Re: The Truth About Global Warming: Sid Harth
chhotemianinshallah
India should define plans to curb carbon emissions: EU
Posted On: 29-Sep-2009 20:09:24 News Source: PTI
New Delhi: European Union asked new Delhi to define the plans to curb
carbon emissions and notify them through a treaty likely to be signed
at Copenhagen conference on climate change in December. Though the EU
said it was not seeking a legally binding commitment, the demand for
quantified action seems to build pressure on the country which has
been consistently refusing to move further on reducing emissions.
"We are not asking India to take up legally binding commitments (on
carbon emissions). But what we want is the quantified action on its
part, adopt low carbon strategy and notify them through the climate
change treaty," EU Ambassador to India Deniele Samdja told reporters
here.
The EU's statement has come a few days after Union Environment
Minister Jairam Ramesh presented an annual report to the UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change detailing India's greenhouse gas
emissions and measures.
The delegation of the EU members also made it clear to India that the
country cannot just keep talking and make declaration but also commit
to more specific action. It is a mutual and global task. The climate
change burden has to borne by both the worlds -developing and
developed, said Swedish Ambassador Lars-Olf Lindergren.
"Being the major developing nations, these countries (China, India and
Brazil) have to take commitments to reduce emissions. As far as EU is
concerned, we have committed to cutting carbon emissions by at least
40 per cent by 2020," Smadja added.
...and I am Sid Harth
Sid Harth
Climate change measures crucial for Asia-Pacific: UN
AFP/ PTI / Bangkok September 29, 2009, 20:39 IST
UN experts today warned that Asia-Pacific nations and other developing
countries need support to combat climate change as they face an
intensification of extreme weather such as the Philippine floods.
The comments came as a divide between rich and poor nations continued
to dominate crucial negotiations in Bangkok to develop a new climate
treaty before world leaders meet in Copenhagen in December.
UN climate chief Yvo de Boer said one of the "key elements" of a deal
was increased support for developing countries in the Asia-Pacific
region and elsewhere to step up efforts to deal with the effects of
climate change.
"Typhoons, floods and extreme weather events regularly make headlines
in this part of the world," de Boer told reporters.
De Boer said the devastation in the Philippines was "the most recent
tragic example" of climate change affecting the region, as the death
toll reached 240, with the same storm, Ketsana, also killing 22 people
in Vietnam.
"The impacts are likely to become more intense over time. Dealing with
emergency situations, reducing disaster risks and increasing the
climate resilience is a necessity for this region," he added.
Indonesia became the latest country to announce plans for a cut in
greenhouse gas emissions, saying it would cut them by more than a
quarter
bademiyansubhanallah
Climate change to hit Asia's poor people most:ADB
STAFF WRITER 12:6 HRS IST
Manila/New Delhi, Sep 30 (PTI) Poor people and rural women from
developing nations in Asia will be among those most affected by
climate change which poses fundamental threats to the region's food
and energy security, according to studies funded by the Asian
Development Bank.
The climate change is also expected to lead to increased migration of
people within national boundaries, mainly into mega cities.
Attributing to three studies on agriculture, energy and migration, the
ADB in a statement today said the impacts of rising temperatures in
Asia would fall disproportionately on the region's poor, and rural
women from developing countries would be among the most affected
groups.
Such a scenario would arise on account of these groups dependence on
subsistence crops, their limited access to resources, and their lack
of decision-making power.
chhotemianinshallah
September 30, 2009, 6:58 pm
Australia’s Dust Bowl and Global Warming
By The Editors
How do scientists know when nature’s disasters are caused by global
warming — a fire, a flood and, in Australia last week, dust storms?
A number of prominent scientists around the world said that
Australia’s recent travails — prolonged drought, devastating fires and
now dust storms, which blanketed Sydney last week — are linked to
climate change, which is making an arid continent’s environment far
more disaster prone. Some Australian researchers emphasized historical
weather patterns. Conservationists, while calling for global action on
climate change, also said that Australia needs to do more in its own
backyard to protect land and water resources from agricultural,
development and industrial interests.
What is the relationship of climate change to Australia’s problems?
What is the lesson for the rest of the world?
Andy Pitman, University of New South Wales
Peter H. Gleick, Pacific Institute
Gregory E. Webb, Queensland University of Technology
Penny Whetton and Kevin Hennessy, Commonwealth Scientific and
Industrial Research Organization
It’s the Heat That’s Different
Andy Pitman is the co-director of the Climate Change Research Center
at the University of New South Wales in Sydney.
On Sept. 23, a dust storm hit Sydney, Australia. It actually hit much
of the east coast of Australia. I drove over the Harbour bridge at
6.30 a.m. and I could not see the bridge, the Opera House or the
harbor. It actually got darker as the sun rose.
Every climate scientist was asked, “Is this global warming?”
While dust storms have plagued Australia for thousands of years,
rising temperatures cannot be explained without citing global warming
as a partial cause.
Dust storms have hit eastern Australia for thousands of years. Central
Australia is arid, and our deserts move around easily when it’s windy
— just like in the U.S. Dust storms hit Sydney a few times each
century.
The problem is that eastern Australia is in drought and a large amount
of inland eastern Australia has been subject to some farming practices
that have tended to degrade the native vegetation. Eastern Australia
has undergone major deforestation for pasture and crops which combined
with the ongoing drought has left vegetation cover badly reduced. The
exposed soil is vulnerable to the 100 km per hour winds we saw here
last week. This has direct parallels with the Dust Bowl catastrophe.
So what role does global warming play, if any? The current drought has
not been that dry. Droughts around 1900 and 1940 were probably
similar. But it has been hotter than we have seen before — precisely
as predicted due to global warming.
Read more…
It reached over 46 C (116 F) in Melbourne last summer and Adelaide
recorded six sequential days exceeding 40 C (104 F). This, combined
with many temperature records being broken across eastern Australia,
cannot be explained without using global warming as a partial cause.
And that has made the landscape very vulnerable to the strong winds.
With an unusually warm and dry spring, and a developing El Nino that
tends to bring drought, further dust storms should not surprise any of
us.
Avoid the Unmanageable, Manage the Unavoidable
Peter H. Gleick, co-founder and president of the Pacific Institute, is
a member of the American National Academy of Sciences.
As the science and actual observations of climate change have become
indisputable, climate deniers have been marginalized as extremists.
But the debate about climate change isn’t over – it has entered a new,
more difficult phase.
We need to think more deeply about adapting to the climate changes we
cannot do anything about.
What should we, the world community, actually do about climate change?
This debate has been narrowly focused on the issue of mitigation: that
is, how to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases to slow the rate
and reduce the severity of climate change. The coming meeting in
Copenhagen is aimed at this goal. Yet as the recent extreme droughts
and dust storms and agricultural challenges in Australia show so
clearly, we had better think far more deeply about the issue of
adaptation as well: how do we deal with those climate changes we will
not be able to avoid, no matter what happens this year in Copenhagen.
In other words, we need to do two things simultaneously: both “avoid
the unmanageable and manage the unavoidable.” Reducing greenhouse
gases will help us avoid impacts from climate change we simply will
not be able to manage. But we must also plan to manage the impacts of
climate change that are now unavoidable because of changes we’ve
already wrought.
Read more…
We do not know for sure if the recent water-related disasters in
Australia are due to climate change. Perhaps they are – certainly
there is evidence to support that position. But as climate changes
accelerate, these kinds of impacts are increasingly likely, in the
western U.S., in northern China, in sub-Saharan Africa, in India, and
anywhere that water is already scarce, or badly managed. And I believe
that dramatic new risks to our water systems are “unavoidable.”
So what do we do? We must learn how to use our water sustainably. This
means we must improve water-use efficiency, so we can get more out of
every drop, stop overpumping and protect natural ecosystems that also
require water. We must also clean up dirty water, and prevent it from
getting dirty in the first place, and ensure that all people have
access to affordable safe water and sanitation.
Climate change is a global issue and requires global actions. Water
resource challenges are local issues and require local actions.
And the interactions between the two remind us that we have no time to
waste at either scale.
The Driest Continent
Gregory E. Webb is senior lecturer in the School of Natural Resource
Sciences at Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane.
It seems to be very popular to attribute virtually any modern climatic
phenomenon to “climate change,” or more properly, “anthropogenic
global warming” (climate has been in a continuous state of change
throughout the numerous glacial cycles of the last two million years).
However, there is little scientific justification for attributing
recent large dust storms in Australia to climate change that relates
to human CO2 emissions.
The dust storms are just the most recent in a record that extends back
hundreds of thousands of years.
Australia historically is a very dusty place. It is the driest
continent on Earth, excepting Antarctica, and much of the continental
interior represents a classic subtropical latitude desert. It has been
suggested that more sediment leaves the Australian continent as wind
blown dust than is transported to the oceans by rivers. Historical
records of that dust have been studied in deep sea sediment cores in
the Pacific and Indian Oceans and in glaciers in New Zealand. Major
dust storms are nothing new to Australia.
Read more…
Geological records of pollen, lake levels, sand dunes and dust have
shown increasing aridity on the Australian continent over the last
600,000-800,000 years and that record is overprinted by relatively dry
(dusty) glacial and more humid interglacial cycles over much of the
continent. In Queensland, the last interglacial interval was drier
than the previous one on the basis of lake levels and pollen, and
there is much evidence that aridity has been increasing in Australia
over much longer time frames than anthropogenic “global warming.”
However, despite a large number of dedicated scientists studying the
geological record of climate in Australia, ancient climate was complex
and a great many gaps remain in our understanding.
Even in historical times Australia has been drought prone and most
major drought intervals were associated with major dust storm records.
For example, major dust storms occurred in the 1895-1902 drought
interval and again in the 1937-1945 interval, those being on a par
with the American Dust Bowl. As recently as 1983 a giant dust storm
blanketed Melbourne causing street lights to be turned on in daytime
hours. Could these all have been due to human CO2 emissions? Well,
what then about the Australian dust storms reported by Charles Darwin
in the 1830’s?
Clearly some of this recent dust activity may have been exacerbated by
human agricultural practice and land modification, but in the bigger
scheme of things, human memories are very short, and the Australian
dust storms of September 2009 are just the most recent in a much
longer record that extends back hundreds of thousands of years.
Earth, Wind and Fire
Penny Whetton is leader of the climate change research group at
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. Kevin
Hennessy leads the climate change risk adaptation and policy team at
CSIRO.
Was there a link between climate change and last week’s massive red
dust cloud that emerged from central Australia to engulf two of
Australia’s largest cities, Sydney and Brisbane, and the capital
Canberra? Or the Victorian bush fires in February 2009 that claimed
more than 170 lives? One of us, Penny Whetton, has a clear memory of
watching her first dust storm roll in over Melbourne in 1983, the same
year as the Ash Wednesday bush fires in Victoria that claimed 75
lives.
Temperature and rainfall: how they are connected to climate change.
First the fires. There has been no formal detection and attribution
study that our group is aware of to assess whether anthropogenic
climate change contributed to increasing the risk of the extreme
weather event on Feb. 7, 2009. When considering the factors that
contributed to this event, we need to include the sequence of events
leading up to that day. Since fire weather is influenced by
temperature, rainfall, humidity and wind-\ speed, CSIRO has assessed
recent studies of trends in these variables, and the likely
contribution of anthropogenic climate change. Based on literature
CSIRO is aware of:
— Increases in mean and maximum temperature in Australia since 1950
have been mostly attributed to anthropogenic climate change. The
observed rise in maximum temperature (mostly due to anthropogenic
climate change) is likely to have contributed to an increase in the
risk of heat waves and extremely hot days in Victoria.
— The decline in rainfall over southeastern Australia during the past
50 years is mostly due to a trend in the intensity of the subtropical
ridge, which in turn appears partly attributable to anthropogenic
climate change. Hence anthropogenic climate change is likely to have
increased the risk of extremely dry conditions over Victoria.
Close
— Trends in extreme daily humidity and wind speed have not been
analysed to CSIRO’s knowledge, so it is not currently possible to
determine whether anthropogenic climate change has contributed to
changes in these variables.
In Australia, there is a season for dust storms — from September to
March, with its genesis often in the Lake Eyre Basin of Central
Australia, a region of desert, grasslands and wetlands that accounts
for one sixth of the Australian continent. Our colleague, the
atmospheric scientist Ross Mitchell, notes: “We have been observing
from two sites since 1997 and if you look at the 10 years from 1997 to
2007 there was a big change in dust source emission following the 2002
drought. If you take an average dust level from 2002-2007 and compare
that with 1997-2002 there is about a factor of two difference, 2002-07
is about two times higher than the preceding five years, a significant
increase on a decadal time scale.”
Based on our projections, in which Australia will get drier and
warmer, the risk of continuing dry conditions in the Lake Eyre Basin
would be increasing.
1. September 30, 2009
8:12 pm
Link
Anthropogenic climate change (AGW) is yet to be proved. Despite the
political fervor, AGW is looking more and more likely to be disproved.
Despite the billions spent trying to find it, there is still no hot
spot in the atmosphere as predicted by computer models. The famous
“hockey stick” of predicted temperature rise based on tree rings has
just been denounced as a sham based on a selected small sample of
trees that produced the desired result. The oceans are actually
getting cooler; in direct contrast to predictive computer models. AGW
is looking like it is resting on crumbling foundations, yet the
doomsday crowd seem content to ignore the growing research for
idealogical dogma.
Australia’s duststorms have been occurring long before humans were
there. The same applies to the droughts. In fact, the current drought
was predicted by long range forecasters in the 1950’s; not based on
supposed evidence of global warming, but on sunspot cycles.
There might be something to AGW, but it increasingly is looking like a
very vocal crowd crying wolf. It would be nice to present both sides
of that argument without contributors focussing almost exclusively on
AGW.
— Tony Stephenson
2. September 30, 2009
8:37 pm
Link
Whetton and Hennessey did an admirable job in interpreting the data.
I’d just point out a relatively minor omission. They wrote:
“There has been no formal detection and attribution study that our
group is aware of to assess whether anthropogenic climate change
contributed to increasing the risk of the extreme weather event on
Feb. 7, 2009.”
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology issued just such a linkage in
May.
“The combination of record heat and widespread drought during the past
five to twelve years over large parts of southern and eastern
Australia is without historical precedent and is, at least partly, a
result of climate change.”
This official “Drought Statement” can be found at http://bit.ly/4omLn,
and I cite it in an article published in “The Phoenix Sun” last week
(http://bit.ly/4omLn), dealing with the same questions raised here.
— Osha Gray Davidson
3. September 30, 2009
8:42 pm
Link
Sorry, but we can all quit worrying about global warming, because
it’s already too late due to overpopulation.
From the book “The Vanishing Face of Gaia”, by James Lovelock, recent
winner of the Wollaston Medal by the Geological Society of London but
most well known as the founder of Gaia Theory:
“It is not simply too much carbon dioxide in the air… it is the root
cause: Too many people, their bets, and their livestock–more than the
Earth can carry. No voluntary human act can reduce our numbers fast
enough even to slow climate change.
“Like it or not, we are the problem. Because of our numbers and our
depredations, the Earth is in a state of positive feedback: Deviations
of the climate are amplified, not suppressed, so that greater heat
leads to even greater heat.
“Simply cutting back fossil-fuel burning, energy use, and the
destruction of natural forests will not be a sufficient answer to
global heating, not least because it seems that climate change can
happen faster than we respond to it…Because of the rapidity of the
Earth’s change, we will need to respond more like the inhabitants of a
city threatened by a flood. When they see the unstoppable rise of
water, their only option is to escape to higher ground.”
What he goes on to say is that only about 10% of humanity will survive
this century, and that’s only if it flees to habitable pockets near
the poles because such pockets will eventually be the ONLY habitable
pockets anywhere, and those who can had best start moving as soon as
possible.
