CIA says no evidence of Iran developing nuclear weapons

[ecivon]

CIA says no evidence of Iran developing nuclear weapons:

http://www.afp.com/english/news/stor....d010tlyg.html

More African 'Yellow Cake' from Niger disinformation from the Bush administration?

[Kärnfysikern]

Its funny that almost all conservatives support wasting many many billions on bombing a hypothethical nuclear weapons program in iran and spend hundrads of billion dollars on the iraq war.

But none of them want to even recognise the possibility of spending a few billions to avoid a possible global warming disaster, something that would be far worse than nuclear iran if its true.

Ohh well that is just a rant.

I guess now bush wont have any excuse to go after Iran. But Im realy waiting for Irans explanation for the plutonium IAEA have found. That could be the smoking gun.

[ecivon]

Its funny that almost all conservatives support wasting many many billions on bombing a hypothethical nuclear weapons program in iran and spend hundrads of billion dollars on the iraq war.

But none of them want to even recognise the possibility of spending a few billions to avoid a possible global warming disaster, something that would be far worse than nuclear iran if its true.

Ohh well that is just a rant.

I guess now bush wont have any excuse to go after Iran. But Im realy waiting for Irans explanation for the plutonium IAEA have found. That could be the smoking gun.

No Johan, what you said is not a rant, but a genuine concern for the insanity in our diplomacy and foreign relations. The world is a very safe place, it is the humans on it that are the problem. Global warming is the most serious challenge to the existence of humankind that has ever existed. Disease and pestilence are on the rise globally, food crops and harvests are on the decline, fresh water supplies are being tainted and depleted at an ungodly rate, conflicts and skirmishes are on the rise all overthe world. On the current path we are on I don't see any hope for change -- as fatalistic as this will sound is that the only way we will change is if there is a catastrophic global event that will force us to change our ways and that is a probability.

[Teabagger]

Think globally, act locally. Do you...drive a car, own a computer, use electricity, benefit from medicine, own a tv, radio, microwave, ipod. Does you home have carpeting, painted walls, doors, glass windows, do you use plastic bags, toothbrushs, pens, pencils, cell phone, gps, camera, air conditioning, some form of home heat....yes you do...so give me a break. All of this is manufactured, and manufacturing is dirty. Want to clean things up...get rid of your pollutants and act locally, then preach.

[singern]

Think globally, act locally. Do you...drive a car, own a computer, use electricity, benefit from medicine, own a tv, radio, microwave, ipod. Does you home have carpeting, painted walls, doors, glass windows, do you use plastic bags, toothbrushs, pens, pencils, cell phone, gps, camera, air conditioning, some form of home heat....yes you do...so give me a break. All of this is manufactured, and manufacturing is dirty. Want to clean things up...get rid of your pollutants and act locally, then preach.

Amen, its like ordering a pizza, frech freis, cheesecake, and a DIET COKE.......

[Phreak101]

Environmental alarmists work just like group self-help motivators. Here is what's wrong, here's how it should be, isn't how it should be exciting?? Isn't what's wrong so awful?? Wouldn't a change be good?? YES!

The question is, do YOU have the means AND the discipline to do your part?? If not,

[Phreak101]

Its funny that almost all conservatives support wasting many many billions on bombing a hypothethical nuclear weapons program in iran and spend hundrads of billion dollars on the iraq war.

But none of them want to even recognise the possibility of spending a few billions to avoid a possible global warming disaster, something that would be far worse than nuclear iran if its true.

Ohh well that is just a rant.

I guess now bush wont have any excuse to go after Iran. But Im realy waiting for Irans explanation for the plutonium IAEA have found. That could be the smoking gun.

Very frustrating as an American taxpayer in the 38% tax bracket. Apparently I'm considered "rich" because I make $80,000 a year.

[Kärnfysikern]

No Johan, what you said is not a rant, but a genuine concern for the insanity in our diplomacy and foreign relations. The world is a very safe place, it is the humans on it that are the problem. Global warming is the most serious challenge to the existence of humankind that has ever existed. Disease and pestilence are on the rise globally, food crops and harvests are on the decline, fresh water supplies are being tainted and depleted at an ungodly rate, conflicts and skirmishes are on the rise all overthe world. On the current path we are on I don't see any hope for change -- as fatalistic as this will sound is that the only way we will change is if there is a catastrophic global event that will force us to change our ways and that is a probability.

Hit the nail on the head. Only catastrophe can make us cooperate to the extent needed.

Think globally, act locally. Do you...drive a car, own a computer, use electricity, benefit from medicine, own a tv, radio, microwave, ipod. Does you home have carpeting, painted walls, doors, glass windows, do you use plastic bags, toothbrushs, pens, pencils, cell phone, gps, camera, air conditioning, some form of home heat....yes you do...so give me a break. All of this is manufactured, and manufacturing is dirty. Want to clean things up...get rid of your pollutants and act locally, then preach.

