IT'S ABOUT TIME

Published on Friday, August 3, 2023 by The Messenger/UK

Cheney Trial: Former U.S. Vice President Denies All Charges

Dick Cheney ushered into New York courtroom in first court appearance since Green revolution

 

by James Thurston

Former U.S. Vice President Richard Cheney has denied all charges against him as his trial began in New York today.

Standing erect behind a heavy gage wire cage,  the 83-year-old spoke just once to confirm his presence and enter his plea. "I deny all these charges and accusations categorically," he said.

Cheney stands accused of genocide, waging aggressive warfare in violation of U.N. and Nuremberg Trial statutes, economic corruption involving collusion with energy companies to dictate U.S. foreign and domestic policy, torture in violation of U.S. and International Law, and crimes against the U.S. constitution, in regards to illegal surveillance and repression activities against political opponents. If found guilty, he could face life imprisonment.

The spectacle was aired live on global television networks, bringing much of the World to a standstill as people across the globe huddled around TV sets and watched the former U.S. leader in the dock. It was the first time Cheney had appeared on television since 10 February, when he gave a defiant speech in Houston, Texas, refusing to submit to his arrest warrant. He fled Houston the next day, but was apprehended at the Dubai airport, after his private jet landed.

Amid chaotic scenes in the makeshift courthouse, with lawyers shouting over each other to get the judge's attention and running street battles raging outside between supporters and opponents of the former vice president, the sight of Cheney standing defiant as a prosecutor read out some of the names of the hundreds of thousands killed by his illegal and aggressive war on the sovereign nation of Iraq in 2003-2008, is likely to be one of the defining images of this decade's ongoing political unrest in North America.

Cheney's ex-colleagues and co-defendants, former U.S. president George W. Bush, and ex Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, also protested their innocence. As many as 25 former Bush/Cheney administration officials are also facing similar charges."I am delighted that I see him in a cage," Saeeda Hassan Abdel-Raouf, the mother of a 22-year-old pregnant woman, who was among those killed in Baghdad during the initial invasion of Iraq, in 2003, told reporters. "I feel that my daughter's and grandchild's souls are finally starting to be at rest and that their blood will cool."

Cheney was ferried from the Dubai airport last week by U.S. military transport, and has been held, along with the others, in a hastily constructed courthouse near the U.N. building in New York. Despite the judge's insistence that anybody disrupting proceedings would face an automatic 24-hour prison sentence, the trial regularly descended into confusion as lawyers put forward various technical arguments regarding legal aspects of the case.

At one point a lawyer demanded that Cheney undergo a DNA test, claiming that the ex-v.p. actually died in 2016 and had been replaced by an impostor.

 

More seriously, Cheney's defence lawyer Charles Matson hinted that former two-term U.S. president Barack Obama, – may be called as a witness, to answer for his and his adminstration's refusal to investigate Cheney's alleged crimes. It is said by those close to former Pres. Obama that he is very nervous about what may emerge from the current legal proceedings.

Although the first day was dominated by legal wrangling, it soon became clear that those expecting a swift verdict would be disappointed. Cheney's prosecution file is believed to run to over 12,000 pages, and his defence announced plans to call more than 1,000 witnesses.

Cheney's trial was adjourned at the end of the session until 15 August while Bush's will begin on Tuesday. The former vice president and president will be kept in holding facilities near the courthouse until their trials resume and begin.

Amnesty International and other human rights organisations have expressed that Cheney's prosecution must be conducted fairly. "This trial presents a historic opportunity for the U.S. to hold a former leader and his inner-circle to account for crimes committed during their rule," said Malcolm Smart, Amnesty North American director.

"But if the trial is going to be a meaningful break with the U.S. government's record of impunity, it must be both fair and transparent – justice demands no less. Not only must the trial be fair but it must be seen to be fair, not least by the families of the soldiers and innocent civilians who died during the Iraq war and occupation."

Outside the building where the court is sitting thousands of soldiers and riot police failed to prevent groups of rival demonstrators from clashing. Old "Republican" supporters hurled rocks at police, media and a giant screen broadcasting the trial, chanting: "We will demolish and burn the courthouse if they convict Cheney." Fifty-three people were reported injured in the skirmishes.

Current Progressive Party U.S. President and former Indigenous activist and writer Sherman Alexie appealed for all sides to remain calm, whilst a fair and impartial trial is conducted. His administration is quite worried that further escalations in tensions between the southeastern states, especially Texas, and the rest of the U.S., which has generally supported the apprehension and prosecution of Cheney, Bush, and other officials, could lead to outright civil war. And possibly the secession of several states, from the U.S., notably Texas. Though those close to President Alexie have said that he has expressed privately on occasion that he wishes "those racist bastards get their backward states out of our country".  President Alexie offered no comment however, when questioned about this by reporters last week.

© 2023 Messenger News and Media Limited

ALGAL BLOOMING?/JUST TOO MUCH [and] THREE FIFTY-FUN

                                                  ALGAL BLOOMING?