Before anything described above even happens, however, civilization
will certainly collapse, making it all the more difficult to fulfill
Lovelock’s advice by heading for the poles.
There will be nothing we can do about any of this, but there is ONE
thing we most certainly can do:
Live for Love. Love your children, your loved ones, and all you hold
dear as never before, to the very core of your being, for as long as
you possibly can. LIVE FOR LOVE.
— Captain Ronnel
4. September 30, 2009
8:57 pm
Link
It’s called bad farming practices - over-farming, plowing too deep,
over-fertilization, over-irrigation causing the water table to rise
bringing salty water up which kills trees and grasses…
Then when you get a big dry and some wind, the top-soil just blows
away… it ain’t rocket science.
Michael
— Michael Ellenby
5. September 30, 2009
9:47 pm
Link
Someone asks, what will we do about climate change and drought? The
answer is “nothing” when it comes to meaningful global changes in
human behavior, rather than token efforts by individuals.
Notice that in these several discussions, nobody said anything about
human overpopulation, which is really driving all the other problems,
including deforestation, removal of native land cover, etc., etc.
Of course eventually the human population will crash and it is just a
question of which specific scenario will bring it down. Memo to self:
don’t be on the planet when that happens!
— heat-lightning
6. October 1, 2009
12:11 am
Link
begin to replant trees world -wide. Millions and millions of trees,
suitable to the climate at hand.
Trees absorb carbon dioxide, hold soil in place, provide habitat for
countless species, and have the power to change local climates.
Just ask the inhabitants of places which have been deforested in
recent decades - that was volunteered to me by a resident of Oaxaca,
MX some 20 years ago who said farmers were desperately hurting because
the prior regime had permitted “friends” to clearcut forests wholesale
and severe weather pattern changes ensued. The farmers didn’t need
scientific studies to prove the cause and effect - all they had to do
is look at their withering crops and the naked hills where forests
once stood.
Another modern day proof was the reforestation of Israel thanks to the
Jewish National Fund’s efforts in the last 100 years which produced
localized beneficial weather changes. In northern Israel those forests
were targeted by Hizbollah rockets which caused massive forest fires.
Soil erosion and other ill effects ensued.
And an old joke says that at one time there was a Sahara Forest. Maybe
it wasn’t just humor.
— David from Scottsdale
7. October 1, 2009
12:22 am
Link
Tony Stephenson wrote:
Anthropogenic climate change (AGW) is yet to be proved. Despite the
political fervor, AGW is looking more and more likely to be
disproved.
BS
— mds
8. October 1, 2009
12:32 am
Link
“Of course eventually the human population will crash and it is just
a question of which specific scenario will bring it down.” I’m betting
on ‘anthropogenic climate change,’ or global warming.
— Tom
9. October 1, 2009
12:39 am
Link
Climate change assumptions rather than facts, and computer modeling
rather than real-world observations, underpin efforts to restrict
American liberties and confiscate trillions of dollars of American
income. The science behind this massive intrusion into American life
requires more than a “consensus” of like-minded climate analysts. It
needs to be right.
Critical differences exist between scientists who observe weather and
climate and those who attempt to model nature’s complexities. Those
who observe the natural, economic, and sociological aspects of climate
change are “realists,” not “skeptics.” The modelers, on the other
hand, believe complex mathematics and broad assumptions can forecast
the future of climate, Earth’s most complex system.
Observational facts should force realism and civility into the
political and media hysteria about alleged human-caused global
warming. For example, careful analysis by geophysicist Syun Akasofu of
the International Arctic Research Center shows a natural warming of
the lower atmosphere by half a degree Celsius per 100 years since
about 1660, that is, the coldest time of the Little Ice Age.
Warming and cooling intervals during this general warming trend have
occurred as they have for thousands of years, and warming has not
accelerated during industrialization. Further, the recent 50-year
increase in carbon dioxide of one molecule of per 10,000 molecules of
air every five years has had no detectable effect on climate.
Where is all the carbon dioxide from fossil fuels? Geoscientists have
long known that atmospheric carbon dioxide cycles through the oceans
every 5-10 years, not every 200 years as claimed by the UN’s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Further, for every fossil-fuel carbon dioxide molecule added to the
atmosphere, the ocean soaks up about 50 such molecules within a
decade. These observational facts mean that humans cannot cause the
doomsday assumption of a “doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide”.
Engineer and climate expert Fred Goldberg of Sweden’s Royal School of
Technology points out the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide
decreases rapidly with increasing concentration. About 95% of that
effect already has been used up at today’s level of 385 parts per
million.
Unfortunately for the computer modelers, their models do not work. The
models’ unanimous prediction that the troposphere (lower 0-15 km)
should have warmed significantly in response to current levels of
carbon dioxide does not match actual measurements.
A team led by physicist David Douglass of the University of Rochester
has shown that the troposphere has remained unchanged or cooled
slightly since 1979 when satellite and balloon-borne measurements of
atmospheric temperature began. Models cannot truly deal with the
realities of weather, that is, evaporation, convection, clouds, rain,
and all the other pathways in which nature inexorably moves heat from
where it is warm to where it is cold.
And then there are the sun and the oceans. Observational and
geological records, changing of the seasons, and correlation of
historical variations with solar activity cycles, all confirm that
radiation and magnetic fields emanating from the sun drive changes in
weather and climate. As Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center
for
Astrophysics has documented, the position and orientation of the Earth
in its orbit around the sun and the sun’s variable activity determine
weather and climate. As part of this process, oceans store enormous
amounts of solar energy. They create climate variations over vast
regions by transferring that energy around the globe over decades and
centuries through a system of interconnected currents and current
oscillations.
Given what we actually know about climate, as well as the remaining
uncertainties, Americans should think long and hard before giving up
liberties and incomes to politicians who just want to “do something”
to satisfy a particular special interest. Prudent protection of local
environments is one thing – a long-term political agenda to gather
power at the expense of liberty is quite another.
A very high probability exists that “doing something” will not work
against natural climate forces we only incompletely understand. When
we realize what liberties have been lost, the probability also is very
great that we will deeply regret not just preparing for climate change
rather than trying to stop it. Instead, our focus should be on
producing more energy to raise worldwide living standards and not on
how to limit energy use and improvements in the human condition.
Observations of natural variations in atmospheric and oceanic
temperatures, gas concentrations, and currents provide clear
indications of how, but not when, climate will change. Historical and
geological records also illustrate the levels of uncertainty existing
forecasts of either the direction or the timing of changes.
Forecasts based on computer models have proven to be unsuccessful due
to the great number and complexity of critical climate variables, some
of which, like water vapor and clouds, so far defy mathematical
definition. In combination, water vapor and clouds have about 20 times
the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide (CO2). Little wonder that
climate models fail, repeatedly, in both replication of current
conditions and in forecasting the future.
Observations provide two important facts about atmospheric CO2. First,
a general but irregular trend of global warming, by half a degree
Centigrade per 100 years, has existed since about 1660, the coldest
part of the Little Ice Age. Obviously, this slow warming persisted for
hundreds of years before industrialization began to add CO2 to natural
emissions from the biosphere and the oceans. Second, detailed studies
of ice cores show that increases in CO2 follow global temperature
increases by many centuries rather than leading, much less causing any
warming. Further, actual observations show no measurable, long-term
alteration of climate patterns during the last century’s slow increase
in atmospheric CO2.
The obvious explanation for the absence of any CO2 effect on modern
climate lies in the physical fact that the greenhouse warming
potential of CO2 decreases with increasing concentration. Most of any
CO2-induced warming has already taken place at concentrations well
below the present level of about 0.0385 percent. In fact, for the
foreseeable future on Earth, CO2 is finished as a greenhouse gas!
If not CO2, what causes the historically and geologically observed
changes in climate? Hundreds of years of recorded observation show
that the position and orientation of the Earth in its orbit around the
sun along with variations in solar activity determine changes in
climate. For example, as Serbian mathematician Milutin Milankovic in
1941 and others since have pointed out, the major ice ages on Earth
correlate with 41,000 and 100,000-year cycles in the position of the
Earth in its solar orbit.
Further, the Medieval Warm Period (800-1300) and the Little Ice Age
(1400-1900) correlate, respectively, with very active and very passive
periods of solar flare and magnetic activity.
Widely published analyses exist of tree rings, layering in cave
stalagmites and cores of lake and ocean bottom sediments, and high
altitude wind variations. These all document broadly accepted
correlations of climate variations with many systematic repetitions in
solar activity, ranging from the 11-year sun spot cycle up to the long-
term repetitions mentioned above.
As to the explanation of this apparent solar influence on climate,
research by Henrik Svensmark of Denmark’s Center for Sun-Climate
Research indicates that the strength of solar magnetic fields
influence the flux of cosmic rays that enter the Earth’s atmosphere.
Cosmic rays consist of largely of extremely high-energy, electrically
charged hydrogen and helium nuclei. Cosmic ray collisions with gases
in the atmosphere produce rare isotopes that provide a measurable
history of variations in cosmic ray intensity when taken up in tree
rings and other annually layered materials. These particles also
ionize gases in the lower atmosphere, providing points for water vapor
condensation.
Periods of weak solar magnetic fields allow cosmic rays to penetrate
more readily into the lower atmosphere where they ionize more gas
molecules than average. The reverse occurs with periods of strong
solar magnetic fields. Satellite observations of cloud cover, isotopic
analysis of tree rings, ice cores and stalagmites, and historical
analyses of solar activity by Svensmark and many others support this
hypothesis.
As cloud cover expands, more solar radiation reflects back into space,
resulting in a net cooling of the atmosphere and increased snow
accumulation, particularly in temperate and arctic regions. A current
illustration of the cooling effect of decreased solar activity appears
to be the currently very quiet sun and the recent reversal of the
slightly elevated warming trend of the 1970s through 1990s.
How long this cooling trend will persist remains to be seen; however,
Greenland glaciers have been advancing since 2006, Arctic sea ice has
returned to 1989 levels of coverage, and snowy, cold winters have
dominated northern North America and Europe.
Actual observations show that climate varies in response to natural
forces and that human burning of fossil fuels has had negligible if
any effect over the last 100 years. Lets us hope that policy makers
will understand these facts about climate change before liberty and
incomes suffer further erosion in their search for political power.
— Harrison Schmitt
10. October 1, 2009
12:59 am
Link
Grab some popcorn and get ready for an amazing century!
If we keep breeding like this; who knows how this might end? Two
children is enough.
— John More
11. October 1, 2009
1:26 am
Link
In comment 2, the link I provided to “The Phoenix Sun” article is
incorrect.
The correct link is: http://bit.ly/151CQf.
— Osha Gray Davidson
12. October 1, 2009
3:30 am
Link
If You want to know what a TIPPING POINT looks like look no further
than the Weather and the fingerprint evidence for the Climate
Cassandras can be found in the Soft Commodity markets where the MARKET
is the Message. Sugar, Cocoa and Tea are all boiling over.
Aly-Khan Satchu
http://www.rich.co.ke
Twitter alykhansatchu
— Aly-KhanSatchu
13. October 1, 2009
5:12 am
Link
A few extra degrees having an effect on the fires? Does the
difference between a 44 or 46 degree day really matter when you have
100 km/h winds, a massive buildup of dead wood for fuel and an
arsonist with a chubby? Come on, since European population we have all
but stopped the Aboriginal practice of regularly burning the bush. A
build up of fuel and poor forest management was the problem.
As for dust stroms Micheal Ellenby has it spot on deep plowing,
irrigation and de-forestation in an already arid area, with the side
effect of salinisation are the root of the problem.
Ask the farmers, the climate change scientists above have an agenda
since they are living from grant to grant. The farmers and the people
who live on the land and are seeing the changes know whats going on.
— Stick fireman
14. October 1, 2009
5:53 am
Link
I think that the comment “avoid the unmanageable and manage the
unavoidable” is a good way to look at global warming. Anybody who does
not accept that it is happening in living in serious denial. But
whatever we do must be useful and soundly-based.
However, just repeating over and over that it is anthropogenic does
not make it true. Indeed, major problems are not uni-dimensional, so
it is essential to look at all contributors to the problem; working on
the manageable as they are identified.
What happens if much of global warming is the result of sun cycles and
not human activity? Or that both are forming a feedback loop for
disaster and we are adressing only one when we should address both
simultaneously?
I know that many scientists receive huge research grants on the basis
of global warming research, but I have yet to see any output that is
comprehensive and not designed for the next research grant proposal.
Make it plain, make it balanced, and make it understandable; or there
will never be more than a guilt case for any actions that are taken.
Call me cynical, but I have worked in senior administration in a
number of universities and the system really has not changed: just the
funding sources and stories that must be told to access the funding.
Academic rigour and honesty are the hallmarks of real progress, it is
about time this was applied generally to such a critical question.
— Ken Robertson
15. October 1, 2009
7:47 am
Link
In Australia water is life, pure and simple. We we live in a fragile
environment on a very dry continent. It is only wise to plan for the
worst and hope for the best. In either scenario, our land will be
better cared for and our water resources preserved.
Whether this particular dust storm is the result of AGW is perhaps not
provable in the time frame. That AGW is an existential threat to us
is.
— Alan in Sydney
16. October 1, 2009
7:54 am
Link
Why not integrate China’s weather modification systems that they used
to make today’s 60th anniversary perfect? It sounds like a joke, but
if it worked for China, why not at least research the possible
benefits for a drought ridden country like Australia?
— McBunk
17. October 1, 2009
7:57 am
Link
Permaculture can reverse the soil damage caused by poor farming
practices, and do so quickly. Watch the five-minute video, “Greening
the Desert” an actual case study in a place with half an inch of
rainfall per year:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sohI6vnWZmk
You’ll be shocked at what can be accomplished in under a year.
— Donald
18. October 1, 2009
8:02 am
Link
Mr. Stephenson is typical of those that do not want to realize the
facts point directly to high amounts of human produced carbon dioxide
in the troposphere of Earth. It has been known for over five decades.
Five decades of research. It is hideous to continue to deny the
warming of the planet due to the high levels of CO2.
Australia may have made some stupid decisions regarding land use, but,
that is all they are. They are not the reason to continue to deny the
heating of a burgeoning dry planet. It’s pathetic already.
Droughts and destroyed ice fields are everywhere including Greenland
which is deteriorating at an accelertating rate. The problem with
people like Mr. Stephenson is that he actually believe he can live
through climage change, so denial for ’status quo’ economics seems
logical. It isn’t. Earth is a planet. I promise you the changes that
happen on a dynamic that huge won’t allow humans to survive.
— Elisa Barrett
19. October 1, 2009
8:02 am
Link
Lake Eyre has been shown to be the source of this fine dust and the
dust is the result of its origin as fine silt which settled out of the
shallow waters of the Lake which frequently is completely dry but due
to record rains (what drought?) was recently filled and has now dried,
as it always does.
In the mean time the atrocious land management of Australia
exacerbates the situation. There’s plenty of blame to go around
without having to point to the shadowy and quite possibly imaginary
climate boogey man.
— doug l
20. October 1, 2009
8:05 am
Link
Great discussion, brings up two thoughts in my mind:
1) The population bomb is fizzling and the global population will peak
this century around 9 to 10 billion according to UN estimates.
While this is larger than the current population, it will indeed be a
peak. With improvements in efficiency of our use of energy and natural
resources, we will be ok. We need to get away from the doomsday
scenarios and get focused on improving the things that will prevent
these scenarios from happening.
So, to comment #3 and #5, things are not yet decided but there are
reasons for optimism.
2) The whole debate on AGW evidence gets distracted very easily
because of our ability to predict the behavior of a chaotic system.
The two facts to remember are that there is measurably larger amounts
of CO2 in the atmosphere from human activity; and that CO2 is a
greenhouse gas.
