouble with most people all the time, means no vegetable oils; the E means no exceptions and exercise. There are a number of sub-rules within that. It's not just that acronym alone. Like, eat at least half of your food uncooked type of thing. Also ingredients lists, it's got a whole explanation of how to read ingredient lists and so forth. But it's done very well.

Kevin: No oil. Let's talk about that.

Mike: OK. I got this primarily, started out if you look at Ornish, Essylstyn, Furman, a lot of doctors who actually reversed heart disease and have studies to prove it; they all specifically exclude vegetable oils. There are clinical studies, it tears up the arteries. Essylstyn says it's as good for your arteries as roast beef. If you look at nutrient scales, the key to a good diet is getting the maximum amount of nutrients per calorie that you can. If you look at vegetable oils, they have the lowest nutrient value of any food on the planet. It's all fat, very few nutrient values per calorie on it.

It's a refined food, on top of it; the molecules in vegetable oils are unstable. They produce free radicals. It's a promoter of some cancers, particularly skin cancers, and on and on and on. So, I just say there are substitutes for it. If you're cooking and you want to brown potatoes or something, use applesauce or apple juice or vegetable broth or something. You have to cook it slower, but it browns just as good. So, that's the schtook on vegetable oils. I'm telling people in the beginning with this, "Hey, you get on this you can reverse your heart disease." I'm not going to go against all the doctors who have proven successfully through tests that you can reverse heart disease. They all exclude the vegetable oils.

Kevin: Yeah, I think it makes sense to follow the research of people that you have mentioned, like Furman and Essylstyn and these guys, instead of recreating the wheel on a theory.

Mike: Right, right. I have to follow; these guys are my heroes. I can't challenge them and I want to, if someone comes out with a study of heart disease reversal which specifically includes vegetable oils, then I'll take a second look at it, as will they. But so far that hasn't happened.

Kevin: Who do you think you've learned the most from?

Mike: Geez, I don't know. That's hard. Everyone's saying the same thing, essentially, in different ways and they're doing their own thing. In the beginning, there were John Robbins, the emotional aspect of it, environmental, in particular. He was huge. McDougall, he was huge, too. He was giving all this reinforcement to the health. Then, of course, Fuhrman and Ornish and a number of others, Esselston. I would say probably McDougall and, in the very beginning, McDougall and John Robbins.

Kevin: Great. You mentioned global warming, again, and I think we should probably talk about that because it was an added portion of the film, "Eating." What are some of the implications of the way we eat, as related to global warming and the environment?

Mike: It's methane, that's the major thing that's been overlooked. I'm no expert in it, but what I did was summarize what the experts have said. It's hard for people to visualize this, but there are hundreds of millions of cows, and other livestock out there, that emit methane, both through the mouths and their rear ends. It goes into the atmosphere and methane is a powerful heat-trapper, much more powerful than carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide will stay in the atmosphere much longer, but methane really traps heat. Studies have shown that, in fact, methane has caused nearly half of the global warming to-date. The number one source of methane is the animals we raise and eventually eat. So, the good thing about methane is that it only stays in the atmosphere for eight years. If people would cut back on their consumption of animal products, you could recycle out very quickly. There could be a more immediate impact on global warming, on cooling. That's not going to happen, but, say, everyone in the world cut back 1/3 of their meat consumption and reduced the livestock accordingly. That could have a major impact on global warming, and quite soon. Whereas carbon dioxide that stays in the atmosphere for so long. It's not going to have such an immediate impact on it and that's what we need is an immediate impact, because we're right there, as they call the tipping point.

Kevin Gianni the host of "Renegade Health Show" - a fun and informative daily health show that is changing the perception of health across the world. His is an internationally known health advocate, author, and film consultant. He has helped thousands and thousands of people in over 21 countries though online health teleseminars about abundance, optimum health and longevity. He is also the creator and co-author of "The Busy Person's Fitness Solution."