It has to be admitted, your lead editor has always been drawn to aviation, even though my other interests and activities have always tended to be much more in the non-technical, natural, and sometimes esoteric, vein. As a child, I had models of all the fastest fighter planes in the US and World arsenals hanging from my bedroom ceiling, which I had just made. It was not their warfare capabilities that I was interested in, but their record-breaking performances. The first jets from 1945-52 could only go up to about 1120 kph (700 mph, less than sonic speed). Still, to think about that, at that time, it was truly amazing what was done with the technology of their day. Mach 2 aircraft, capable of traveling at twice sonic speed, or up to 2430+ kph (1520 mph), were developed in the mid to late 1950s, and were in widespread use throughout the Cold War nations by the early 1960s. I avidly read as a youth the stories of all the test pilots and astronauts, as they put themselves in great danger, and often died, in the development of the ever faster and higher-flying air and spacecraft.  I also always liked to keep up with the latest developments in commercial aviation, small planes for individuals, as well as what were/are the most "advanced" large passenger jets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boeing_787_first_flight.jpg

And I still, to this day, avidly follow the global aviation industry/arena, though more commercially, and less militarily.

Aviation as we know it today is a global enterprise, requiring global cooperation from all nations in air traffic management, weather forecasting, communications, and pilot training. And with modern jet travel, it enables more and more people to experience and interact with others from different cultures and backgrounds, which is what we need more and more of, to help foster a more globally cohesive culture. Which will help all the nations of the World more easily come together to help solve the global problems we are now facing, warming/climatic chaos, resource depletion, environmental collapse, overpopulation, etc...

Unfortunately of course, increased and cheaper air travel, while helping to maintain and build a more globally-cohesive culture, is also contributing significantly to the very problems it can help humanity to overcome.  

 http://ehsjournal.org/http:/ehsjournal.org/steven-taber/climate-change-impacts-of-the-aviation-industry-global-warming/2010/

This article, above, gives an excellent summary of aviation's global climate change influence. We won't post all of it here, but thought the following sections of it were worthy of inclusion. We highly recommend you give the whole article a read, if you can though, it is very enlightening.

Aviation’s Contribution to Climate Change

First, how much aviation contributes to climate change is still open to debate. Several governmental and aviation industry organizations have been reporting a “less than 3 percent” number for quite some time ,while environmental groups, particularly in Europe, claim that the percentage is anywhere from 5 to 9 percent. In examining the claims and counterclaims concerning emissions of GHG, one has to be very careful about the language and the metrics used in determining the impact that any given industry will have on climate change.

Many reports and studies focus only on CO2; however, there are other gases and anthropogenic actions that exacerbate climate change. For example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently proposed regulations that would require major emitters of six “greenhouse gases” to report their emissions to the EPA on an annual basis. These six greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorochemicals (PFCs), and other fluorinated 20 gases (e.g., nitrogen trifluoride and hydrofluorinated ethers [HFEs]). It also should be kept in mind when discussing climate change, especially with respect to aviation, that water vapor is estimated to contribute anywhere from 36 to 72 percent of the greenhouse effect. This is important because the radiative forcing effect of cirrus cloud formation from the aircraft is a significant contributor to the greenhouse effect. As pointed out above, it is generally accepted that for aviation the GHGs of concern are CO2, nitrogen oxides (NOx), aerosols and their precursors (soot and sulfate), and increased cloudiness in the form of persistent linear contrails and induced-cirrus cloudiness.

GHG Impacts are Broader than CO2

The predominance of CO2 as the GHG of concern leads to another issue: measurement of GHG. Many reports state their findings in terms of “CO2e,” or CO2 equivalent. Carbon dioxide equivalency is a quantity that describes, for a given mixture and amount of greenhouse gas, the amount of CO2 that would have the same global warming potential (GWP) when measured over a specified time scale (generally, 100 years). For example, the generally accepted GWP for methane over 100 years is 25, and for nitrous oxide 298. This means that emissions of 1 million metric tons of methane and nitrous oxide, respectively, are equivalent to emissions of 25 and 298 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. This article will keep the convention of designating GHGs other than CO2 in terms of “CO2e.”
Most reports and studies begin with the groundbreaking work of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which in 1999 estimated that, based on earlier data, fuel combustion for aviation contributes approximately 2 percent to the total anthropogenic CO2 emissions inventory, and if left unmitigated, this could grow to as much as 4 percent by 2050. Despite the age of the data, the 2 percent number has been used consistently throughout the first decade of the 21^st century. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) in a 2006 press release relied on the IPCC report by stating that “[a]ir transport contributes a small part of global CO2 emissions – 2 percent” (IATA press release , 2^nd Aviation Environment Summit). Even as recently as September 2009, the Transportation Research Circular of the Transportation Research Board fudges the issue by stating in the section about climate change and greenhouse gases that “fuel combustion for aviation contributes approximately 2 percent to the total anthropogenic CO2 emissions inventory.” What these estimates leave aside is the fact that CO2 emissions are only one facet of the greenhouse gas equation.
The aviation industry tried to correct this in its paper Aviation and Climate Change: The Views of Aviation Industry Stakeholders published in February 2009 by stating that “greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from aviation constitute only a very small part of total U.S. GHGs, less than 3 percent.” However, the report that the paper cites, the U.S. EPA’s Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2006 (April 15, 2008; 2008 EPA Inventory), only mentions emissions of CO2 in the discussion of its inventory of greenhouse gases in the creation of energy (2008 EPA Inventory, Chapter 3). Moreover, the EPA only examined the aviation sector’s combustion of fossil fuel and did not, for example, take into account the radiative forcing effect of cirrus cloud formation on climate change. When the EPA published its next inventory, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2007 (March 2009; 2009 EPA Inventory), the contribution of aviation to carbon dioxide emissions increased. It estimated that when international fuels were included, domestic and international commercial, military, and general aviation flights represented about 3.4 percent of the total emissions of CO2 in the United States.