So, to comment #1, correlation of the effects are by nature not
possible to directly prove in the sense of a true scientific
experiment. However, it does not seem prudent to declare that we
should experiment with the one biosphere we have by pushing the
natural carbon cycle to historical limits.
— CBusGuy
21. October 1, 2009
8:18 am
Link
heat globally, cool locally;
Geoengineering.
— germ killer
22. October 1, 2009
8:19 am
Link
“As the science and actual observations of climate change have become
indisputable, climate deniers have been marginalized as extremists…
We do not know for sure if the recent water-related disasters in
Australia are due to climate change…”
Actually, it is the AGW Cassandras who are lemmings….
— learned_hand
23. October 1, 2009
8:31 am
Link
Discussing if particular events are attributable to global warming is
a complete stupidity. Boil a pot of water on your stove and point at
the bubbles that would not have been there if you had turned the heat
down to a slower boil. What a pointless exercise! What a distraction
from the real issues!
The “greenhouse effect” was always there, and the contents of
greenhouse agents in the atmosphere has grown, beyond every doubt
possible, as a result of human recycling of carbon deposits in the
ground. The question is not if we have global warming, but how much,
how soon, and what the second and third order consequences will be.
There is no way the increase of greenhouse gases could not push the
temperature equilibrium toward a higher level. With increasing
temperature, the Earth will radiate more, and at some point a new
balance between inflow and outflow of heat will establish itself.
We may have less certainty about the future frequency and ferocity of
storms - they are driven by temperature differences, not by absolute
levels, and we may not know everything about the feedback effects of
methane and carbon dioxide releases from melting tundras, but allowing
such doubts to paralyse all efforts to reduce the releases is
outrageously irresponsible. It is like saying that this man is
drowning, but we do not know if the lack of oxygen may harm his
cancerous tissues more than other tissues, perhaps drowning a little
is actually good for him? Should we postpone efforts to get him out of
the water?
All right, this metaphor is not a perfect fit - we know with certainty
that drowning is lethal. But while we do not know all the effects of
global warming, we know with certainty that we have no guarantee of
global warming being innocuous. The risks are huge. Slowing down the
warming allows more time to mitigate whatever problems can be
mitigated, and to manage the unavoidable, as Mr. Gleick writes above.
All this said, I am not against studying the specifics. Will global
warming lead to overall increased rainfall, globally? Will the dry
belts along the tropics shift away from the equator? Will increased
precipitation over the Antarctic offset some or all of the global
glacial melting? All of this is useful in the quest to manage the
unavoidable. If only we could stop pretending there is no need to act!
— Perez Terron
24. October 1, 2009
8:31 am
Link
Sometimes it seems that people on opposite sides of the climate
change debate must live in parallel universes, with their news sources
presenting mirror-image information!
Comment #1 by Tony Stephenson states:
“…The oceans are actually getting cooler; in direct contrast to
predictive computer models. …”
Skeptical, I googled “ocean temperature climate change” and quickly
found this on a NOAA website:
“The planet’s ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for
July, breaking the previous high mark established in 1998 according to
an analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.
The combined average global land and ocean surface temperature for
July 2009 ranked fifth-warmest since world-wide records began in
1880.”
So I guess NOAA is part of the “doomsday crowd”?
Bernie Arbic
— Bernie Arbic
25. October 1, 2009
8:31 am
Link
Poster #1: what are your credentials and sources of citation? I am
not a climate scientist, but I am a scientist and I think you
represent the fringe. About ocean temperatures, here is a piece from
the NYT. Cite your sources for your “facts”; you are in the minority
if you think the science is not supporting the IPCC and vast majority
of climate scientists who summarize the science and conclude that AGW
is real–not all the scientists but the vast, vast majority. Too many
bloggers quote “facts” that are not factual. There are many sources of
data, not all lining up in a row, but pointing to the conclusion to
the majority of those who know–that this is real, not just “the way
the earth goes”. But my words won’t stop the deniers…..the blog goes
on, the beat goes on….
By CORNELIA DEAN
Published: August 14, 2009
Average temperatures of waters at the oceans’ surface in July were the
highest ever recorded, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration said. The agency said the average sea surface
temperature was 1.06 degrees higher than the 20th-century average of
61.5 degrees. Though July was unusually cool in some areas, like the
eastern United States, analysts at the NOAA Climate Data Center said
the combined global land and ocean surface temperature was 1.03
degrees higher than the 20th-century average of 60.4 degrees, the
fifth warmest since worldwide record keeping began in 1880. The agency
also said that, on average, Arctic sea ice covered 3.4 million square
miles in July, 12.7 percent below the 1979-2000 average and the third
lowest on record, after 2007 and 2006.
— Steven Wassilak
From 26 to 50 of 69 Comments
« Previous 1 2 3 Next »
26. October 1, 2009
8:50 am
Link
There are not “two sides” to the issue of Global Warming. What Tony
calls “a very vocal crowd crying wolf,” is in fact the vast majority
of the world’s scientific community. Try this test Tony: find one
scientific research organization, association, institute, congress,
union, society, museum, magazine or foundation that denies the
existence of global warming and mankind’s role in it. Not political
front groups or conservative ideological institutes like The Heartland
Institute, but groups of scientists. There are none. None. There are
hundreds of such scientific groups across the globe. They all support
the findings of the IPCC.
— jacknoir
27. October 1, 2009
8:58 am
Link
What is the link (if any) between El Nino and AGW? Anybody got any
ideas?
— Carl
28. October 1, 2009
9:40 am
Link
Is anthropogenic warming change fact or fiction? As someone who has
closely followed arguments and research on both sides of the issue, I
can say with great certainty it is real, and it is verifiable through
experiments in laboratories and observations of the world in general.
What ocean cooling (as mentioned by Tony Stephenson in comment #1),
there is, is attributable to the melting of polar icecaps. New sea
lanes are opening up in previously ice-blocked expanses of arctic
seas. Were it not for the polar icecaps, the seas would be much, much
warmer. And so would our atmosphere. The melting of the icecaps has
helped to attenuate atmospheric warming at ground level, but that
source of relief is rapidly dissipating.
But to Captain Ronnel (comment #3), and to all doomsayers, I would say
that throwing up one’s hands in surrender is a selr-fulfilling
prophecy. It is equivalent to losing one’s job and hugging one’s
children while saying, “We’re all going to starve!” instead of
pursuing a new job. If we love our children, we’ll work for change, as
they did in France, for example, where the bulk of electricity is
generated by nuclear power plants.
And the use of hydrogen, to power our vehicles can dramatically reduce
the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere. Hydrogen is the most
recyclable fuel on the planet. Burning it produces water, and it can
be readily separated from water by hydroelectric and nuclear power
facilities.
If we truly love our children we will work for change. But we cannot
delay any longer. Delay will fulfill Lovelock’s and Ronnel’s
prophecies.
Leo Toribio
Pittsburgh, PA
— Leo Toribio
29. October 1, 2009
10:12 am
Link
Global warming is a FARCE. It’s a political term - nothing more and
nothing less. We need to take care of this planet and scaring people
into doing so seems to be the only way a majority will listen.
— Michael
30. October 1, 2009
10:47 am
Link
The increase in asthma incidence, prevalence, and morbidity over
recent decades presents a significant challenge to public health.
Pollen is an important trigger of some types of asthma, and both
pollen quantity and season depend on climatic and meteorologic
variables. Over the same period as the global rise in asthma, there
have been considerable increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide
concentration and global average surface temperature. We hypothesize
anthropogenic climate change as a plausible contributor to the rise in
asthma. Greater concentrations of carbon dioxide and higher
temperatures may increase pollen quantity and induce longer pollen
seasons. Pollen allergenicity can also increase as a result of these
changes in climate. Exposure in early life to a more allergenic
environment may also provoke the development of other atopic
conditions, such as eczema and allergic rhinitis. Although the
etiology of asthma is complex, the recent global rise in asthma could
be an early health effect of anthropogenic climate change. Key words:
aero- allergens, anthropogenic cimate change, asthma, carbon dioxide,
phenology, pollen, temperature. Environ Health Perspect 113:915-919
(2005). doi:10.1289/ehp.7724 available via http://dx.doi.org/ [Online
20 April 2005]
Is the Global Rise of Asthma an Early Impact of Anthropogenic Climate
Change?
Paul John Beggs 1 and Hilary Jane Bambrick2
1Department of Physical Geography, Division of Environmental and Life
Sciences, Macquarie University, New South Wales, Australia; 2National
Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National
University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia
I have to deal with morons. Complete and absolute morons. Climate
Change is REAL and Antropogneic Carbon Dioxide is the reason, causing
real and deadly problems on Earth.
End of Discussion !
— Elisa Barrett
31. October 1, 2009
10:48 am
Link
I’ve looked at climate change from all sides now — … and still
somehow,,, it’s climate change’s illusion I recall…
I worry more about the Amazon rainforest, and the melting ice caps and
human competition (I will not write over scare resources– as human
simply seem to want to compete whatever>..)
— Hetty Greene
32. October 1, 2009
10:55 am
Link
Mr. Gleick makes the most factual statement of his submission when he
says that
“As the science and actual observations of climate change have become
indisputable, climate deniers have been marginalized as extremists…
Climate change has become the most politically correct issue of this
decade and scientists who are “climate deniers” have been cowed into
keeping their mouths and pens closed when facing the alternative of
villification and ridicule by “climate non-deniers” from their lofty
perches on publications such as the Times.
Fifty years from now it will be the climate change group who will
suffer the ridicule, but they won’t be around to feel the sting.
— Bill Keating
33. October 1, 2009
11:14 am
Link
I first realized that the “Global Warming” was a mania and delusion,
back in 1988 when reading The Great Gatsby in high school.
“I read somewhere that the sun’s getting hotter every year,” said Tom
genially. “It seems that pretty soon the earth’s going to fall into
the sun – or wait a minute – it’s just the opposite – the sun’s
getting colder every year.” — The Great Gatsby, F. Scott Fitzgerald,
1925
This quote keeps popping up in the back of my mind, whenever listening
to people with no scientific training (Al Gore & Nancy Pelosi,
newspaper reporters, my idiot brother-in-law) pontificating about the
coming climate catastrophe every time we have an unusually hot day.
— Mike
34. October 1, 2009
11:30 am
Link
I guess before man devised a way to burn fossil fuels en masse, there
were no dust storms, floods, hot days, cold days, hurricanes etc. If
it truly is science, show me some proof!
— Scott Larson
35. October 1, 2009
11:35 am
Link
I wish the infotainment providers would stop attributing every
natural catastrophe to human CO2 emissions. This is exactly what gives
the climate change deniers ammunition and credibility. This is exactly
what turns a valid concern into a fad.
I am deeply convinced that us wantonly wasting the one time gift of
nature called fossil fuels, is a dumb thing on many levels. We are
plain dumb for wasting it and we certainly can be accused of stealing
it from future generations. We add CO2 in huge quantities to the
atmosphere without understanding what that really causes and how fast
and when a point of no return will be crossed.
It is exactly that lack of understanding that should be the foundation
of a scientific, fact based discussion with real action as a result of
logically concluded conviction.
Emotions need to stay far away. Emotions swing.
Ultimately the real argument for a large investment in renewable
energy sources can only be based on risk management derived
decisions.
We are the equivalent of dumb kids having fun turning a knob on a very
complex machine (our lives depend on) running at full speed and just
because the machine doesn’t immediately come to a grinding halt,
killing us all, doesn’t mean we are not severely damaging it or
destroying it by continuing to turn the knob (having all this fun).
What a dumb and unnecessary risk to take….
— marcus maedl
36. October 1, 2009
11:46 am
Link
Is it not time to minimize the growing risk of a climate cataclysm?
Our love affair with the automobile has brought about remarkable new
ways to sharply reduce the need for fossil fuel. Regardless of belief
about climate change, almost everyone can agree on the economic
benefits that make it important to move beyond oil, coal and I would
add, nuclear power, as fast as possible.
Revolutionary new technology will make possible electric cars that
need no recharge - as well as hybrid engines that might need to be
fueled with only one gallon of water for each thousand miles of
driving.
There are little known breakthroughs that promise to lead to cars and
truck that never require fossil fuel or recharge. Later, more advanced
versions can become power plants when parked, wirelessly selling
electricity to the local utility. Such cars can pay for themselves
over time. They also can replace any need to build new coal burning or
nuclear power plants.
The science is new, and will understandably be greeted with widespread
disbelief and skepticism.
However, independent laboratory validation of one extraordinary
breakthrough has taken place at Rowan University. It produced more
heat than can be explained by existing textbook knowledge, clearly
suggesting a new source of energy is involved. The experiments can and
should be repeated, without delay, at National laboratories and other
universities.
The Rowan experiments began the process of proving that new technology
can allow one barrel of water to replace 200 barrels of oil!
For additional information, see the article: 5 Steps to Revive the
Auto industry and the Economy on the website: http://www.aesopinstitute.org
Radically new technologies can let the love affair with vehicles
change much of what is currently believed about energy.
The key question would seem to be: How best to accelerate the process?
— Mark Goldes
37. October 1, 2009
11:50 am
Link
Pity the children who must survive what we have caused!
May God have mercy on the gluttonous and depraved who scorn God’s
earth.
— Richard E. Schiff
38. October 1, 2009
12:32 pm
Link
Comment #31 from Bill Keating demonstrates the problem all too well.
Comments #32 & #33 prove the point again. The Deniers have no actual,
real understanding of science. If you don’t understand science, Scott
Larson, than there is nothing anyone can show you that will prove AGW
to you. To paraphrase what Colbert said to Pres. Bush…that’s what I
like about you, Mr. President…you will believe on Thursday what you
believed on Tuesday, despite anything that happens on Wednesday. If
you have that attitude, which the writers of comments 31-33 obviously
do, then science is not something you believe in. Therefore, there is
no scientific evidence you will accept that does not support your
already confirmed beliefs.
Real science is only acceptable to the open-minded. Most deniers are
not open-minded. No argument about what climate science has found or
proven will make the slightest difference to those whose minds are
closed.
As for the comment in #31….”Climate change has become the most
politically correct issue of this decade and scientists who are
“climate deniers” have been cowed into keeping their mouths and pens
closed when facing the alternative of villification and ridicule by
“climate non-deniers” from their lofty perches on publications such as
the Times.”
Here is a clue…not for the author of the above quote as he has
adequately demonstrated his lack of ability to reason logically or
objectively…but for others who might retain the slightest worry that
there is some kernal of truth in this comment. Science actually works
by doing experiments and reporting on results. Yes, you can interpret
the results along the lines of your ideology, but the key is the
actual experimental results. Are they reproducible and can someone
build on them to show that your conjecture on their meaning is either
right or wrong? It’s a very piece by piece process. No one does one
experiment that proves a major hypothesis like AGW is either correct
or incorrect. If you do an experiment that shows some piece of the AGW
hypothesis is wrong, you will not be vilified by anyone….unless you
fake the data. If others can verify your experimental results, science
will march on and your piece of the puzzle will be confirmed as valid.
If enough research is done that shows AGW in general doesn’t hold up,
then it will collapse…under the weight of science…and not because of
right wing, anti-environment ideology which accepts no scientific
evidence that doesn’t support its belief structure.
— Dan
39. October 1, 2009
12:52 pm
Link
To Harrison Schmidt:
“Critical differences exist between scientists who observe weather and
climate and those who attempt to model nature’s complexities. Those
who observe the natural, economic, and sociological aspects of climate
change are “realists,” not “skeptics.”
Those who directly observe weather and climate are not called
“realists” they are called “naturalists” and they are more peeved than
anyone about climate change! I dare you to actually ask a naturalist
what they think, but I know that you won’t.