I dont drive a car, I get around on foot or by tram or buss, the electricity I use is from clean sources(swedish power suppply is 50% nuclear and something like 48% hydro), our garbage is, uhh what the hell is the english name? sorted. Plastic in one container, paper in one ect.
I dont have much gadgets, I have owned exactly 2 cellphones in my life and I only got the second because the first broke. Our apartment doesnt have any air condition, heck I dont even know of anyone living in a house or apartment that has air condition. As a swede I have a much smaller footprint on nature than most people in the western world.

But acting localy isnt the issue, big changes need goverment direction. If I do everything I can to make myself as environmentaly friendly as possible it still wont be anything like if the goverment dish out 10 billion for research into cleaner production, cleaner energy ect.

For consumers to get companies to change enough of us has to abandon there products, but all it takes is goverment regulations and they have to change. Whats more time efficient?

Lets be honest here, the avarage joe doesnt have the brain or the interest to try to live environmentaly sound. I wont wait until the avarage joe becomes sensible before I start to demand changes. Economicaly justifiable changes btw.

The hypocricy here is that many people will support waist billions of there tax dollars on a small hypothethical treat of wmds in the middle east. No one is willing to waste a dollar on a scientificly credible massive threat.

Is it more importan to make sure Iran has no nukes than it is to ensure we wont **** up the environment totaly? The price tag isnt that much different. The money you americans has wasted on Iraq would have gone a very long way in making america oil independent. Whats better for national security in the long run. A democratic iraq or not needing middle eastern oil at all?

[Kärnfysikern]

Environmental alarmists work just like group self-help motivators. Here is what's wrong, here's how it should be, isn't how it should be exciting?? Isn't what's wrong so awful?? Wouldn't a change be good?? YES!

The question is, do YOU have the means AND the discipline to do your part?? If not,

thats only because we let those nutbags dominate the discussions. Environmental discussion wont become sensible unless sensible and realistic people get involved. Aslong as we let the likes of greenpeace be the the self proclaimed authorities on environmental issues nothing will happen.

[Air Walker]

Why does Green Peace suck?

[Logan13]

I guess that the IAEA did not get this information......
IAEA Set to Deny Iran Aid for Plutonium-Producing Reactor
AP
Nov.21, 2006
VIENNA, Austria — Most participants at a key 35-nation meeting of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency have agreed to deny Iran technical aid for its plutonium-producing reactor, diplomats at the gathering said Tuesday.

The diplomats — all participating in an International Atomic Energy Agency committee meeting — said the tentative agreement foresaw approving Tehran's requests for IAEA aid on seven other nuclear projects but refusing its call for help in building the Arak reactor.

The decision would be formally made on Thursday, once the committee looking at hundreds of requests for IAEA technical aid from member countries ends its work and the full board meeting begins. The chairman of that meeting would announce approval of all the projects except for Arak, said four diplomats, speaking independently and asking for anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the closed board meeting.

The decision to deny the aid — either directly or indirectly, by deferring a ruling — was expected to be adopted by consensus, they told The Associated Press. But even if one of Iran's allies on the board — most likely Cuba — forced a vote, those opposed to the Arak project would prevail, they said.

The diplomats emphasized that agreement was tentative. But all agreed this was the most likely scenario to resolve differences pitting not only nonaligned nations — traditional Iran allies — against the United States and its backers but also leading to tensions within the Western camp.

In comments to the closed committee made available to The Associated Press before delivery, Iran's chief delegate Ali Ashgar Soltanieh lambasted nations opposing aid for Arak, accusing them of "imposing their politically motivated and discriminatory policies" on the meeting.

Alluding to the United States and its allies, Soltanieh accused them of ignoring the dangers that Israel — widely considered to be a country with nuclear weapons — posed to the Middle East.

"Sooner or later the governments of these countries will be brought to judgment and shall be questioned for deception of their own nation as well as (the) international community," he declared.

The agency routinely approves hundreds of technical aid projects each year, most of them dealing with nuclear medicine, agricultural pest prevention and similar programs that have no obvious link to atomic arms. Iran says the reactor will produce nuclear isotopes for medical use.

But fears that Tehran might be seeking to develop an arms program — either through uranium enrichment or plutonium reprocessing — turned this year's technical aid committee meeting into a heavily politicized event.

Even nonaligned nations traditionally supportive of Iran were likely to approve some form of denying help for Arak. The other seven projects were less controversial.

One asks for help in developing nuclear capabilities for medical use. Another seeks legal aid for the Russian-built Bushehr reactor, which even the Americans have accepted as not posing a threat of nuclear proliferation. The five others ask for assistance in administrative or safety aspects of nuclear power, according to a list made available to the AP.