There is no question that the emission of CO2, and, for that matter, the combustion of fossil fuels, does not tell the whole story with respect to aviation. However, there are relatively few studies that focus solely on aviation and examine the effects of all GHGs and not just CO2. In 2005, Robert Sausen and a group of climate scientists published their article Aviation Radiative Forcing in 2000: An Update on IPCC (1999) (Sausen 2005). This article concluded that when NOx emissions, contrails and cirrus clouds are added into the mix, aviation’s impact on climate change is about 2 to 5 percent greater than that of CO2 alone worldwide. This would mean that aviation would have an impact on climate change in the range of 4 to 10 percent when all aspects of emissions of GHG and other radiative forcing factors are taken into account. These numbers were updated in a July 2009 article, Aviation and Global Climate Change in the 21^st Century (Lee et al., 2009), which appeared in the periodical Atmospheric Environment. The authors, a group of atmospheric scientists, concluded that when aviation-induced cirrus radiative forcing is included, aviation represents 4.9 percent of total anthropogenic “radiative forcing of climate.” While these studies are not United States specific, as the EPA inventories are, since these studies consider all GHGs emitted by aviation (not just carbon dioxide), are focused entirely on the climate effect of aviation, and are based on more recent data, the conclusion that aviation contributes close to 5 percent of climate change is more accurate than the “under 2 percent” used by many in the aviation industry.

Fortunately, there are options available now to help global aviation reduce, and eventually even eliminate entirely it's "carbon footprint", i.e., rely on renewable bio-fuels, whose CO2 emissions are counteracted by the growth of new stock. The most promising source now seems to be the humble, often derided and scorned, ALGAE. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel

Algae fuel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Algae fuel might be an alternative to fossil fuel and uses algae, or, sometimes, to use a more up-to-date term,^[1] cyanobacteria,^[2] as its source of natural deposits. Several companies and government agencies are funding efforts to reduce capital and operating costs and make algae fuel production commercially viable.^[3] The production of biofuels from algae does not reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂), because any CO₂ taken out of the atmosphere by the algae is returned when the biofuels are burned - except where fuel gas emissions are captured and recycled as feedstock in an enclosed growth system such as that under development at 3 coal fired power stations in Australia. They also potentially reduce the introduction of new CO₂ by displacing fossil hydrocarbon fuels.

High oil prices, competing demands between foods and other biofuel sources, and the world food crisis, have ignited interest in algaculture (farming algae) for making vegetable oil, biodiesel, bioethanol, biogasoline, biomethanol, biobutanol and other biofuels, using land that is not suitable for agriculture. Among algal fuels' attractive characteristics: they do not affect fresh water resources,^[4] can be produced using ocean and wastewater, and are biodegradable and relatively harmless to the environment if spilled.^[5][6][7] Algae cost more per unit mass (as of 2010, food grade algae costs ~$5000/tonne), due to high capital and operating costs,^[8] yet can theoretically yield between 10 and 100 times more energy per unit area than other second-generation biofuel crops.^[9] One biofuels company has claimed that algae can produce more oil in an area the size of a two car garage than a football field of soybeans, because almost the entire algal organism can use sunlight to produce lipids, or oil.^[10] The United States Department of Energy estimates that if algae fuel replaced all the petroleum fuel in the United States, it would require 15,000 square miles (39,000 km²) which is only 0.42% of the U.S. map.^[11] This is less than ¹⁄₇ the area of corn harvested in the United States in 2000.^[12] However, these claims remain unrealized, commercially. According to the head of the Algal Biomass Organization algae fuel can reach price parity with oil in 2018 if granted production tax credits.^[13] 

Jet fuel
Main article: Aviation biofuel

Rising jet fuel prices are putting severe pressure on airline companies,^[25] creating an incentive for algal jet fuel research. The International Air Transport Association, for example, supports research, development and deployment of algal fuels. IATA’s goal is for its members to be using 10% alternative fuels by 2017.^[26]

Trials have been carried with aviation biofuel by Air New Zealand,^[27] and Virgin Airlines.^[28]
In February 2010, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency announced that the U.S. military was about to begin large-scale production oil from algal ponds into jet fuel. After extraction at a cost of $2 per gallon, the oil will be refined at less than $3 a gallon. A larger-scale refining operation, producing 50 million gallons a year, is expected to go into production in 2013, with the possibility of lower per gallon costs so that algae-based fuel would be competitive with fossil fuels. The projects, run by the companies SAIC and General Atomics, are expected to produce 1,000 gallons of oil per acre per year from algal ponds.^[29]

Algae cultivation

Algae can produce up to 300 times more oil per acre than conventional crops, such as rapeseed, palms, soybeans, or jatropha. As algae have a harvesting cycle of 1–10 days, it permits several harvests in a very short time frame, a differing strategy to yearly crops (Chisti 2007). Algae can also be grown on land that is not suitable for other established crops, for instance, arid land, land with excessively saline soil, and drought-stricken land. This minimizes the issue of taking away pieces of land from the cultivation of food crops (Schenk et al. 2008). Algae can grow 20 to 30 times faster than food crops.^[30]

Photobioreactors

Most companies pursuing algae as a source of biofuels are pumping nutrient-laden water through plastic or borosilicate glass tubes (called "bioreactors" ) that are exposed to sunlight (and so called photobioreactors or PBR).
Running a PBR is more difficult than an open pond, and more costly, but also more effective.
Algae can also grow on marginal lands, such as in desert areas where the groundwater is saline, rather than utilize fresh water.^[31]

Because algae strains with lower lipid content may grow as much as 30 times faster than those with high lipid content,^[32] the difficulties in efficient biodiesel production from algae lie in finding an algal strain, with a combination of high lipid content and fast growth rate, that isn't too difficult to harvest; and a cost-effective cultivation system (i.e., type of photobioreactor) that is best suited to that strain. There is also a need to provide concentrated CO₂ to increase the rate of production.