— Chris
40. October 1, 2009
1:16 pm
Link
Always missing from the Global Warming deniers letters are links to
articles in peer reviewed journals. There are none. Do they really
believe in a “scientific conspiracy”, or do they all work for oil
companies?
— Robbie
41. October 1, 2009
1:28 pm
Link
I guess the international community should start working on measure
to restore greenery then shouldn’t they?
Sigh, no rest for the weary…or the uncompromisingly righteous.
They’ll get helped sooner than later.
— Abimbola
42. October 1, 2009
1:40 pm
Link
Strictly speaking, science doesn’t really prove hypotheses to be
true. It can only prove that they are false. Assertions of truth from
science usually come in the form of probabilities. The typical
assertion is that the probability that humans are causing climate
change is about 95%. There is a probability that we are wrong, but it
is not likely. Thus, the opening comment about AGW not being proven is
gibberish propaganda. Proofs imply 100% probability, which is absurd,
especially when talking about such a complex system.
So if nothing can be absolutely proven, does that give us the licence
to believe anything? Far from it. Every one, and I mean every one of
the assertions I have heard put forward by the so called “climate
skeptics” that was specific enough to be tested is provably and
demonstrably false. And I have read most of them.
I cannot take seriously anyone who continues to repeat statements that
are obviously and demonstrably false to educated and knowledgeable
readers, simply because they know their intended is not educated and
knowledgeable.
— F. M. Arouet
43. October 1, 2009
1:43 pm
Link
For poster number 1-
there’s a point that you just can’t ignore what the vast preponderance
of evidence is telling you.
I use this example with my students- if you were a parent, and you
suspected your child was taking drugs, when would you intervene- the
first time you smell something funny on his/her clothes, or would you
have to wait until you find her/him passed out on the bathroom floor
with a needle in the arm?
— Steve, Jackson MS
44. October 1, 2009
1:58 pm
Link
If we spend the next few decades boiling every major environmental
disaster to “global warming”, we will soon lose the capacity to
address contributing factors. This McCarthy-like single issue
stranglehold that “global warming” has become will soon wreak more
havoc on the human response to environmental issues than the issues
themselves.
— Tim
45. October 1, 2009
1:58 pm
Link
If every scientist in the world believes the IPCC version of reality,
it is extremely odd that EVERY prediction of the CO2-driven warming
theory has been proven wrong by the last few years of research.
The seas are cooling, in terms of total heat content of the top 100
meters, according to the ARGO buoys (not merely the surface
temperature, which is warming due to the coming El Niño). There is no
extra heating of the upper troposphere. Antarctic ice is growing,
while Arctic ice is returning to its long-term average. Satellites
show no warming trend.
In sum, the total of evidence for the CO2 theory is a weak correlation
between temperature and carbon dioxide concentration over the twenty
years 1975-1995. That’s all.
In contrast, the Svensmark effect (cosmic-ray assisted low cloud
formation) shows close correlation on all time scales from months to
billions of years, while accounting for the onset of ice ages and the
Antarctic climate anomaly. Humans have nothing to do with it.
But on that basis we’re turning our economies upside-down and
destroying vast swaths of countryside, wilderness, and coastline with
utterly feckless wind turbines.
The entire world — or at least its media-politcal elite — has gone
completely insane. Cap-and-trade and “renewable” subsidies are the
real threats to the environment and human well-being; “global warming”
is yet another imaginary hobgoblin. The “climate criminals” here are
Gore, Hansen, the IPCC, and the gullible or ambitious politicians who
follow them.
— Craig Goodrich
46. October 1, 2009
2:03 pm
Link
my comments,around the world,some people forgot to pray that there is
god.he is the powerful.all happenings around the world are
nature,please don’t forget our god.if you are richest and poorer in
this earth,we are the same,to go back were you belong,that’s why
always prayer.
— evelinda j. benitez
47. October 1, 2009
2:05 pm
Link
Look, I’m not a climate scientist, but from everything I’ve read the
great majority of same have bought into Global Warming. And the fact
of the matter is that we are dealing with a massive and intricate
system (the Earth), by the time nobody can deny the problem it will be
far too late to fix it!
Secondly, much of what helps global warming has benefit anyway (e.g.
reducing the horrible pollution in many Chinese cities, reducing US
dependence on foreign oil,…).
Thirdly, most studies that I have seen have calculated that reducing
our CO2 generation is not that expensive, all of about $120/family/
year (in the US).
Fourth, despite Mr. Schmitt’s rantings, most GW specialists want just
one simple thing from government, a carbon tax. In what way (can you
please explain sir) is this a huge intrusion of government or the
beginnings of ‘the socialist menace’?
— Bruce Steinback
48. October 1, 2009
2:47 pm
Link
Is global warming the cause of the anamolous weather patterns we have
observed and are experiencing?
Both the possible cause and effect are correlated. But,
correlation does not prove a cause and effect connection — though it
may be very suggestive.
The “cause and effect fallacy” occurs quite often and at times, we
presume it is not a fallacy — but, it is.
In our lifetime, we will probably never KNOW the answer in a
definitive manner. Even with a great amount of investigation.
If it is just a coincidence or one triggers the other… We can’t
determine with certainty. But, the more investigation and data which
is mined… Say, we label coincidence as P = O; and, cause and effect as
P = 1, as more information is gathered, we can go in either direction:
approaching P = O
or, P = 1.
That’s likelihood or probability. [For statistics fans:
the concpet of variance is useful.]
My own guestimate [boy! do I hate that word!] is that most of these
dangerous changes in the Earth’s ecology is cuased by humans. Another
guestimate using probability language: P (most climate and related
changes are caused by people) = .99.
But, probably no one alive now will ever know for sure — because only
the shadow knows.
— David Chowes, New York City
49. October 1, 2009
3:15 pm
Link
Australia is surrounded by water. Although a desalinization plant
will be incredibly expensive, a bit of water cleaning, and creating a
forest from their dry lands might help. The dust bowl existed in the
mid-West of the USA at one time, which was caused by poor farming
practices. I find the lack of effort in proper land management to be
interesting.
Climate change sounds sexy, but Australia needs to deal with issues
that would be easier and simpler to manage. Cleaning the Ocean waters,
and bringing it in inland to re-create grasslands and forests is a
good first step.
— Betty Chambers
50. October 1, 2009
3:21 pm
Link
As a farmer myself, I wonder how much of the dust is from farmland.
It could be significant. Two of the writers state that agriculture
contributed to the the dust storms. Here on the Great Plains, farmers
have largely adopted “no-till” practices in the past 20 years, and
wind-blown erosion has become rare here, including some dry periods in
recent years.
Have Aussie farmers not adopted no-till? (For “no-till” read “chemical-
intensive”, so there are some other serious enviro issues with no-
till.)
— Michael Melius
From 51 to 69 of 69 Comments
« Previous 1 2 3
51. October 1, 2009
3:24 pm
Link
Mike, #33, demonstrates well the warped thinking that consistently
undermines any serious debate about how best to avoid the fallout of a
catastrophic change in our climate.
I’m always amazed when people completely dismiss as irrelevant a
complex and heavily studied field. Usually, as in some of the early
comments, such blanket dismissals are accompanied by a flurry of noise
and googlefacts. But Mike accomplishes that feat with nothing more
than a snide off-hand comment.
A book unrelated to climate science that all high school students read
convinced him that climate change is a hoax, and everything Mike needs
to know about the issue, he learned in 9th grade. All those scientists
who kept reading and thinking well beyond high school, are, according
to Mike, deluding themselves–or they’re in it for the big bucks that
academics always command.
Sometimes those scientists have even disagreed about what they were
observing! Is the earth cooling, or is it warming? Ah Ha! say the
MIkes of the world. That disagreement couldn’t be part of the
scientific method (And who know what that is, anyway? they didn’t
teach it until the 10th grade). Instead, it means that every climate
scientist must be wrong! So stop worrying. Gas up the truck and get
yourself a hamburger. You deserve it America.
— Will
52. October 1, 2009
3:40 pm
Link
As an engineer, however not a scientist engaged in the justification
of a grant, I would say that if 2006 and 2007 had worse sea ice
coverage than 2008, we would be seeing a trend toward ice age…am I
wrong? Average oceant temperatures are not possible to take with our
current infrastructure. We can only employ smoothing calculations to
derive some sort of order. Furthermore to arrive at an average
temperature for the planet covering the entire 20th Century is a
complete and utter fraud when the technology in 1901 was where it was.
I would accept reasonable arguments, but when the bile being flouted
as science is thrown around by kool-aid drinking Phds, how can we ever
arrive at an agreement to talk seriously about something so important?
— Jack Lord
53. October 1, 2009
3:48 pm
Link
I lost my job, climate change. We are in an economic crisis, climate
change. Our healthcare needs reform, climate change. In the 70’s it
was called Global Cooling, in the 80’s and 90’s, Global Warming. Now
its “Climate CHANGE.” It seems like progressive “change.” i.e. B.S.
— Ferris
54. October 1, 2009
4:02 pm
Link
Natural variability in climate complicates the assignment of causes
to any particular weather event like a dust storm or a hurricane.
Cause has to be assigned not for any particular event, but to a
statistically significant sample of a multitude of events. This is why
on the scientific side of the issue, the arguments for anthropogenic
climate change can be made to appear weak…, a good scientist will
always qualify his conclusions. He doesn’t speak of “facts” but of
probabilities and of the quantification of the phenomena being
studied. Error is always present to some degree and the anthropogenic
climate change deniers will fasten on any error as disproof of the
whole premise of climate change.
The aspect of opposing arguments that I find most particularly
offensive is the assertion that climate scientists who do not believe
in anthropogenic warming have somehow been cowed by a misguided
majority into remaining silent. Then there are the accusations that
research money is to be found by supporting the conclusion that global
warming is occurring. This isn’t an argument based on science but
rather on character assassination.
— John Bickelhaupt
55. October 1, 2009
4:14 pm
Link
The new religious dogma: AGW. We choose an issue which is out of our
control, and offer the cues to its solution. The solution never really
comes –maybe the problem is not a problem–, but we have you under
control. Religions did it with death longtime ago.
— jp
56. October 1, 2009
4:38 pm
Link
I have yet to read any scientific article with any indisputable proof
of anthropogenic global warming. I continually look at the info @ GISS
and I don’t even see any data that makes me wonder, and that site is
run by Hansen himself.
— Thomas Paine
57. October 1, 2009
4:47 pm
Link
In the ’50s Pandit Nehru, then the Prime Minister of India, started a
program to control the western desert (Thar) from moving towards New
Delhi. I was a child at that time so I don’t remember the exact name
of the project. Anyhow, the Government of India planted one million
trees around the desert. Consequently, the desrt was pushed back.
Israel and Saudi Arabia had done similar things. We can change the
environment if we cooperate and coordinate with each rather than doing
nothing.
— Fareed Mahmood
58. October 1, 2009
4:53 pm
Link
Whether or not the junk we spew into atmosphere, lakes, rives,
streams and oceans is causing climate change, cancer, etc. is really
irrelevant. We should simply seek to minimize our impact for the sake
of minimizing our impact. Knowing that we lived well on the unaltered
earth should be enough to convince us that we would like to continue
living on the unaltered earth.
Stand behind an exhaust pipe and tell me that stuff is fine going into
the atmosphere. Swim in a river near farm runoff and tell me that it
won’t have an impact. Fish in the giant floating plastic sea in the
middle of the pacific and tell me we shouldn’t be concerned.
Science is a long, long way from being able to tell us the impacts of
human activity on climate, nature, and on ourselves. But a little
common sense should inform of us of what is right and what is wrong.
— Jeff Berman
59. October 1, 2009
4:57 pm
Link
I agree with above-mentioned statements, that only together we can
solve this ‘Global Warming’ problem…
I’m from Georgia (Tbilisi). In my country, despite that there aren’t
factories and its air is clean, I feel that the nature is change. Work
more, speak less…
— oto
60. October 1, 2009
5:06 pm
Link
The Australian scientists explain the Australian phenomena better
than the others.-Sol Bidermanb
— Sol Biderman
61. October 1, 2009
5:14 pm
Link
Great pieces, very thoughtful. I remember when Andy Pittman was just
a little academic, now he’s all grown up and in the NYT. Good on ya
Andy.
— alan
62. October 1, 2009
5:43 pm
Link
The science is not entirely clear, but who wants to take the chance?
Sometimes prudence dictates actions before everything is known. Think
cash in the bank, etc.
— Kurt Schoeneman
63. October 1, 2009
6:19 pm
Link
This whole argument has become so political that rationality, even
scientific rationality, has been abandoned. To attribute the Sydney
dust storm to global warming is clearly silly, since the Law of
Parsimony (Occam’s Razor) coupled with Australia’s climate history
would clearly indicate the improbability of global warming as an
ultimate cause, though It may well have been a contributing factor.
That having been said, it is clear to me that right wing politics in
this country have had a devastating effect on scientific discourse
over the past thirty years.
— James F Traynor
64. October 1, 2009
6:23 pm
Link
My response to #56 is: There are none so blind as those who will not
see. As others have already stated, science doesn’t deal with proofs
indisputable. If that’s your standard, then you don’t understand
science. If you are really visiting the GISS website and don’t see any
data that makes you wonder…then maybe you aren’t capable of wonder…or
science.
#55 treats nature as though it was supernatural. We can affect nature
at our level and we do. No reason is given for why we can’t change the
course of global warming by changing our emissions.
Ferris in #53 seems to have a problem with labels. Science was not
behind a very brief over reaction by journalists during the mid ’70’s
that the next ice age could happen at any moment. Most of the limited
science on climate trends during the ’70’s actually pointed to global
warming. It has continued to do so for the last 3 decades. So, because
some group decided to hide global warming under the euphemism of
climate change, should any reasonable person conclude that the problem
has changed or diappeared? Ferris apparently has…and demonstrates his
reasoning ability by conflating climate change with health care
reform. In other words, if Ferris doesn’t like it, it’s not happening,
regardless of any scientific evidence.
— Dan
65. October 1, 2009
6:29 pm
Link
This “red cloud” phenomenon is almost Bibically frightening. While on
one hand, this occurance is something that has occurred naturally, due
to the specifics of Australian geography and climatology, it is
frightening in its scope.This reminds me of a quote an Mamalestian
Australian political satirist said. Ralphi Dell-Aquilla, quoting the
book the Balenyata said, ” the evils of man will come back to haunt
him”. It means that human kind has treated the planet as its personal
pig pen not caring for what the consequences for others were. But in
the long run, the consequences are going to effect humans, and only
then is it a disaster?? There is a story in the Balenyata about the
ancient Mamalestians and how they were destroying their surroundings
by selfishly abusing the Earth for their own short sighted needs.
Sounds familiar, just like many of today’s consvervative American
politicians who say “God gave us the Earth to do what we please”.
Therefore, Ecological disasters, while this is not yet, are on the
horizon according to the sacred text The Balenyata. I think more
Australians should read this book to see where the future lies and
what they can do about it.
— Ralph Gashnicks
66. October 1, 2009
6:33 pm
Link
In #52, the statement, “I would accept reasonable arguments, but when
the bile being flouted as science is thrown around by kool-aid
drinking Phds, how can we ever arrive at an agreement to talk
seriously about something so important?”
Really? You would accept reasonable arguments? Talk seriously about
the issue of global warming with people who are what? Willing to agree
with you?
One might well ask what gives you the authority to judge the science
being flouted by kool-aid drinking Phd’s??? Are you versed in the
science? If so, then you can write direct rebuttals to the science as
published. Somehow, I’m thinking I shouldn’t hold my breath waiting to
see what you come up with….sitting on the sidelines like a wannabee
watching your football team lose the game and thinking you could do a
better job if only you were in shape, big enough, athletic….and had a
clue.