Denying Iran help with Arak — where it is seeking agency assistance to make sure the reactor is environmentally safe — would do little to slow construction of that facility or affect Tehran's other potential avenue to weapons production — uranium enrichment. Still, it would maintain at least symbolic pressure, even with a Security Council deadlock over how to sanction Tehran for its nuclear defiance.

Signs of compromise emerged on Monday — the first day of the gathering — when the United States said it would accept Tehran's requests for U.N. aid on seven of eight nuclear projects but not its request for help on Arak.

The decision reflected the U.S. stance coming into the meeting that it was useless to try to block IAEA help to Iran on all eight projects because of opposition by most of the board. This opposition was later strengthened by an IAEA ruling that the aid being contemplated for all the projects did not pose a proliferation threat.

Some diplomats accredited to the Vienna-based U.N. nuclear watchdog agency suggested it could reflect a U.S. decision to tread relatively lightly while Washington weighs the pros and cons of seeking direct dialogue with Tehran on reducing Iraq violence. U.S. officials declined comment.

Chief U.S. delegate Gregory L. Schulte described Arak as being "capable of producing plutonium for one or more nuclear weapons each year" once completed, likely in the next decade.

"Given past board decisions, continued questions about Iran's nuclear program, and the risk of plutonium being diverted to use in a weapons, the United States joins with others who cannot approve this project," he said.

The European Union also urged the board not to approve aid for Arak.

The U.N. Security Council's main concern is Tehran's uranium enrichment program — and Iran's defiance of its demand in July that it freeze enrichment. But the Arak heavy water reactor's future ability to produce plutonium also is worrying.

A council resolution did not specifically mention Arak, saying only that Tehran had to stop all "reprocessing activities."

[Kärnfysikern]

Why does Green Peace suck?

I guess you directed the question to me?

They suck because they are unscientific, scaremongering and nutcases. What they are doing is harming the environment not helping it. If we want to improve our environment we need to do it with scientificly sound methods. Greenpeace on the other hand is anti technology and anti science. The biggest example is the resistance to nuclear power. The only energy producing technology we have that is effective and totaly clean.

Greenpeace is just a bunch of idiots. They probably mean well but in the end they do harm.

[Kärnfysikern]

I guess that the IAEA did not get this information......

Im not sure what you mean

[Phreak101]

I guess you directed the question to me?

They suck because they are unscientific, scaremongering and nutcases. What they are doing is harming the environment not helping it. If we want to improve our environment we need to do it with scientificly sound methods. Greenpeace on the other hand is anti technology and anti science. The biggest example is the resistance to nuclear power. The only energy producing technology we have that is effective and totaly clean.

Greenpeace is just a bunch of idiots. They probably mean well but in the end they do harm.

Agreed. The co-founder of Greenpeace is now one of there staunchest critics! The reasoning? Liberal politicians moved in and warped the idea of Greenpeace to further their agendas and gain support of "Greeners". Those are the words from his mouth, not my speculation.

They are the same as those nutcases that convinced starving nations in Africa that 50,000 TONS of genetically engineered food is dangerous, and they actually CONVINCED THESE NATIONS NOT TO TAKE THE FOOD! Shut your middle upper class well fed, sheltered asses UP!!

[Kärnfysikern]

Agreed. The co-founder of Greenpeace is now one of there staunchest critics! The reasoning? Liberal politicians moved in and warped the idea of Greenpeace to further their agendas and gain support of "Greeners". Those are the words from his mouth, not my speculation.

They are the same as those nutcases that convinced starving nations in Africa that 50,000 TONS of genetically engineered food is dangerous, and they actually CONVINCED THESE NATIONS NOT TO TAKE THE FOOD! Shut your middle upper class well fed, sheltered asses UP!!

Yeah thats patrick moore, I am a big fan of him
He is the most rational environmentalist I have ever heard of. His homepage is pure gold.

His old greenpeace buddies call him eco judas nowdays I guess that just shows how warped the entire organisation has become. They have let go of all sensibility and are doing there best to tear down the environmentalist that abandon that lost cause and turn towards science and rationality.

[Logan13]

Im not sure what you mean

The IAEA seems to have their own opinions on what Iran's motives are, regardless of the thread title.

[Logan13]

But acting localy isnt the issue, big changes need goverment direction. If I do everything I can to make myself as environmentaly friendly as possible it still wont be anything like if the goverment dish out 10 billion for research into cleaner production, cleaner energy ect.

For consumers to get companies to change enough of us has to abandon there products, but all it takes is goverment regulations and they have to change. Whats more time efficient?

Lets be honest here, the avarage joe doesnt have the brain or the interest to try to live environmentaly sound. I wont wait until the avarage joe becomes sensible before I start to demand changes. Economicaly justifiable changes btw.

The hypocricy here is that many people will support waist billions of there tax dollars on a small hypothethical treat of wmds in the middle east. No one is willing to waste a dollar on a scientificly credible massive threat.