Closed loop system

Another obstacle preventing widespread mass production of algae for biofuel production has been the equipment and structures needed to begin growing algae in large quantities. Maximum use of existing agriculture processes and hardware is the goal.^[33]

In a closed system (not exposed to open air) there is not the problem of contamination by other organisms blown in by the air. The problem for a closed system is finding a cheap source of sterile CO₂. Several experimenters have found the CO₂ from a smokestack works well for growing algae.^[34][35] To be economical, some experts think that algae farming for biofuels will have to be done as part of cogeneration, where it can make use of waste heat, and help soak up pollution.^[31][36]

Open pond

Open-pond systems for the most part have been given up for the cultivation of algae with high-oil content.^[37] Many believe that a major flaw of the Aquatic Species Program was the decision to focus their efforts exclusively on open-ponds; this makes the entire effort dependent upon the hardiness of the strain chosen, requiring it to be unnecessarily resilient in order to withstand wide swings in temperature and pH, and competition from invasive algae and bacteria. Open systems using a monoculture are also vulnerable to viral infection. The energy that a high-oil strain invests into the production of oil is energy that is not invested into the production of proteins or carbohydrates, usually resulting in the species being less hardy, or having a slower growth rate. Algal species with a lower oil content, not having to divert their energies away from growth, have an easier time in the harsher conditions of an open system.

These are all encouraging developments. But we need faster development and mass implementation of these new technologies for the fuel needs of all our transportation sources, aviation, shipping, and land-based. The only way this can be accelerated is through both tax credits for existing companies engaging in these efforts, and focused funding and development by our government, similar in scale and urgency to the space program in the late 1950s through early 1970s. Most of the basic research has been done, we just need the focused resources to accelerate it's development. Of course, under the current U.S. government's corporate control, this will not occur. Just one more of the many reasons why we must end "corporate personhood", and their domination of our political process.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/07/01-14

                                                      JUST TOO MUCH

Directly related to this, the last few weeks of the federal government's debt debacle were just too much for us here at the A.P.R. We are totally disgusted by the president's abject capitulation to the demands of the psycho/sociopathic "tea-party" Republicans, to begin cutting/dismantling Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. We have been warning you for some time that most of the Democrats, and Obama in particular, are just as much beholden to the "corporatocracy" as the Republicans. This should now be crystal clear, as Glenn Greenwald lays out very succinctly in this article:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/07/31-6

Democratic Politics in a Nutshell

by Glenn Greenwald

Let's begin by taking note of three facts:
(1) Three days ago, Democratic Rep. John Conyers, appearing at a meeting of the Out of Poverty caucus, said: "The Republicans -- Speaker Boehner or Majority Leader Cantor -- did not call for Social Security cuts in the budget deal. The President of the United States called for that" (video here, at 1:30);
(2) The reported deal on the debt ceiling is so completely one-sided -- brutal domestic cuts with no tax increases on the rich and the likelihood of serious entitlement cuts in six months with a "Super Congressional" deficit commission -- that even Howard Kurtz was able to observe: "If there are $3 trillion in cuts and no tax hikes, Obama will have to explain how it is that the Republicans got 98 pct. of what they wanted," while Grover Norquist, the Right of the Right on such matters, happily proclaimed: "Sounds like a budget deal with real savings and no tax hikes is a go."

(3) The same White House behavior shaping the debt deal -- full embrace of GOP policies and (in the case of Social Security cuts) going beyond that -- has been evident in most policy realms from the start. It first manifested in the context of Obama's adoption of the Bush/Cheney approach to the war on civil liberties and Terrorism, which is why civil libertarians were the first to object so vocally and continuously to the Obama presidency, culminating in this amazing event from mid-2010: "Speaking at a conference of liberal activists Wednesday morning, ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero didn't mince his words about the administration's handling of civil liberties issues. 'I'm going to start provocatively . . . I'm disgusted with this president,' Romero told the America's Future Now breakout session."

In other words, a slew of millionaire politicians who spent the last decade exploding the national debt with Endless War, a sprawling Surveillance State, and tax cuts for the rich are now imposing extreme suffering on the already-suffering ordinary citizenry, all at the direction of their plutocratic overlords, who are prospering more than ever and will sacrifice virtually nothing under this deal (despite their responsibility for the 2008 financial collapse that continues to spawn economic misery). And all of this will be justified by these politicians and their millionaire media mouthpieces with the obscenely deceitful slogans of "shared sacrifice" and "balanced debt reduction" -- two of the most odiously Orwellian phrases since "Look Forward, not Backward" and "2009 Nobel Peace Prize laureate" (and anyone claiming that Obama was involuntarily forced by the "crazy" Tea Party into massive budget cuts at a time of almost 10% unemployment: see the actual facts here).