— Dan
67. October 1, 2009
6:49 pm
Link
Climate change due to global warming means one thing only, in that
weather change is occurring. There should be no debate about change,
it’s happening and will continue to happen ahead.
The question should be what are “we” going to do, as we have only a
few choices, adapt and live with the new changes, deny and die or move
to another planet.
Why doesn’t everyone clearly understand, mother nature is not to be
debated, change is happening, if you want it or not!
For those who argue over if “human activity” is causing climate
change, that is obvious, it is helping to cause climate change!
The question here is how much is human activity causing climate
change. Anyone look at satellite photos, especially taken over China?
If anyone looks at how human activities are pollution the world, which
it is doing, we can all ourselves, is this pollution making life
better for all on this planet?
The only reason there is a debate on climate change, is to delay the
fact. the truth is the economy is to blame, because it directs the
development, which manifast as human activity.
Everyone can see an obverse that the world development is in chaos!
Why? Because, the development based upon the economy is NOT
sustainable.
If you want to resolve the issues of climate change, you resolve the
economic and ideology principles, to support sustainability.
What is not sustainable, NEVER last. Now, ask yourself what
government, those that make the laws, rules and policies to which
shape and form the ways people work, in business are working for
sustainability?
My forecast is there will be billions of less humans in the time
ahead, as the water, soil and air all becomes unfit and polluted for
wealthy capitalist stockholders who are never held accountable for
their investments!
— Roger Box
68. October 1, 2009
6:58 pm
Link
Most everyone has stated that you can’t take a single event like
Australia’s dust storm and conclude that it was caused by global
warming. However, most of the scientifically informed have also stated
that you do need to look at this event in its entirety. But, that has
also opened the door to folks who just want to take a swipe at all of
the science.
Here’s a guy, Thomas Paine (comment # 56) who’s saying that there’s no
indisputable proof of anthropogenic global warming along with there
being no data on the GISS website (Godard Institute of Space Studies)
that refers to data that supports anthropogenic climate change.
The ten featured articles on the GISS home page today are all about
climate change. The ninth article, to pick out but one, “GISS Best
Publication 2008″ is an annual “best publication” of the previous year
by a member of the institute. The abstract titled, Attributing
physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change, is a
peer reviewed paper that appeared in Nature, 453, 353-357.
Every time that I have had the opportunity to dig into an article in
Nature, I have seen reams of data to support the premise being
presented. That is the case with this one, which contains all of the
requisite graphs and charts along with a methods summary which
occupies almost a full page. The summary states that they compiled
their data from peer reviewed papers on climate from 1970 to 2004 and
that there was data collected on papers that both did and did not
support AGW.
This alone seems like serious falsifiable science to me, which is
fully transparent. So, Mr. Paine, if you really looked for data you
would have found it. Forgot, whoops, you were looking for indisputable
proof. I ask though, will you and others like you be so rigorous if
you are offered an experimental drug or procedure that can save you
life? But, after all what we are discussing here is not likely to
effect our lives but it will effect the lives of our grandchildren.
I’m no scientist, in fact I am an artist, so I guess that makes me an
uninformed, head-in-the-clouds liberal who only wants to destroy the
economy by believing in AGW so no one can purchase my work. My bottom
line is that I do believe in science being able to present us with a
reasonably rational picture of the natural world. If there is science
that is peer reviewed and substantial to reverse the current fact of
AGW then I will reverse my position. Till then, you folks (and this
includes astronaut Harrison Schmitt) need to let us folks figure out
how to save the world in peace and quit spewing unsubstantiated
falsehoods about this unprecedented threat to global society. And, Mr.
Paine, how about applying some of your namesake’s most famous writing,
“Common Sense.”
— Burt Levy
69. October 1, 2009
7:00 pm
Link
Climate change is occurring in Australia which is creating more
marginal land and unsustainable farms and food production. You only
have to venture away from the coast (95% of Australians live within
100km from the coast) to see the effects of prolonged drought and
increased dry-land salinity. Reforestation offers positive
environmental and commercial benefits by creating carbon sinks, micro-
ecosystems and new revenue streams for landowners thereby mitigating
effects of decreasing yields from changing climate conditions. Angus
MacNee – CEO, Citola (http://www.citola.com)
— Angus MacNee
chhotemianinshallah
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/congo-forests-in-climate-context/#more-8877
Thursday, October 1, 2009
September 30, 2009, 6:30 pm
Congo Forests in Climate Context
By Ashley Southall
WASHINGTON — With discussions about climate change intensifying ahead
of treaty talks in Copenhagen in December, African and United States
officials and experts on forests and climate met in Washington this
week to discuss United States involvement in a decade-old
international program aimed at preserving the tropical rain forests of
Central Africa’s Congo Basin.
During a roundtable discussion, several leaders of African countries
that are a part of the Congo Basin Forest Partnership spoke with
urgency about the need for the United States, which is also a member,
to provide more money for the initiative, particularly because such
forests not only provide a wildlife haven but also serve as a buffer
against the buildup of greenhouse gases.
“They delivered emphatically two messages,” said Carter Roberts, the
president of the World Wildlife Fund, who attended the talks. “This
program for saving the Congo was a fundamental pillar of their vision
for the future of their countries,” he said, adding that they
emphasized the global benefits of forest conservation. “You can’t
solve climate change without saving the Congo and building the
financial mechanisms to do the same,” he said.
The United States has spent nearly $100 million over the past eight
years to cosponsor the Congo forest partnership. But the United
States’ contribution has remained stagnant as newer partners like
Britain, France and Germany have pledged as much as $50 million
annually.
The money goes toward combatting illegal logging, mining and poaching
in the basin, an area roughly the size of Texas that is home to
almost 12,000 species of plants, birds, and mammals, including
gorillas and chimpanzees. Most of the basin’s forests remain intact,
and the rate of clearing is slower than in the Amazon or Indonesia,
partly because outside investment has allowed the Congo’s nations to
shift their economies to resources other than timber.
But the African contingent at the talks here worried that forests
could start to fall if negotiators pursuing a new climate treaty fail
to include incentives to conserve so-called low-risk forests like
those in the Congo. Agricultural, logging and mining companies that
might be forced out of the Amazon or Indonesia by tighter restrictions
might see the Congo basin as a ripe target, leaders here said.
Denis Sassou-Nguesso, president of Congo and the lead negotiator for
the African Union on climate change, said that domestic pressures on
forests have to be countered with other kinds of economic opportunity.
“When countries sacrifice a large portion of their grounds for
protected areas,” he said, “you cannot ask them not to touch the
forests and not give them anything.”
20 Readers' Comments
1 . Mike Roddy
Yucca Valley, Ca.
September 30th, 2009
7:33 pmYou have to applaud WWF and the Congolese government for their
earnest efforts to save that incredible forest, home to gorillas,
Pygmies, and mysteries that we are just beginning to understand.
Here's the problem: The Congo forest is still largely intact, while
the US primary forest is down to about 5% of its original range. Much
of the rest is spindly fire and infestation prone tree farms. For
years, WWF has actively participated in promoting thinning, salvage,
and all of the other logging industry stealth attempts to destroy as
much as they can of what we have left. Impacts on our carbon budget
have been enormous, all to increase access, build roads, and sell us
more things such as three-ply soft toilet paper and two by fours. The
public may buy the cute little panda, but I certainly don't here in
the United States.
Recommend Recommended by 1 Readers 2 . David B. Benson
Pullman
September 30th, 2009
10:34 pmDon't buy rain forest wood products.
Recommend Recommended by 2 Readers 3 . Dale R. McIntyre, PhD
Bartlesville, Oklahoma
September 30th, 2009
11:28 pm# 1 Mike Roddy,
Dear Mike,
If ever we disagree (and we often disagree) you as often manage to
remind me that we are emphatically agreed on one thing, and that is
the need to cherish our forests.
Forests are the lungs of the planet. They are what makes the very
oxygen we breathe, and their transpiration of water vapor is what
makes the world's temperature livable. They are the temple of our
wilderness and our wilderness creatures.
And for me, personally,without a little corner of wilderness to
retreat to in times of trouble, I greatly fear my spirit would lose
its anchor and drift, lost, a prey to bitterness and despair.
For these reasons I believe re-forestation and stopping de-forestation
are noble work that will pay dividends for generations to come. I
would be well content if I knew my climate-change tax dollars were
going to save or regenerate forests here or abroad instead of so much
going to politcally-correct squirrelly "renewable" energy schemes
which are actually net energy losers.
Best Wishes
Recommend Recommended by 2 Readers 4 . wmar
usa
October 1st, 2009
11:20 amA day without a walk in the woods would be a sad day indeed.
Side-note: Still no word from Mann, or Real Climate, or the IPCC, or
the NYT, regarding the overwhelming climate fraud Mann, et al,
supported by the IPCC, et al, with the complicity of Hansen, et al,
has perpetrated against the world. Which fraud the world has largely
relied upon thus spending hundreds of billions of dollars and
influencing governments, organizations and citizens all across the
globe.
The silence is deafening.
Best Wishes
Recommend Recommended by 2 Readers Andy Revkin
Dot Earth blogger, Reporter
October 1st, 2009
11:26 amActually, Real Climate posted this morning:
http://www.realclimate.org... 5 . Danny Bloom
Cyberspace
October 1st, 2009
11:23 amGood post, important information.
Ashley, since you are in the DC area, maybe with the Times DC bureau,
you might be interested in the Physicians For Social Responsibilty
fact sheets on global wamriong, and in partcitular, one of the 5 facts
sheets, which was prepared by a regular member of the Dot Earth
community Dr M. Steven Moffic. An blog interview with him is here, and
it might make a good lead for a news story in the print version of
your newspaper. Contact Barb Gottlieb at the PSR office in DC.
http://northwardho.blogspot.com...
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers 6 . Wang Suya
Japan
October 1st, 2009
11:23 amFrom Wang Suya
Save the Congo rainforest, it's the home of biodiveristy, it's the
sink of greenhouse gases, it's the beautiy of great earth. Please save
it do not rape it!!!
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers 7 . Charles Kay
SC, U.S.A.
October 1st, 2009
11:23 amAnd Mr. Obama has the nerve to proclaim, 'The U.S. can't solve
these problems alone -- you other developed countries must do your
part' !!!
But as an economist, I can tell you DEers (again) that it all comes
down to basic Economics. Well actually, even more basic than the
economy and the national deficit is our national priorities, but I
mean it is even more basic than priorities in our alternative energy
budget. The way our GDP gets sliced up (spending-savings-taxes)
addresses the basics I am refering to. And please note here, that
increases in savings/taxes forces spending to go down. The economics
terms for these are propensity to save, propensity to spend. But with
the present GW crisis, I think a new term should be coined --
propensity to save-the-planet, which would also subtract from the
personal consumption category. This can only happen when people are
convinced of the gravity of the planetary/GW situation, and are
willing to make personal sacrifices in their lifestyles.
OK, so how does all this translate in regard to the present subject?
Taxes, end-use energy taxes would go a long way in addressing most of
our eco/energy problems, including providing revenue so that the U.S.
government can compete with the Europeans in providing funds to save
the Congo forests. So Mr. Obama, I hope you are listening. Let's show
those Europeans that the U.S. IS the leader when it comes to saving
the rain-forests. And when your constituates start griping about new
energy taxes, tell them "Sorry people, our planet has priority". And
also our children, I might add.
Thanks, Charles
Recommend Recommended by 1 Readers 8 . Mac
UK
October 1st, 2009
11:23 amIt seems you don't have to spend a penny to save the
rainforest.
http://www.reuters.com...
Recommend Recommended by 1 Readers 9 . Steven Earl Salmony
Chapel Hill, North Carolina
October 1st, 2009
11:23 amSomething is happening FOUR DAYS FROM NOW.
************COME TO NYC***********
YOU ARE INVITED TO THE SECOND ANNUAL MEETING OF THE DOT EARTH
COMMUNITY AND FRIENDS ON THE GROUND FLOOR OF THE NYTIMES BUILDING, THE
FIRST MONDAY IN OCTOBER 2009, THE FIFTH DAY OF THE MONTH AT 2:00 PM.
Be there. Everybody is coming. We are going global
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers 10 . Lou Gold
Brazil
October 1st, 2009
11:23 amThank you Andy for that GREAT video and this important post.
INSPIRING !!!
Mike, I dunno? Sure we need to save forests everywhere. Sure the US
forests demand attention. Sure, fascination with charismatic critters
is not a substitute for appreciating biodiversity. As you well know, I
taught that the most important forest being was the mycorrhizal fungus
in the soil and that the majestic coastal redwood or the towering Doug
fir was only a by-product of a healthy system:
But look at those healthy gorilla families. It fills my eyes with
tears and my heart with joy just to know that they exist. And I am
terribly thankful to each and every person or institution or
government that is trying to preserve a bit of life that has not been
overrun or overwhelmed by development and domestication.
Sure WWF milks the Panda icon for all it's worth. But it was that
Panda that arrived in partnership with our little grassroots Siskiyou
Project to almost get our forest preserved permanently as a Wild
Rivers National Monument at the end of the Clinton Administration. It
was a narrow miss. We lost. I raged. I cried. But I knew that we all
did our best -- supported with critical support from WWF -- and to
this day I feel very grateful.
Yeah, I know it's sad but sometimes gratitude is all you get.
hugs and blessings,
lou
http://lougold.blogspot.com
Recommend Recommended by 2 Readers 11 . G J Lau
Frederick, MD
October 1st, 2009
11:23 amTrees are more than just scenery. They are a working factory
that processes water and minerals and releases oxygen and takes up
carbon dioxide, a process that helps to maintain the only known
atmosphere in the galaxy capable of sustaining life. As such, trees
are worthy of as much protection as any other vital industry would
receive.
Recommend Recommended by 3 Readers 12 . Mike Roddy
Yucca Valley, Ca.
October 1st, 2009
11:23 amDale, thanks for the support. You're right: we subsidized
ethanol even after scientists found out that corn for cars was
actually worse than petroleum for our carbon budget.
Afforestation and allowing our own forests to return to their natural
state would actually do a lot more for our carbon budget than going to
all electric cars. It would be nice if we did both, but leaving the
forests alone for a while is much cheaper than changing over the whole
transportation system, and will change many of our excessive and
throwaway consumption habits. I wrote an article to that effect that
was published last year in Forest Voice.
While I'm no friend of the fossil fuel industry, the ag and timber
industries are much more politically powerful in this country, and
more difficult to dislodge from their destructive practices. Did you
see how Kerry/Boxer exempted factory farms from any CO2 restrictions?
Ridiculous, and a pure money play.
Recommend Recommended by 4 Readers 13 . Mike Roddy
Yucca Valley, Ca.
October 1st, 2009
3:23 pmI didn't know WWF helped you back in those days, Lou, but am
not surprised- Dominick was with them then, and they actually helped
me when I was making the rounds in DC. The problem is what has
happened since then. They've sold out, from what I've heard, and are
no longer fighting the good fight here in the US.
A lot of us still appreciate what you did in the Siskiyous, and remain
inspired by it. Floating the Illinois, and seeing that incredible
ecosystem up close, remains a highlight of my life. Otters, eagles,
salmon, lilies, ferns- what a paradise it was. The attempts to destroy
it, which are still going on, are atrocities that must stop.
Recommend Recommended by 1 Readers 14 . Mike Roddy
Yucca Valley, Ca.
October 1st, 2009
3:23 pmWOW!
Everybody, please follow Andy's link in response to wmar's post #4.
This is the best denier smackdown I've ever read, and it's funny, too.
Sorry, wmar, McIntyre, and the rest: game over.
Recommend Recommended by 3 Readers 15 . wmar
usa
October 1st, 2009
3:23 pmGreat news Andy, thanks for posting, I looked there before my
post and that was not up yet.