Is it more importan to make sure Iran has no nukes than it is to ensure we wont **** up the environment totaly? The price tag isnt that much different. The money you americans has wasted on Iraq would have gone a very long way in making america oil independent. Whats better for national security in the long run. A democratic iraq or not needing middle eastern oil at all?

Antarctic Ice Sheet Mass Balance
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO.../V9/N45/C2.jsp
Nov.08, 2006
What was done
The authors "analyzed 1.2 x 108 European remote sensing satellite altimeter echoes to determine the changes in volume of the Antarctic ice sheet from 1992 to 2003." This survey, in their words, "covers 85% of the East Antarctic ice sheet and 51% of the West Antarctic ice sheet," which together comprise "72% of the grounded ice sheet.""

What was learned
Wingham et al. report that "overall, the data, corrected for isostatic rebound, show the ice sheet growing at 5 ± 1 mm year-1." To calculate the ice sheet's change in mass, however, "requires knowledge of the density at which the volume changes have occurred," and when the researchers' best estimates of regional differences in this parameter are used, they find that "72% of the Antarctic ice sheet is gaining 27 ± 29 Gt year-1, a sink of ocean mass sufficient to lower [authors' italics] global sea levels by 0.08 mm year-1." This net extraction of water from the global ocean, according to Wingham et al., occurs because "mass gains from accumulating snow, particularly on the Antarctic Peninsula and within East Antarctica, exceed the ice dynamic mass loss from West Antarctica."

What it means
Contrary to all the horror stories one hears about global warming-induced mass wastage of the Antarctic ice sheet leading to rising sea levels that gobble up coastal lowlands worldwide, the most recent decade of pertinent real-world data suggest that forces leading to just the opposite effect are apparently prevailing, even in the face of what climate alarmists typically describe as the greatest warming of the world in the past two millennia or more.

[Kärnfysikern]

Antarctic Ice Sheet Mass Balance
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO.../V9/N45/C2.jsp
Nov.08, 2006
What was done
The authors "analyzed 1.2 x 108 European remote sensing satellite altimeter echoes to determine the changes in volume of the Antarctic ice sheet from 1992 to 2003." This survey, in their words, "covers 85% of the East Antarctic ice sheet and 51% of the West Antarctic ice sheet," which together comprise "72% of the grounded ice sheet.""

What was learned
Wingham et al. report that "overall, the data, corrected for isostatic rebound, show the ice sheet growing at 5 ± 1 mm year-1." To calculate the ice sheet's change in mass, however, "requires knowledge of the density at which the volume changes have occurred," and when the researchers' best estimates of regional differences in this parameter are used, they find that "72% of the Antarctic ice sheet is gaining 27 ± 29 Gt year-1, a sink of ocean mass sufficient to lower [authors' italics] global sea levels by 0.08 mm year-1." This net extraction of water from the global ocean, according to Wingham et al., occurs because "mass gains from accumulating snow, particularly on the Antarctic Peninsula and within East Antarctica, exceed the ice dynamic mass loss from West Antarctica."

What it means
Contrary to all the horror stories one hears about global warming-induced mass wastage of the Antarctic ice sheet leading to rising sea levels that gobble up coastal lowlands worldwide, the most recent decade of pertinent real-world data suggest that forces leading to just the opposite effect are apparently prevailing, even in the face of what climate alarmists typically describe as the greatest warming of the world in the past two millennia or more.

Notice that in the post you qouted I never once mentioned global warming. The danger to our environment is so much more than just global warming.

I dont know how many times I have posted articles about the death rates each year causes by fossile fuels. That and the diseases related to it is a huge economic burden. Then we have all the allergy epedemics nowdays that is defenetly linked to environmental factors, that cost tremendous ammounts of money for society.

Not to mention depletion of resources, growing deserts, shrinking glaciers, global dimming causing changes to rainfall patterns, the massive ammounts of chemicals that do not get broken down in nature and concetrate upwards in the food chain, depletion of soil, fishing many spieces of fish to extinction, ruining whole ecosystems, massive release of heavy metalls. The list just goes on and on and on.

Getting rid of fossile fuels would be the first and best step in order to clean that filth up.

I have never heard anyone claiming that the antartic ice sheets are shrinking btw, but the glaciers everywhere on the northern hemisphere along with the artic is melting.

[Phreak101]

His homepage is pure gold.

I will be checking that out

[Kärnfysikern]

I will be checking that out

http://www.greenspirit.com/

http://www.sensibleenvironmentalist.com/



I was very interested in reading his oppinions on forestry. Especialy about how he say the amazon is nowhere near beeing in any kind of danger.

also hes all for GM foods. Man I can understand why his old fanatic friends hate him because he realy lays down the truth on his homepage no bullshit

If he decided to start a new environmental group I would sign up instantly.