With those fact assembled, this morning's New York Times article -- headlined: "Rightward Tilt Leaves Obama With Party Rift" -- supplies the perfect primer for understanding Democratic Party politics. The article explains that "Mr. Obama, seeking to appeal to the broad swath of independent voters, has adopted the Republicans' language and in some cases their policies," and then lists numerous examples just from the debt debate alone (never mind all the other areas where he's done the same):

No matter how the immediate issue is resolved, Mr. Obama, in his failed effort for greater deficit reduction, has put on the table far more in reductions for future years' spending, including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, than he did in new revenue from the wealthy and corporations. He proposed fewer cuts in military spending and more in health care than a bipartisan Senate group that includes one of the chamber's most conservative Republicans. . . .
But by this month, in ultimately unsuccessful talks with Speaker John A. Boehner, Mr. Obama tentatively agreed to a plan that was farther to the right than that of the majority of the fiscal commission and a bipartisan group of senators, the so-called Gang of Six. It also included a slow rise in the Medicare eligibility age to 67 from 65, and, after 2015, a change in the formula for Social Security cost-of-living adjustments long sought by economists.

How can the leader of the Democratic Party wage an all-out war on the ostensible core beliefs of the Party's voters in this manner and expect not just to survive, but thrive politically? Democratic Party functionaries are not shy about saying exactly what they're thinking in this regard:

Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster, said polling data showed that at this point in his term, Mr. Obama, compared with past Democratic presidents, was doing as well or better with Democratic voters. "Whatever qualms or questions they may have about this policy or that policy, at the end of the day the one thing they're absolutely certain of -- they're going to hate these Republican candidates," Mr. Mellman said. "So I'm not honestly all that worried about a solid or enthusiastic base.”

In other words: it makes no difference to us how much we stomp on liberals' beliefs or how much they squawk, because we'll just wave around enough pictures of Michele Bachmann and scare them into unconditional submission. That's the Democratic Party's core calculation: from "hope" in 2008 to a rank fear-mongering campaign in 2012. Will it work? The ones who will determine if it will are the intended victims of that tactic: angry, impotent liberals whom the White House expects will snap dutifully into line no matter what else happens (even, as seems likely, massive Social Security and Medicare cuts) between now and next November.

Enough of that for now, I hope if any of you who are Democrats reading this, will see now who they are really working for. Certainly not for you! There are a few exceptions of course, like Congressman Dennis Kucinich, but they are few and far between. We will NEVER vote for any Democratic politician on a national scale again.

Well, let's move on to something a little more pleasant. We'd just like to show you a few pictures from another close-at-hand area here near Anchorage, that we are fortunate enough to have quick access to, for running, hiking, and skiing.

                                             THREE FIFTY-FUN

This was the route of a beautiful 31 km (19 mile) run we did about ten days ago, up the South Fork of the Eagle River drainage, to Symphony and Eagle lakes, with a side jaunt up Hanging Valley, on the return leg. Unfortunately, we had to leave our research assistant Homer back at the CFRC. He had a large tumor on his left front leg (which has since been removed, and he's on the mend nicely), which was impeding his mobility; this would have proven very troublesome for him on this rocky, and at times, rough route. He was unhappy about that, but he would have been more so, had he gone along.

Not more than 20 minutes after we started our run, around 1300 in the afternoon, on a beautiful sunny day, with a temperature near 17C (63F), Mattie had to pursue one of her favourite pastimes. She just has to always be in the water, when it's not frozen, no matter how dirty or muddy. And seems to really enjoy the mud. Needless to say, I had to warn others on the trail to stay away from the "Mud Monster", lest she try and give some muddy affection to them. We're always able to find some clean, clear water though, at the end of our outings, for her to clean up in.

Just about 9 km in, from the trailhead, after gently rolling along the east side of the S. Fork of the Eagle River, the trail ends up in vast piles of granitic boulders, just before reaching Eagle Lake. These went on for almost 2 km, and were quite arduous, having to stumble and scramble over. Homer would have had a very difficult, if not impossible, go of it here. As it was, I had to walk most of this part, which was partially marked by cairns. Fortunately the rocks were dry, these lichen-covered boulders can become treacherously slippery when wet.

Beautiful little Symphony Lake was the first one we came into. It's not nearly as big, or long, as Eagle Lake, but is backed by 2000+ metre (6560 ft) peaks. Since this was only 10 km in from the trailhead, it's a fairly easy pack in, and so there were several parties camped around the lake.

After sightseeing here, we next ran back over the boulder fields to Eagle Lake, which is our favourite. It is a long, glacial fed (hence that wonderful pale blue colour) lake, in a fiord-like valley, which was clearly scraped out by glaciers in the last ice age, if not sooner.

It is about 4 km in length (2.4 miles), but we weren't able to quite make it running down it's full length. A narrow trail/track on the south side of it eventually just petered out into thick berries/alder brush, forcing Mattie and I to turn back. She saw and flushed several ptarmigan in here, but they are too fast for her, fortunately.

This is surely one of the most beautiful lakes in our area, backed as it is by other 2000+ metre peaks. We'll be back here quite a bit, when we have the time. It only took us about 90 minutes of running/scrambling to reach near to the end of the lake.
So we had to turn back, and head back out. But we weren't ready to give up yet. We wanted a longer run, for marathon training (I prefer at least 30K training runs, once per week, Mattie of course does 2 to 3 times whatever Homer and I do).  So on the way back up the S. Fk. Eagle River trail, we headed up the Hanging Valley trail, a spur that takes you in to the little, sheltered, Hanging Valley. It was a steep ascent up a few hundred metres at first, before leveling off in the valley into a rolling, curving route.