Now let’s take a quick (instant) look:
Let us address misstatement #1 by Gavin and crew, that the data was
gotten form the internet as if to malign it. It was sent to Steve M,
as he explains and has documented, by The Royal Society, who obtained
it with regard to a paper they published, why do 'The RealClimateers'
write to malign the data as being some internet ‘thing’ or
manifestation? Is that objective?
If you will merely note the warm up from the LIA in the graphs Real
Climate has posted, you can see the 'warming' began pre-industrially
and was part of the natural backdrop of the overall warming in
recovery from the LIA, few dispute this as baseline.
Next, simply apply TSI, PDO and AMO to the time period post-
industrially. What do you see then?
Answer, these exact same graphs (only more accurately showing both
cooling and warming phases.)
As all of the warming can be accounted for by the base rate of warm up
from the LIA, and then even along the wobbles until today as being
virtually 100% correlated with the natural cycles above noted, and we
do know for a fact that the Yamal data was cherry-picked expost-facto
by Mann and Briffa, et al, (why would they do that?), Wegman was very
clear, then as now, the clique's group-think was too powerful.
Because natural cycles recreate the entirety of these graphs in
practical effect, where exactly is the carbon signature or effect? It
certainly was not seen in the Mann proxies, in fact his proxy’s
altogether shows no hockey-stick at all, and just the cherry-picked
ones do. The NAS said:
The NAS
Panel expressed itself less forcefully than the Wegman Panel but in
every essential agreed with it, finding that,
*** the principal components method by which Hockey Stick was achieved
was flawed
***RE tests are insufficient for statistical significance (i.e. the
Hockey Stick has zero meaning)
***Mann's Hockey Stick depends on bristlecone proxies which are known
to be unreliable
***Such strip bark forms should be “avoided” in reconstruction
In Congress:
North and his panel were then also called before the Senate
subcommittee, together with Wegman. The members of the NAS panel were
then asked under oath if they wished to dispute the Wegman findings,
and this interesting dialogue ensued:
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions [about the
Mann papers] or the methodology of Dr. Wegman's report?
DR. NORTH. No, we don't. We don't disagree with their
criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our
report.
DR. BLOOMFIELD [statistician to the NAS Panel]. Our committee reviewed
the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that
some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same
misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length
by Dr. Wegman.
WALLACE: The two reports were complementary, and to
the extent that they overlapped, the conclusions were quite
consistent.
Thus, Real Climate has not answered the question in their post, merely
confirmed what was already known as a base-line and ignoring the earth/
solar system itself, in a dripping and dismissive manner, hoping the
questions will go away.
They take no efforts to discuss head on the accusation, that Mann, et
all, cherry-picked data, ex post facto, and ignored the balance of the
known data, which would have hurt their ideological goal, they
knowingly allowed this ‘data’ to be used to further their cause, and
then ignored the more obvious and simple explanation for their graphs,
and Real Climate thinks that is just dandy, or that they have been
responsive to this serious issue ... is that how science is supposed
to work?
Best Wishes
Recommend Recommended by 1 Readers 16 . wmar
usa
October 1st, 2009
3:23 pmOne final thought,
Gavin speaks about peer-review, Mann. et al, was peer-reviewed, the
review failed utterly as established by all the known facts, the
Wegmen report, the testimony at Congress, this latest revelation of
data, etc... To folks like those at Real Climate, peer-review seems to
mean, get our stamp of approval.
"It was warmer 1000 years ago than in the late 20th century. Existence
of this Medieval Warm Period (MWP) contradicted the claim that post-
industrial human CO2 was causing unprecedented warming. As Thomas
Huxley said, “The great tragedy of science - the slaying of a
beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.” Solution? Eliminate the fact.
Professor Deming reported receiving an email that said, “We have to
get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” Deming didn’t name the sender,
but we now know it was Jonathan Overpeck, a lead author of
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports.
Mann, Bradley and Hughes tried to achieve Overpeck’s objective with a
1998 (MBH98) “peer reviewed” paper including the “hockey stick” graph.
The graph dominated the 2001 IPCC Report especially the Summary for
Policymakers (SPM) - the part the media cover. Steve McIntyre and Ross
McKitrick (MM) used the standard technique of reproducible results to
expose the serious flaws in the research. As Bishop Hill explained,
“He (McIntyre) was able to demonstrate that the way they had extracted
the temperature signal from the tree ring records was biased so as to
choose hockey-stick shaped graphs in preference to other shapes…. He
also showed that the appearance of the graph was due solely to the use
of an estimate of historic temperatures based on tree rings from
bristlecone pines, a species that was known to be problematic for this
kind of reconstruction.”(Source)" ..."Chairman of the US House
Committee on Energy and Commerce and Chairman of the Subcommittee of
Oversight and Investigations were interested in determining the
validity of McIntyre’s claims. An independent committee chaired by
Professor Edward J. Wegman of George Mason University found in favor
of McIntyre. “In general, we found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat
obscure and incomplete and the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b to be valid
and compelling.” and, “Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s
assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the
millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot
be supported by his analysis.” This leaves no doubt about the science;
however, Wegman identified a larger problem about control of climate
science. “In our further exploration of the social network of
authorships in temperature reconstruction, we found that at least 43
authors have direct ties to Dr. Mann by virtue of coauthored papers
with him.” Wegman confirmed my suspicion that excessive focus on “peer
review” studies was because a group had control of the process. “One
of the interesting questions associated with the ‘hockey stick
controversy’ are the relationships among the authors and consequently
how confident one can be in the peer review process. In particular, if
there is a tight relationship among the authors and there are not a
large number of individuals engaged in a particular topic area, then
one may suspect that the peer review process does not fully vet papers
before they are published.” The fact MBH98, was peer reviewed is
partial proof. Continued publication of peer-reviewed papers using
hockey stick methodology suggests the peer review process is being
circumvented." ..." “However, it is immediately clear that the Mann,
Rutherford, Jones, Osborn, Briffa, Bradley and Hughes form a clique,
each interacting with all of the others. A clique is a fully connected
subgraph, meaning everyone in the clique interacts with every one else
in the clique.” In comprehensive charts he identified all the
scientists involved, including Amman and Wahl. Wegman wrote, “We were
especially struck by Dr. Mann’s insistence that the code he developed
was his intellectual property and that he could legally hold it
personally without disclosing it to peers.” Both Mann and Jones have
refused to disclose how their results were obtained. (Source)"
It could not be more clear, yet from Real Climate, essentially
nothing, again, is this science?
Best Wishes
Recommend Recommended by 1 Readers 17 . G. Howard
Idaho
October 1st, 2009
3:23 pmThe round table that they sat down at for this discussion was
probably made from rain forest wood. It was certainly made from fine
wood.
Recommend Recommended by 1 Readers 18 . wmar
usa
October 1st, 2009
3:23 pmBriffa has now replied:
In its entirety:
Please note the rebuttal and graphics as well as the Briffa statement,
take particular note of the one tree which appears to have created the
entire hockey stick.
"1. Plotting the entire Hantemirov and Shiyatov data set, as I’ve done
here, shows it to be almost flat not only in the late 20th century,
but through much of its period.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...
How do you explain why your small set of 10 trees shows a late 20th
century spike while the majority of Hantemirov and Shiyatov data does
not? You write in your rebuttal:
“He offers no justification for excluding the original data; and in
one version of the chronology where he retains them, he appears to
give them inappropriate low weights.”
Justify your own method of selecting 10 trees out of a much larger
data set. You’ve failed to do that. That’s the million dollar
question.
Briffa Writes: “My application of the Regional Curve Standardisation
method to these same data was intended to better represent the multi-
decadal to centennial growth variations necessary to infer the longer-
term variability in average summer temperatures in the Yamal region:
to provide a direct comparison with the chronology produced by
Hantemirov and Shiyatov.“
OK Fair enough, but why not do it for the entire data set, why only a
small subset?
2. It appears that your results are heavily influenced by a single
tree, as Steve McIntyre has just demonstrated here.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...
As McIntyre points out: “YAD061 reaches 8 sigma and is the most
influential tree in the world.”
Seems like an outlier to me when you have one tree that can skew the
entire climate record. Explain yourself on why you failed to catch
this.
3. Why the hell did you wait 10 years to release the data? You did
yourself no favors by deferring reasonable requests to archive data to
enable replication. It was only when you became backed into a corner
by The Royal Society that you made the data available. Your delays and
roadblocks (such as providing an antique data format of the punched
card era), plus refusing to provide metadata says more about your
integrity than the data itself. Your actions make it appear that you
did not want to release the data at all. Your actions are not
consistent with the actions of the vast majority of scientists
worldwide when asked for data for replication purposes. Making data
available on paper publication for replication is the basis of proper
science, which is why The Royal Society called you to task."
No we have Real Climate and Briffa, neither one being responsive to
the nature of the concerns. As Wegman explained, this is a very tight
clique.
Best Wishes
Recommend Recommended by 2 Readers 19 . Bob
NYC
October 1st, 2009
7:56 pmThe forests are second only to the oceans in converting CO2 to
O2 and therefore priceless. Call me a cynic, I'd rather see those
millions spent here reforesting US areas and providing jobs to fellow
Americans than going to third world despots that may use the money for
personal or other purposes while giving us lip service.
How many more trees do we have today in Africa bought by the millions
spent? I think this sort of specific information is needed to make the
article more convincing.
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers 20 . Russell Seitz
Cambridge, Mass
October 1st, 2009
11:21 pmOur anonymous friend wmar writes :
"Seems like an outlier to me when you have one tree that can skew the
entire climate record. Explain yourself "
Scientific revolutions often follow from the discovery of excellently
preserved and complete records that improve the signal to noise ratio
in one fell swoop. Examples range from pristine ice and sediment cores
in palaeoclimatology , to Lucy and the Rosetta Stone in physical
anthropology and linguistics.
Wmar deludes himself if he believes intelligent readers incapable of
recognizing that the RC rebuttal of McIntyre deals honestly , and ad
rem, with virtually every point he raises here.
This is doubly unfortunate , because hearing some impudent ignoramus
repeat McIntyre's sporting goods mantra merely reminds us we're
watching a mining statistician evade scientific controversy by riding
his hobby horse through the blogosphere instead of putting his
critique on the firing line of peer review. In short, you can't use
disinformation to fight climate hype.
chhotemianinshallah
Kerry, Boxer Introduce Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act
September 30, 2009
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.), Chairman of the
Foreign Relations Committee, and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Chairman of
the Committee on Environment and Public Works, today introduced the
Kerry-Boxer legislation to create clean energy jobs, reduce pollution,
and protect American security by enhancing domestic energy production
and combating global climate change.
The Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act will cut carbon pollution
and stimulate the economy by creating millions of jobs in the clean
energy sector.
"This is a security bill that puts Americans back in charge of our
energy future and makes it clear that we will combat global climate
change with American ingenuity. It is our country's defense against
the harms of pollution and the security risks of global climate
change," said Kerry. "Our health, our security, our economy, our
environment, all demand we reinvent the way America uses energy. Our
addiction to foreign oil hurts our economy, helps our enemies and
risks our security. By taking decisive action, we can and will stop
climate change from becoming a ‘threat multiplier' that makes an
already dangerous world staggeringly more so. I want to thank my
partner in this important legislative mission, Senator Barbara Boxer,
for helping to craft a bill that can put millions of Americans back to
work, invest in homegrown innovation, and safeguard our children's
health and our environment."
Senator Boxer said, "We know clean energy is the ticket to strong,
stable economic growth -- it's right here in front of us, in the
ingenuity of our workers and the vision of our entrepreneurs. We must
seize this opportunity, or others will move ahead. This is our time.
Global warming is our challenge. Economic recovery is our challenge.
American leadership is our challenge. Let's step up right now. Let's
not quit until we have fulfilled our responsibility to our children
and our grandchildren. It is an honor to work side by side on this
important legislation with Senator Kerry, who recognized very early
that this issue is about America's national and economic security."
Attached to this release are several documents which outline the Kerry-
Boxer legislation. For all other questions, please contact the
senators' press offices.
To watch a flash video of the press conference, please click HERE.
http://www.senate.gov/fplayers/CommPlayer/commFlashPlayer.cfm?fn=epw093009&st=000
chhotemianinshallah
chhotemianinshallah
September 30, 2009, 3:22 pm
Keeping ‘Climate’ Out of a Climate Bill’s Title
By Andrew C. Revkin
Senate leaders, in unveiling their long-expected climate bill today,
followed the lead of their colleagues in the House: the word
“climate” is not mentioned in the bill’s title. How far things have
come, or retreated, since the Climate Stewardship Act of 2003, the
Safe Climate Act of 2007 or even the Climate Security Act of 2008.
The avoidance of the C word in the bill’s title, “ Clean Energy Jobs
and American Power Act,” seems at odds with the urgent arguments put
forward by backers of the legislation that emissions are climbing and
climate is changing more drastically than previously predicted.
Presumably the word choice is a function of polling that indicates
global warming remains far down on lists of voter concerns. Earlier
this year, there was a lot of re-examination of climate messages, in
hopes of finding terms that could stick.
The economics of climate legislation still seems to matter more to
many people than what a bill would do to limit environmental risk.
Organizations that are variously supporting or fighting emissions
restrictions have been busily rolling out competing assessments of
the jobs created or jobs lost under the less-stringent House bill
passed in June. More such analysis is nigh as hearings start in a few
days.
Have a look at the bill summaries (PDF files at this link). What
would you call it?
[UPDATE, 7 p.m.: The bill contains some other semantic innovations.
One is a shift from "cap and trade" to pollution reduction and
investment. Another is repeated reference to " carbon pollution" in
place of "greenhouse gases." The problem there, as I pointed out a few
months ago, is that not all greenhouse gases contain carbon, and not
all carbon-containing pollution plays a significant role in climate
change. UPDATE, 10:30 p.m.: As a backstop should legislation falter
(and/or prod to move things along), the Obama administration expanded
its actions to curtail greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air
Act today, as well.]
readers' comments
Keeping 'Climate' Out of a Climate Bill's Title
A second climate bill without the word "climate" in the title.
49 Readers' Comments
1.bostmaguy Boston, MA September 30th, 2009 3:53 pm
You should write about the Hockey Stick scandal that is reverberating
throughout the climate community (alarmists and skeptics alike). Seems
that Mann is rather a plucky fellow when it comes to data. The big
question is how many other 'scientists' have done the exact same thing
all in the name of justifying the ends.
Read more: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7229
Recommended by 9 Readers
Andy Revkin Dot Earth blogger, Reporter September 30th, 2009 3:53 pm
Inquiries are under way. More to come on McIntyre's work and climate
scientists' reaction.
2.JD Ohio September 30th, 2009 4:23 pm
Dishonest trash. What one would expect from hypocrites.
JD
Recommended by 5 Readers
3.Mike Roddy Yucca Valley, Ca. September 30th, 2009 5:05 pm
Businesses now imitate Hollywood's practice of prescreening and study
groups before rolling out a movie or product. Even the title gets
kicked around to see which buttons to push in the sample audience.
This is one reason movies have become so horrible. Many consumer
products also go through this process, which discourages innovation,
and perpetuates our baser and dumber instincts. Politicians, even two
I respect (Kerry and Boxer) are now following this lead, instead of
actually facing the music and doing the leading themselves.
In other words, what sells? This may work for, say, the audiences of
the more beastly talk radio hosts. The voting and even the consuming
public deserve better.
Campaigns or products that emerge from market research have a stilted
and phony quality, just like the Repower America and Clean Jobs act,
or whatever they call it. Lincoln didn't take a survey or consult with
marketing people before he wrote the Emancipation Proclamation. Ditto
for Churchill or Roosevelt's great speeches. They came from the heart,
and were motivated by a clear and urgent evaluation of the evidence.