It's a beautiful, fairly easily accessible place. We didn't make it all the way back into the head of the valley, which is backed by 1500-1800 metre peaks, and contains a small lake, we wanted to save that for an actual pack trip. It would be a fairly easy one as well, but one not too-heavily used. We saw no one else in here, even just half way in, on this saturday afternoon. After running in about 4 km, we turned round, and headed back out, ready to finish our run, and head back to Homer, at the CFRC. We were feeling a little guilty, and had to get him out for at least a decent walk, when we returned.

The late afternoon light, coming out of Hanging Valley, was sure beautiful, on this perfect day. We don't have too many mild, sunny days like this, in South-Central Alaska summers, so this was a treasure. Light winds, and around 17-18C (63-65F).

One of our favourite views though, heading back toward the trailhead, is that looking back, up the valley. Where the 2000+ metre glaciated peaks form the backdrop, looming up behind as a beautiful sheer wall of rock, snow, and ice.

What more could we ask for, on our 3:51, 31 km run/scramble? We were both a little tired, but so glad we were able to have a day like this for our outing. We wouldn't be anywhere else.  Cheers.

WILL THIS BE ENOUGH? [and] BACKYARD RAMBLING

                         WILL THIS BE ENOUGH?

to finally get some momentum and political pressure going in the industrialised nations to reign in fossil-fuel emissions, and prevent runaway warming and catastrophic sea level rises? http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/07/01-6

We here at the Alaska Progressive Review have for some time have been giving you our assessment of the current state of the global climate, and it's rapid process of change, due to the release of CO2 and Methane, from fossil fuel combustion. Mainly from the industrialised nations, the two biggest sources being now China, and the U.S.

http://akprogressive.blogspot.com/2010/08/how-close-are-we-now.html 

http://akprogressive.blogspot.com/2009/12/what-seems-likely-based-on-what-weve.html

 

 

Of course all of our assessments have been based on the current state of the science of climatology, meteorology, and atmospheric physics. Now, more "official" governmental scientists are speaking out, and this IS IMPORTANT! Unfortunately, you aren't seeing much of this in the U.S. corporate media, note that the following article comes from the U.K.-based Independent, a somewhat progressive newspaper.

Extreme Weather Link 'Can No Longer Be Ignored'

Scientists to end 20-year reluctance with study into global warming and exceptional weather events

by Steve Connor

Scientists are to end their 20-year reluctance to link climate change with extreme weather – the heavy storms, floods and droughts which often fill news bulletins – as part of a radical departure from a previous equivocal position that many now see as increasingly untenable.

In this April 19, 2011 file photo, smoke rises from an uncontrolled wildfire burning near Possum Kingdom, Texas. It was a spring to remember, with America pummeled by tornadoes, floods, wildfire, snowmelt, thunderstorms and drought. (AP Photo/LM Otero, File)

Climate researchers from Britain, the United States and other parts of the world have formed a new international alliance that aims to investigate exceptional weather events to see whether they can be attributable to global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

They believe that it is no longer plausible merely to claim that extreme weather is “consistent” with climate change. Instead, they intend to assess each unusual event in terms of the probability that it has been exacerbated or even caused by the global temperature increase seen over the past century.

The move is likely to be highly controversial because the science of “climate attribution” is still in the early stages of development and so is likely to be pounced on by climate “skeptics” who question any link between industrial emissions of carbon dioxide and rises in global average temperatures.

In the past scientists have been extremely reluctant to link a single extreme weather event with climate change, arguing that the natural variability of the weather makes it virtually impossible to establish any definitive association other than a possible general consistency with what is expected from studies based on computer models.

However, a growing number of climate scientists are now prepared to adopt a far more aggressive posture, arguing that the climate has already changed enough for it to be affecting the probability of an extreme weather event, whether it is an intense hurricane, a major flood or a devastating drought.

“We’ve certainly moved beyond the point of saying that we can’t say anything about attributing extreme weather events to climate change,” said Peter Stott, a leading climate scientist at the Met Office Hadley Centre in Exeter.

“It’s very clear we’re in a changed climate now which means there’s more moisture in the atmosphere and the potential for stronger storms and heavier rainfall is clearly there.”

Kevin Trenberth, a distinguished senior scientist at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado, also believes the time has come to emphasize the link between extreme weather and the global climate in which it develops.

“The environment in which all storms form has changed owing to human activities, in particular it is warmer and more moist than it was 30 or 40 years ago,” Dr Trenberth said.

“We have this extra water vapor lurking around waiting for storms to develop and then there is more moisture as well as heat that is available for these storms [to form]. The models suggest it is going to get drier in the subtropics, wetter in the monsoon trough and wetter at higher latitudes. This is the pattern we're already seeing.”

The Met Office and NCAR have joined forces with other climate organizations, including the influential US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Organization (NOAA), to carry out detailed investigations of extreme weather events, such as the vast flooding in Pakistan last year, to see whether they can detect a climate change “signal” as a likely cause.

A group of their researchers has formed a coalition called the Attribution of Climate-Related Events which is preparing a report on the subject to be published later this year at a meeting of the World Climate Research Program in Denver. They hope in the future to assess each extreme weather phenomenon in terms of its probability of being linked with global warming and then to post the result on the internet.