People can smell the difference. It's harder for our leaders to do
market research, and engage in "branding", "framing", and the rest of
it. But we have a right to ask that they bring out their better
natures- and ours. The dangers we are dealing with are the equal of
those that Lincoln and Roosevelt faced, and require equally inspired
responses.
Recommended by 2 Readers
4.Mike Roddy Yucca Valley, Ca.September 30th, 2009 5:05 pm
I meant "easier", not "harder", in my last paragraph of my first post.
When I get worked up, age related dyslexia kicks in, sorry.
I certainly hope you don't do a topic on Steve McIntyre, Andy. He's an
economist/mathematician
with zero understanding of climate science, who yet runs a blog on the
subject. His m.o. is the same as Lomborg- act as if you know what
you're talking about, and play games with statistics, all in the
service of extractive and polluting industries. McIntyre's
professional experience is with the Canadian mining industry, which
has among the worst environmental records on the planet.
Let's try ignoring him, as people who have a clue do routinely.
Recommended by 5 Readers
5.David B. Benson Pullman September 30th, 2009 6:12 pm
Andy Revkin --- It occurred to me that you might care to write an
article based on an interview with the authorsw of
Irrigated afforestation of the Sahara and Australian Outback to end
global warming
http://www.springerlink.com...
Which, by the way, strikes me as something to at least begin in
Tunisia and possibly Mauritania.
(I posted this as a public comment as others may care to read the
paper. The pdf is public access.)
Andy Revkin Dot Earth blogger, Reporter September 30th, 2009 6:12 pm
One of many things on my endless to-do list, actually.... Will they
have to compete with those who want to build huge solar-thermal plant
there?
6.BRIAN M FLYNN LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK September 30th, 2009 6:12 pm
I believe "newspeak" was pushed into high gear when Homeland Security
Secretary Napolitano replaced the phrase "terrorism" with “man-caused
disaster”. Sugar-coating an unpalatable “cap and trade” bill merely by
deleting “climate” from the title is further evidence that our
lawmakers truly believe that “ignorance is strength”. The
miscalculation is that Orwell’s “1984” has been standard fare for some
time and the lack of ignorance is working against them. Thankfully,
there is presently no Ministry of Information deleting the written
word and audio recordings.
Andy, do you have any co-workers named “Winston”?
Recommended by 5 Readers
7.Sean Baltimore, MD USA September 30th, 2009 6:12 pm
If Congress can't make a good enough case for CLIMATE legislation and
have to re-name it to make it more palletable, then maybe it shouldn't
be consisdered. If our legislators believe in the collective wisdom of
the people that put them in office, at least be honest and trust the
collective wisdom of those same people and sell them on the merits of
what the law will actually cost and what the benefits will be.
Recommended by 3 Readers
8.wmar usa September 30th, 2009 6:12 pm
Great ideas seldom need obfuscation, while there is plenty of guilt to
go around. It has long been said that what is known as modern
liberalism, or progressive-ism cannot be honestly described by its
proponents or it will fail, because so many of its precepts are
anathema to individual freedom and self-determination, which are the
basis for the roots and foundation of The USA.
It is in part for this reason, in its most extreme forms, that we end
up with places like North Korea being named The peoples Democratic
Republic of North Korea. Or a wasteful spending bill being named a
'Recovery and Reinvestment Act', and we always here that something is
'for the children'. Of course we all see the commotion now over the
health care bill(s), none of which will have a name representative of
their reality. As I said, many have done this under various political
controls and it is all manipulation and clarifies the contempt our own
elected representatives hold for us.
Of course this leads directly to the current situation whereby, like
the leaders of the DRNK, the climate scientists that I fear Andy is
now talking with, who cannot be objective, or honest brokers,
regarding the fact that Mann and his hockey stick have been entirely
undone as they are complicit, Steve M at Climate Audit and the Wegman
Report are extremely clear, and have been for years, and this was
before the recent data was released and examined. The AGW theocracy
did not care, Mann they felt was the final vindication. Turns out Soon
and Baulinas, Singer, Seitz, the 700 signers of the Inhofe reports,
Inhofe, Limbaugh, Spencer, Michaels, Lindzen, Watts, (again the list
could go on) were entirely correct, and Mann entirely contrived,
knowingly and on purpose to by fraud achieve the specific but bogus
goal of creating AGW out of whole-cloth.
The IPCC, Hansen, RealClimate (same as Hansen, the PR arm of NASA),
Tamino, Rohm (the whole long list) etc… All of these folks have based
their good names, careers and scientific reputations upon Mann being
correct, the entire AGW conjecture is based on it. If the MWP was as
warm or warmer that the present time frame (Mann’s proxies themselves
now that they have finally been pried into the light of day establish
the MWP was as warm as the present time frame), the AGW hypothesis is
kaput. They are too deep to tell the truth now, and distortions and
machinations have worked so well for them until now, they have so many
true-believers waiting for the word from on high as to what to
believe.
If the IPCC overstates the atmospheric residency time for carbon
without scientific foundation (which they objectively do), the AGW
theory is killed by Mann’s own proxies, buried, dug up and then killed
a second time. If the trajectory of atmospheric carbon has remained
the same (which Mauna Loa says it has) despite the massive reduction
of human emissions because of the economic situation, AGW speculation,
killed yet again … three strikes and you are out?
Andy, I am a truth-seeker, please in this, do more than speak to the
‘clique’ to use Wegmans word for them, of the high-priests of the AGW
speculation and hypothesis. Speak to them if you must, but as a
skeptic for they have lied to you for decades, even directly to your
face, as Hansen, the smiling g barracuda, worked his magic on you.
Also, please do not tarry as ‘they’ huddle to formulate some way that
‘only the consensus’ can possibly understand, to explain this
monumental event away. As the Congress now debates this new bill over
this very topic, if Mann’s work is what it now (and then) appears to
be, hoisted upon his own proxies which falsify the AGW hypothesis, and
the entire AGW establishment went along with it, and the MWP was as
warm or warmer, and the residency time is 600% inflated … what exactly
are they debating in Washington?
Truth delayed is truth denied, be an objective journalist in this, the
world understands that you have been misled, you have no reason to
work to help the perpetrators of this massive 500 billion dollar
fraud. If Mann’s proxies show what they do (and they do), the AGW
world has been turned upside down and scientific truth is waiting to
be reported.
Waiting … there is no time to wait, Congress debates and votes and
will at some time finish with this issue. It is time for this story be
properly ‘broken’ in the mainstream media, perhaps a great way to
establish that where science is concerned, Andrew Revkin is not for
sale and when things turn out different than what he expected, he
comes to the fore and says what is true.
I know it is very hard to have ones world up-ended, I have faith that
you can make your way through to some fantastic writing on this matter
that is plain and clear and makes no excuses. Good luck to you, but
time is not anyone’s friend in this, if the cabal keeps you waiting,
keep your own counsel, for they have been exposed and you are now a
threat to ‘the family’.
Best Wishes
Recommended by 5 Readers
9.melty West Orange, NJ September 30th, 2009 6:12 pm
Taking Mike's advice and moving on from BogusMan...
OMG is it possible that someone in the WH actually has some guts?
(guts: slang: courage, fortitude, nerve.... audacity. Now where have I
heard that word before?).
On the new bill: looks OK. I have a lot of respect for Barbara Boxer
(tough by name and tough by nature). On the other hand, [look away now
if the t-word results in an apoplectic fit] tax and dividend would be
better: less prone to charges of [gasp!] "big government" extortion
(though we seem to have no problem wasting $trillions on heartbreaking
and unwarranted foreign wars. Many have pointed out that captain trade
is probably not the best solution; on the other hand, he's a whole lot
better than nothing.
Recommended by 1 Reader
10.JKD Templeton Ca September 30th, 2009 6:12 pm
It's a good idea to keep Climate out of the bill as it will do nothing
to effect Climate. The most cooling one could expect for this is .11
degrees C surly that is worth 7 trillion dollars.
Recommended by 4 Readers
11.melty West Orange, NJ September 30th, 2009 6:12 pm
To answer Andy's question, I'd call it: "The American Stabilization of
Climate and Energy Transition Initiative-C", or ASCETIC. What's the
'C' for? CARBON, of course.
12.wmar usa September 30th, 2009 6:12 pm
mike,
It is not about Climate Audit ... you may not be aware that the Mann
proxies were specifically cherry picked for that report, upon which
the concept of a cooler MWP came to be. This is not speculation, The
Royal Society has released the data, Mann and the hockey stick and the
cooler MWP are all undone. That Steve M is good with math is not a
secret nor is anyone asking for a column on him, we want to read all
about Mann, the warmer MWP, etc ... In other words, what is true, even
by Mann's own proxies which he and his cabal hid from the world, not
realizing The Royal Society had the data hidden away. Now it has been
released, and the data is entirely clear, the MWP was warmer, Soon and
Mann now agree (their proxies do), but Mann hid the ones he disliked,
Soon did not. The level of scandal is almost beyond words.
Mann and his clique (see the Wegman report) simply made up the results
by the exclusion and obfuscation of the evidence, this is not
conjecture.
The data establish that the MWP was as warm, global and perhaps even
warmer than the present time frame. The concept that we have warmed
more, faster , more quickly, etc... is no more, it was an intentional
misdirection by the AGW orthodoxy.
The emperor wears no clothes and the fraud of the ages has been
exposed, the precautionary principle cannot apply to AGW theology any
longer as even the research and peer-review has entirely failed and
broken down, the models are exposed, there is no 'there' there.
The order of hotter highs goes in reverse, we are cooler than the
highs of the 1930's and that was cooler than the highs of the MWP,
cooler not warmer, despite the entire industrial revolution and all
the carbon emitted and accumulated. As established by Mann's proxies,
not mine or any skeptics.
Best Wishes
Recommended by 1 Reader
13.M Hunt Alaska September 30th, 2009 6:12 pm
A good point you make that the climate bill doesn't mention climate in
the title. One would think that climate is becoming a dirty word
amongst the politicians.
Also of interest is the EPA proceeding with the endangerment finding
on CO2 as a means of "putting pressure" on Congress to write a climate
bill limiting CO2. Last week our Senator Murkowski tried to introduce
an amendment that limited the EPA from considering CO2 under the Clean
Air Act. This was a very courageous amendment, which in part argued
that only Congress is responsible for writing legislation - not the
Supreme Court, not the EPA, not the administration. The amendment was
not surprisingly slapped down by the same Democrats who have given us
a climate bill (without mentioning climate) and an EPA who thinks it
can "force" Congress to write legislation to fit the opinions of the
EPA's political appointees.
One would think that senators of all parties would not take kindly to
being shoved around by the EPA.
Recommended by 3 Readers
14.Laurie Dougherty Brookline, MA September 30th, 2009 7:06 pm
This question about the name of the bill is a total distraction (and
this is evidenced by the comments so far) from trying to understand
what’s in the Kerry-Boxer bill, how it differs from Waxman-Markey, how
effectively it will reduce US greenhouse gas emissions, and what it
will take to get a strong bill passed.
Oh and by the way, the EPA announced that it will regulate power plant
emissions.
Climate Progress has a discussion of both the Kerry-Boxer bill and the
EPA announcement.
Grist is collecting commentary on the bill here:
Today’s news is worthy of a much better level of discussion than
quibbling about the title of the bill.
Take a cue from Shakespeare:
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
Recommended by 2 Readers
15.Keith Thompson MD Atlanta September 30th, 2009 7:06 pm
Call it a quadro-ped ungulate with a flat snout and helical tail.
It is still a pig.
Do the advocates of the cap-and-trade bill really hold the public in
such contempt that they believe that “re-branding” this monstrosity
will dupe voters, deflect their ire, and increase chance for passage?
“Global Warming Bill?” Well, that brand lost its luster after the
Earth stopped warming a decade ago. Stasis and cooling was not
supposed to happen according to the IPCC computer models that underpin
AGW theory. New brand needed.
“Climate Change Bill” or “Climate Stabilization Bill?” Unfortunately,
most adult voters learned about ancient ice ages, the medieval warming
period, and the little ice age in grade school. They are also old
enough to have experienced warmer years and cooler years. Through
experience and education, they know that the Earth’s climate has
always changed – naturally-- with no need for the government to place
a massive tax on energy to “stabilize” the climate.
How about John Kerry’s latest brand - “Pollution Reduction Bill?”
Unfortunately, most people know that all animals exhale CO2 and that
CO2 is not a pollutant, but an essential compound for all life. They
know that plants incorporate CO2 in the presence of sunlight to create
starch and release oxygen to the atmosphere (photosynthesis – learned
that in grade school, too). Many know that the higher the CO2
concentration, the more robust the plants, the greater the crop yield,
which also benefits animals in the biosphere. So a branding strategy
that calls CO2 a pollutant sounds like, well….a lie.
More informed citizens recently learned (not through the MSM of
course, but through the Internet) that the hockey stick graph that the
IPCC so prominently featured as “smoking gun” evidence for man-made,
fossil-fuel-CO2 driven climate Armageddon was manufactured. More
accurately, the hockey stick was fraud.
Now this quadro-ped ungulate with a flat snout and helical tail is
starting to smell really bad.
I’ll call it a pig.
Regards,
Recommend Recommended by 4 Readers
16.David B. Benson Pullman September 30th, 2009 7:33 pm
Andy Revkin (5) --- No competition. The Sahara Desrt is over 7 million
square kilometers. Plenty of room for both with some wind power thrown
in as well. Regarding the trees, leaving wide fire breaks is a good
idea and the more industrial solutions could easily use up some of
that land.
Andy Revkin Dot Earth blogger, Reporter September 30th, 2009 7:33 pm
That was meant as kind of a joke (after a long day, things that seem
funny often turn out not to be). : )
17.monkeysinging Windsor, ON Canada September 30th, 2009 7:33 pm
OK, five years of legislation that did include the C word, to what
result? Could the problem be that we don't really understand the
meaning of the term? That merely slapping it on a bill can't
accomplish anything without a clear and agreed upon understanding of
what it means. No surprise to me that division and partisan politics
are stonewalling not just the American, but the global movement toward
sustainability, no ….survivability.
Maybe the concept of the 'Climate' as a singularity, a thing of which
there is only one, makes it difficult for some. National interests,
and commercial concerns they represent, have been operating on this
flawed premise: that the earth's climate can be subdivided. Sure,
there are climate niches and regional climates, none of which are
defined by national boundaries. When the smell of Zug Island floats
here from Detroit (or conversely the smell of Hiram Walker
Distilleries floats out of Windsor), I am reminded that a) those
smells don't carry passports and b) the lines on the map do not
correspond to existing structures on the ground.
There is no such thing as an American ocean, a Japanese sky, or an
Indian river. There is no trading off one cesspit with another only
slightly less odious. Carbon taxes, and like-minded proposals,
perpetuate the myth that there is still time to make a few bucks
before our habits catch up with us. With the money we spend on war and
gross consumerism, we could already have been well along the path to
finding ways of doing things that won't leave us gasping for breath.
One planet, one climate, one chance to choose the right goal, zero
toxic emissions. Then if we fall short, we would have accomplished
something. This is not any one country's problem; it is a problem for
all of Humanity. There I go again with those pesky singularities, but
only when the singularity called Humanity accepts that there is a
single climate for this singular earth, will we make any real progress
toward cleaning up our very own singularly obnoxious mess.
Recommended by 2 Readers
18.G. Howard Idaho September 30th, 2009 7:33 pm
I don't see what's wrong with leaving climate out. In order to pass
the agendas that are being pushed now you have to hide the content.
People kind of get upset if you come right out and say we are going to
curtail you little people rights.
Recommended by 3 Readers
19.David B. Benson Pullman September 30th, 2009 8:41 pm
Keith Thompson (15) --- Not cooling, not even staying flat. Here are
the decadal averages from the HadCRUTv3 global temperature product:
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com...