“There is strong evidence if you look across the world that we are seeing an increase in heatwaves and floods and droughts and extreme rainfall and extreme temperatures,” Dr Stott said.

“The evidence is clear from looking at the observational records globally that extreme temperatures and extreme rainfall are changing. But you can’t jump from that and say that a specific event is straightforwardly attributable because we know that natural variability could have played a part.

“We’ve been developing the science to be increasingly more quantitative about the links and make more definitive statements about how the risk has changed. You look sensibly about these things by talking about changing risk, or changing probability of these events.”

Dr Stott had his colleagues have already carried out studies of the 2003 heatwave in Europe, in which up to 35,000 people died of heat-related illnesses, as well as the devastating UK floods in 2000 which cost £1.3bn in insurance claims and destroyed 10,000 homes following the wettest autumn in England and Wales since records began in 1766.

In both cases, the scientists found that the contribution of man-made greenhouse gases to global warming substantially increased the risk of such extreme events occurring. The group is also investigating the exceptional warm April in Britain this year, which was the warmest since central England records were kept in 1659 and 0.5C warmer on average than the previous warmest April.

Also this year, an unprecedented number of tornadoes across the southeastern US and the flooding of major rivers such as the Mississippi and Missouri led many people to question whether they were exacerbated by global warming. In the past scientists would have been reluctant to link single weather events such as these with climate change, but Dr Trenberth believes this is wrong.

“I will not say that you cannot link one event to these things. I will say instead that the environment in which all of these storms are developing has changed,” Dr Trenberth told The Independent.

“It’s not so much the instantaneous result of the greenhouse effect, it’s the memory of the system and the main memory is in the oceans and the oceans have warmed up substantially, at depth, and we can measure that. I will assert that every event has been changed by climate change and the main time we perceive it is when we find ourselves outside the realms of the previous natural variability, and because natural variability is so large this is why we don't notice it most of the time.

“When we have things that occur usually 4 per cent of the time start to occur 10 per cent of the time, that’s when we begin to notice. The main way we perceive climate change is in changes in the extremes, this is when we break records.”

A report by the insurance company Munich Re found that 2010 was one of the worst years on record for natural disasters, nine-tenths of which were related to extreme weather, such as the floods in Pakistan and eastern Australia and heatwave in Russia, which is estimated to have killed at least 56,000 people, making it the most deadly natural disaster in the country’s history.

“This long-term trend can no longer be explained by natural climate oscillations alone. No, the probability is that climate change is contributing to some of the warming of the world’s oceans,” said Peter Höppe, author of the Munich Re report.

 

Making the connection

Tornadoes, US, 2011 More than 220 people were killed by tornadoes and violent storms that ripped through south-eastern United States in April; 131 were killed in Alabama alone. Fifteen people died in Tuscaloosa and sections of the city were destroyed.

 

Heatwave, UK, 2011April was the warmest since 1659, when records in England began. Sun-lovers flocked to St Ives, above, but fears of drought were raised. Rainfall in the UK that month was only 52 per cent of the long-term average.

Drought, Brazil, 2005 The Amazon region suffered the worst drought in more than a century. The floodplains dried up and people were walking or using bicycles on areas where canoes and river boats had been the only means of transport.

Floods, USA, 2005 Katrina was one of the five deadliest hurricanes in the history of the US, and it caused the destruction of New Orleans when levees were overwhelmed. Some 90 per cent of residents of south-east Louisiana were evacuated.

©independent.co.uk

To this list, we here at the Alaska Progressive Review, would add the incredible heat wave and devastating wildfires, which occurred in southeast Australia, in February, 2009.
http://akprogressive.blogspot.com/2011/04/alaska-fire-seasons.html 

As well as our increasing annual wildfire acreages in Alaska, and throughout western North America. Our future, on this Earth, imperiled by overpopulation, resource depletion, and pollution, doesn't have to turn out this way:

http://akprogressive.blogspot.com/2010/06/run.html

But it will, or worse, if the current, sociopathic, predatory capitalistic system that now controls most of the World's countries and policies, is left unchecked and unchanged. A system that only accepts the importance of corporate profit, no matter the human or environmental costs.  A system, like cancer, that relies and is predicated on unlimited growth and expansion, which eventually kills it's host.

Since it is the 4th of July today, when we saw this comment, written in response to an article on the Truth-Out site about corporate political dominance in the US, we felt it worthy of sharing. As we feel it is spot-on.
http://www.truth-out.org/new-war-independence-against-corporate-politics/1309788086

"There have been a lot of articles like this recently. This is an encouraging trend but I feel they all miss one important point; this is not just an American problem to be solved in the USA. It is now a global problem.

The issue is no longer gaining independence from domination by another nation. The era of the nation state being a safe haven for its citizens against other nation states is almost over and can't be brought back. Nations have become corrals for the lower classes policed by governments that are in the pockets of global corporations.

All of these huge corporations favor maintaining their headquarters or at least a significant presence in the USA so they can have access to our military and other resources through their indentured politicians to help pursue their global goals. They also promote alliances between governments they control and the formation of multinational military forces biddable to no one government so they can more easily control and coordinate on a multinational basis - a form of hedging well known to the bankers amongst them.

In this scenario encouraging voters to replace elected representatives in this or that country makes as little sense as swapping out dictators and tyrants by force of arms elsewhere.

Those in power around the Western world have been fairly successful in convincing their citizens that they face a global threat even if that threat is loosely defined. What's needed for change is to acknowledge that this is true but that the threat comes from within, not from outside. This was the kernel of our own Declaration of Independence.

With that gem of truth and an inkling that we need to move towards a new system of global governance in mind we might start to see some of that long-lost independence gleaming faintly at the end of the tunnel."

         
                                 BACKYARD RAMBLING

The Chugach Mountains literally form the backyard of the Anchorage "Bowl", and really are our backyard, here at the Chugach Front Research Centre; we are in them nearly every day running, skiing, and taking solace in their natural beauty and wonders.

The other day, we set out for a 30 KM "slow-pack" in our backyard, to some areas we've been in a few times this past winter. Namely, we wanted to finally ascend "The Ramp", which at 1598 metres (5240 ft.), had eluded us twice, for different reasons. Although it was a cool, cloudy day, the promise of rain the next day, meant we had to give it our all, when we could at least stay dry, even if we did have to ascend into the clouds at times. We're calling it "slow-pack", versus our usual fast-packs, because we did have to ascend the Ramp in the fog, very slowly, so as not to lose our way, and fall into trouble.



About an hour after starting out, we were already on our way up toward Ship Lake Pass, which at 1250 metres (4100 ft), offers beautiful views down a steep slope, toward the north through east. Before that though, our intrepid, and completely fearless assistant editor is already on the job. Running full speed ahead constantly in search of new, and sometimes disgusting treasures, and assessing any potential threats to our well-being. She truly is an amazing little being. As you can see, the clouds are already scraping the higher peaks. 

At the top of Ship Lake Pass, which took about three hours to hike into, we were already just about in the clouds. But the view to the east, of beautiful alpine Ship Lake, was not to be missed. It's not too difficult of a descent, down into the lake, and Ship Creek Valley, but we had more ascending to do.

The view to the north, of the Ship Creek Valley, was also well worth the trip, even on a cool, cloudy day. Here at the top of the pass, it was about 5C (41F), with a steady 30 kph (18-20 mph) breeze. I definitely had to put a hat and gloves on, when we stopped here for a breather and some water. But the Ramp beckoned, even through the top 300 metres were totally obscured in the fog. We slowly ascended up its steep slopes, clad in tundra, mixed in with large areas of loose scree/talus, which sometimes easily gave way with just a slight pressure of the feet. Requiring us to be very careful. We knew the way though, from our previous attempts, and also that the valley/bowl we came up, was right below us, and still beneath the clouds. When we reached the ridgeline of the Ramp's sharp sharktooth-like peak, we actually felt a little queasy and disoriented in the thick fog, with visibilities of 10 metres or less. Because as we looked down into the abyss on the north side of the ridgeline, with it's sheer 300+ metre drop, we couldn't see the bottom. Homer is almost 15 now, and he had no problem ascending with us on these steep slopes, for which we were very greatful. But we give him lots of exercise, in outings like this, good food, and attention, which keeps him thriving.

We just spent a few minutes in the fog at the top of the Ramp, hoping for some clearing. Once in awhile, a thin spot in the clouds would let more light in, but the visibility never did improve to more than 20 metres or so. It was a cool 2-3C up there (35-38F), with a stiff south breeze, rather chilly. So we slowly descended back down the gentler, but still steep, south face, back to the valley we came up in. We had lunch where the the trail that takes off from the Powerline trail, splits in two, one branch heading to the Ship Lake Pass, the other to Hidden Lake. We hadn't been to Hidden Lake before, so we needed to check it out. It was just 3 or 4 more KM up, and another 300 metres or so of elevation. There was one small lake first, about 2 KM in, but after a steep rise, on the other side, in a bowl, part of whose headwall is the Ramp, lies the jewel of Hidden Lake, a very apt name, as it can't be seen, until you are right on it.

We are quite sure that on a rare sunny day, this lake would have that beautiful pale blue alpine colour we greatly prize in our outings, as it means these lakes are completely clean, wild, and unspoiled by any human activity (and also very cold!). It was starting to sprinkle a bit after we got here, so we didn't spend much time. Had it been a warmer, sunny day, there is no doubt I would have gone for a swim in there, I'd sure like to some day. We descended back down to the trail junction, and then down to the Powerline Trail. We still wanted to head in to an area we haven't seen before, so just before we reached the trailhead, we decided to head up the Middle Fork Loop trail, which has a steep ascent up a ridge on the other side of the valley that the Powerline trail is in. It was raining lightly at this point, but we didn't care, as we just had another hour or two, before finishing. As we ascended this steep section of trail, we ran into a group of 15 teenagers with two adult chaperones, on a five-day pack-trip. These kids were from all over the World, the adults are part of a group that takes teens on trips like this to build leadership and outdoor skills. All the kids just loved Mattie and Homer, since most had never seen real sled dogs, and were very nice. I told them to expect alot of rain on their trip, but I'm sure they had a good time.

Our ascent brought us up to 1050 metre (3500 ft) Little False Point, which has a beautiful view of the Anchorage "Bowl" and Cook Inlet, in the evening sun. It was getting later in the evening and I didn't bring full dinners for Homer and Mattie, so we headed quickly back down after that, and to the trailhead, so I could rush them home in the short 15 minute drive back to the CFRC, for dinner. After all, in our 30 KM 8 1/2 hour backyard ramble, Mattie must have done at least double that, with all her running around, and Homer, probably 40-50 KM. This is why we live here, to be so fortunate to have this for our backyard.