Do note that long term trend is ever upwards; intervals shorter than
30 years are not climate.
Recommended by 2 Readers
20.wmar usa September 30th, 2009 8:41 pm
Here Mike, have a look at this, its a nicely done chronology of the
issue I posted about, sort of a start to finish thing. Hope it helps.
Best Wishes
Recommended by 1 Reader
21.David Ropeik Concord, Massachusetts September 30th, 2009 8:41 pm
It seems naive to suggest that there is something dishonest or
manipulative in the titles of these bills because they don't emphasize
their goal of addressing climate change. And it seems a little
absolute when supporters of action on climate change demand that
proposed legislative solutions only be promoted honestly on the
merits, turning their noses up at legislation framed in terms that
will encourage the most support.
This is a practical world of democracy and politics, in which
decisions are driven by people evolved to survive by putting self-
interest first and social interests second. Lament that though we
might, it is the nature of the naked ape, and you only have to look at
any of the crises caused by the unsustainable way we're living,
including climate change, to see the evidence for this truth. Under a
democratic form of government that is at least to some degree "by the
people", advancing goals by appealing to people's self-interest, is
indeed manipulative. But it's also realistic and intelligent if what
we really want at the end of the day are solutions.
Recommended by 1 Reader
22.Robert Brulle Philadelphia PA September 30th, 2009 8:41 pm
Andy:
This is the easiest question you have ever asked on DOT Earth. The
Obama administration and congressional leaders have adopted the
language advocated in the ecoAmerican Report "Climate and Energy
Truths: Our Common Future." Read it for yourself online here:
http://ecoamerica.net... and compare it to what they are saying.
So what the Democrats are doing is taking a page from the Republican
playbook from the past in getting their speaking points from a focus
group. In 1992, Frank Luntz wrote a memo for Republicans to talk about
global warming to discourage action. You can see that here:
http://www.ewg.org/node/8684
This was all covered in the NY Times back in May 2009 when the report
came out: http://www.nytimes.com...
Obviously, the Obama administration and now Senator Kerry are taking
their talking points, and even bill titles from public communications
specialists based on focus group responses.
The links are transparent. The reasons for why they have resorted to
this is not.
Dr. Robert Brulle
Drexel University
Recommended by 4 Readers
23.Leftymartin Canada September 30th, 200 910:34 pm
Mike Roddy (4) - I loved your post. In reference to the McIntyre post
(or lack thereof), I really appreciated your sense of humour. No post
on McIntyre, an economist/mathematician, published in a peer-reviewed
journal, but no problem with posts on Pachauri, an economist. You had
me howling with the "act as if you know what you're talking about, and
play games with statistics", seemingly criticizing McIntyre but in a
very clever way taking a swipe at Briffa, Mann, and the other Team
members who have turned statistical chicanery (and incompetence) into
a high art form. You even managed to get the fossil-fuel-funded
bugaboo in there too. Your tour de force however was your advice
"Let's try ignoring him, as people who have a clue do routinely",
where you cleverly infer that the denizens of RealClimate, a site
where considerable effort has been expended doing precisely the
opposite, don't have a clue. Precisely. I note they have gone into
"silent running" over McIntyre's latest sleuthing.
You have an extraordinary talent for irony - I just wonder if you
yourself realize it......
One way or the other, keep posts like these coming, they are truly
hilarious.
Recommended by 6 Readers
24.Xarissa Arlington, VA September 30th, 2009 10:34 pm
Among many of the activists I know, there is a fear that both "global
warming" and "climate" have lost their punch with the general public.
People are so used to hearing them, they hardly listen anymore. So the
focus on clean energy and jobs is meant to present an old issue in a
more novel (and maybe optimistic?) light. It obscures the real and
multi-faceted problem by trying to find lifestyle angles that people
will connect with. As a rhetorical choice, I think it's a gamble.
Recommend Recommended by 1 Reader 25.Chris DunfordMarylandSeptember
30th, 200910:34 pmJD (#2):
<Dishonest trash. What one would expect from hypocrites.>
I wonder if you said the same thing when Bush's media adviser
suggested referring to "climate change" instead of "global warming":
"'Climate change' is less frightening than 'global warming.' As one
focus group participant noted, climate change 'sounds like you're
going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.' While global warming has
catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a
more controllable and less emotional challenge."
Lexis-Nexis searches have demonstrated that GWB stopped saying 'global
warming' and started saying 'climate change' shortly after this report
was prepared.
Dishonest trash?
26.wmar usa September 30th, 2009 11:28 pm
Sorry Mike,
Left out the link:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com...
Best Wishes
Recommended by 1 Reader
27.Laurie Dougherty Brookline, MA September 30th, 2009 11:28 pm
Re: the "semantic innovations" in Andy's 7 pm Update
In a word search of the entire bill (not press summaries or overviews
or newspaper stories), "greenhouse gas" occurs 417 times, "carbon
pollution" occurs once ("global warming pollution" occurs 10 times).
If we don't have investment in clean energy and energy efficiency, it
won't happen.
28.Brian M.Colorado October 1st, 2009 11:23 am
There's a funny thing going on here. Ten-fifteen years ago numerous
interests were trying to get clean/renewable energy bills passed for
lots of good reasons--cleaning the air of soot, reducing dependence on
foreign oil, and protecting sensitive landscapes from coal mining/oil
drilling.
But in the 1990s those reasons carried little weight with the American
public. So--against the advice of a lot of us--enviros latched onto
the global warming thing as a way to repackage the bills. It even
seemed to gain some traction for awhile. Never mind that it was
extremely disingenuous--even if we do believe the modeling, all of the
treaties and legislation combined would reduce global average
temperatures by a fraction of a degree.
But now, the American public has started to see through the global
warming ruse. But they also have a lot more concern about $3.20/gallon
gas prices, rising electricity costs, and dependency on foreign oil.
So we're now starting to drop the global warming tie. Good riddance.
But we're getting cries of duplicity from both sides.
There are a dozen excellent reasons to develop clean, renewable energy
sources. The sooner we stop burdening and confusing legislation with
this carbon nonsense, the better off we'll all be.
Recommended by 6 Readers
29.Mark Laguna Niguel, CA October 1st, 2009 11:23 am
It's obvious why they removed any mention of climate from the title...
They think it makes the bill more palatable to the public.
Anybody note how many times the word "international" is in the bill?
161 times. Why? The answer is obvious, much of the cap-and-trade taxes
that we end up paying will pay for infrastructure development (and
some for infrastructure protection) in 3rd world countries. And guess
what happens next? More US jobs offshored to these countries so that
they can build things to sell to us. The bottom line is, AGW is being
used to redistribute the world's wealth, both among countries and
within countries and the hope is that everybody has very similar
incomes by 2100.
For example:
"The [IPCCs] B2 storyline is oriented toward environmental protection
and social equity (that is, assuming a tendency to a more even
distribution of per capita income, quantified by dropping the ratio of
income in developed to developing countries from 16 to 3 over the 21st
century), and emphasizes “local solutions to
economic, social, and environmental sustainability” (Nakicenovic and
Swart, 2000). "
Oh, and Mr. Revkin, I hope that you look into the recent discovery at
climateaudit.org regarding Briffa's apparent cherry picking of tree
ring data in order to get a hockey stick graph.
Recommended by 5 Readers
30.Chris Dudley Maryland October 1st, 2009 11:23 am
I find it interesting that three days after Kanter claims the
legislation is stuck in the Senate, it is moving in a very public
manner. http://www.nytimes.com...
Now, he was reporting from Brussels, but surely rumors of major
legislation must have been available to editors. It makes one wonder
how careful that reporting was.
Let's see, the article jumps right to the claim that EU carbon trading
is the most expensive climate policy program in the world according to
an industry spokesman. But wait, this claim is given without any
numbers and absent any acknowledgment that the EU expects to meet its
Kyoto commitments so that their policy seems to be effective. Humm....
Well, "All the News that Fits" is an epitaph I've heard before.
Perhaps that is how it goes in the business section.
Recommended by 1 Reader
31.Wang Suya Japan October 1st, 2009 11:23 am
From Wang Suya
Do the Senators feel shame? Even do not mentioned "climate" on climate
bill,what will it be called? The main perpouse is to solve climate
change problem, but do not mention "climate change" on the title. Do
these Senators study? Even do not know global warming. What are they
doing? So let people anger and shame Senate of American. Even can not
compare with China. Chinese goverment even make national goal to fight
against global warming. Democracy American goverment even exist so
many do not know global warming politicans or know it but do not care
it in order to keep their own benefits. It is America, world most
powerful country, senators do not concern global warming, even in
order to pass climate bill not use climate on title of bill. What a
corrupt and rotten Senate which is a world most powerful country's
Senate. At this situation, America will weaken away, will left trace
of nowaday's era. Remember what I say, historical wheel will press
America die away if keep this Senate exist in America!!
32.Mac UK October 1st, 2009 11:23 am
From Global Warming to Climate Change and now Global Pollution. From
carbon tax to cap and trade (C&T) and now pollution reduction and
investment (PRI).
Changing and softening the language whilst spinning a positive simply
heightens public suspicion.
For the truth be told rapid greening of the world's economies will
bring global economic collapse, mass unemployment, a huge increase in
poverty, global unrest, and ultimately mass starvation and violent
death, be it in the west or in the third world.
PRI truly stands for - Poverty, Recession and Instability.
Recommended by 5 Readers
33.Steven Earl Salmony Chapel Hill, North Carolina October 1st, 2009
11:23 am
How do we move forward from behavior based upon political feasibility
and economic expediency to actions driven by practical requirements of
biophysical reality? At least to me, it appears that the "window of
opportunity" in which restoration of balance between unsustainable,
distinctly human overconsumption/overproduction/overpopulation
activities on one side and Earth's finite resources and frangible
ecology on the other is rapidly approaching its closing time.
Perhaps necessary change is in the offing and comes soon enough.
Recommended by 1 Reader
34.Peter NJ October 1st, 2009 11:23 am
Given how this universally approved pending piece of legislation, has
smoothly sailed through congress: "America's Affordable Health Choices
Act of 2009"
I suggest that the climate bill be entitled
S xxxx - American's Affordate Climate Change Tax Choices Act of 2009
Recommended by 2 Readers
35.JR Canada October 1st, 2009 11:23 am
In spite of statistical variablity of recent global temperature
measurements, visual evidence is proof positive that the world's
glaciers are melting rapidly. Millions of North American and worldwide
tourists over the past 50 years have seen with their.own eyes the
rapid disappearance of glaciers observed at: (a) The Glacier National
Park and (b) The Athabasca Glacier in the Columbia Icefield while
driving the scenic Banff-Jasper highway. The current global glacier
meltdown is occurring much faster than during previous Pleistocene
inter- glacial episodes. Trust your eyes, not what short term
statistical blips might or might not be recording. If the earth is
cooling, what's causing the rapid disappearance of the world's
glaciers? The truth is increasing greenhouse gas emissions to the
atmosphere since the end of the Pleistocene. This is the result of all
human activities as a result of the continuous growth of human
population. The explanation of almost all current global warming
temperatures is definitely not: (1) CO2 from volcanic eruptions, (2)
sun spot changes, (3) the earth's tilt or (4) other astronomic and
galactic variables that deniers of human-induced global warming and
climate change also falsely promote.
Jack Century
Calgary, Alberta
Recommended by 4 Readers
36.JD Ohio October 1st, 200911:23 am #25 Chris Dunford
"I wonder if you said the same thing when Bush's media adviser
suggested referring to "climate change" instead of "global warming"
Yes I would have. You are stereotyping me. I didn't vote for either
candidate in the last 2 elections, and I thought that the Iraq war was
a disgrace and Bush was a failure.
With respect to climate change as a term, it is a joke. Climate has
always changed. This way the proponents of AGW always have a cover if
their ideas turn out to be wrong. Also, environmentalists obviously
have no credibility on economic matters because the whole point of
most of what they do is to put sand in the gears of market economies
so they can preserve what they view as a static world. They advocate a
highly speculative plan to reduce carbon dioxide (in terms of its
efficacy) at the cost of causing huge and unsustainable energy
increases (my electric rates have gone up 30% in the last two years,
and environmentalists say that isn't enough), and could care less
about the real suffering that will be caused when people won't be able
to afford heat. Of course, the people advocating this (Gore, Krugman
et cet.) can easily afford their bills and are heavy CO2 users and are
quite content to have others suffer.
Definitely dishonest trash by the worst type of hypocrites imaginable.
JD
Recommended by 5 Readers
37.Chris Dudley Maryland October 1st, 200911:23 am
Broder's article on the EPA's draft regulations casts the story as the
administration's unwillingness to wait for Congress to act. It seems
to me that Congress already acted when it passed the Clean Air Act and
it would be a failure to uphold the law if the EPA did not move
forward with this. Already there has been delay when the prior
administration refused to read the EPA's endangerment finding. So, the
story is really more about upholding the law than some conflict with
Congress.
If Congress attempts to repeal the Clean Air Act now, I hope there
will be a veto.
Recommended by 2 Readers
38.hey-hey Milwaukee, WI October 1st, 20093:23 pm
Global warming is much too psychologically benign. We'd like some of
that warming in Wisconsin this winter. More concerning might be
"global boiling". There is a legendary experiment, where, if you throw
a frog into gradually warming water, it will stay there and be cooked
alive. It didn't realize "warming" was dangerous. If you throw it into
boiling water, it will jump out.
Climate change is also much too psychologically benign. Change for the
better or worse. Climate instability is more worrisome: forest fires,
floods, droughts, etc.
The government should hire a naming company, if they haven't already.
39.Chris Dudley Maryland October 1st, 20093:23 pmAndy in #1,
It appears that there isn't anything to McIntyre's "work."
http://www.realclimate.org...
It would be interesting to get a more in depth report on the influence
of the fossil fuel industry in these sorts of deceptions.
Recommend Recommended by 2 Readers 40.Chris DudleyMarylandOctober
1st, 20093:23 pmThe most informative article so far on the Bill seems
to be here: http://www.nytimes.com...
I would comment that Sen. McCain's idea that the 2020 goal is
unreachable with out a nuclear power title demonstrates a
misunderstanding of nuclear power. If we put a lot of effort into
nuclear power now, we won't see any cuts by 2020 since it takes much
longer than that to get a nuclear plant built.
Senator Landrieu's comments on natural gas seem much better informed.
The tariffs that are a part of the House Bill are left to the very
busy Finance Committee but Leader Reid has said that the committee
structure can be circumvented for this Bill if needed.
This Bill contains language about aviation. That seems to me to be
very forward looking since aviation is a very difficult problem. The
development of lithium-air batteries may make electric aviation
possible.
Recommended by 1 Reader
41.David Lewis Seattle October 1st, 2009 3:23 pm
Theodore O'Neill, an alternate energy analyst at Kaufman Brothers LP,
was interviewed by Lori Rothman, on "Bloomberg Analyst Calls"
9/30/2009, regarding the prospects for alternative energy company
stock prices given that the Senate is considering climate action:
O'Neill: "I was at Climate Week in NYC last week. And I attended a
number of different panels talking about the legislation. And it looks
like there is so much entrenched partisanship on either side of this,
that I don't see anything likely to pass this year, or next."
Rothman: "No kind of emission reduction. Nothing?"
O'Neill: "It doesn't look like we're close to compromise on where
that's going to go yet. Certainly not this year. Next year is a mid
election year. The longer this drags out the less likely it seems
we'll have legislation. So I think that the alternative energy stocks
will have to go on their own merits."
Turning to other news: The US Chamber of Commerce is in court asking
it to rule on if there is a scientific basis for the E.P.A. to act to
limit emissions of greenhouse gases. And, Newsweek has come up with a
list of the 500 "greenest" US companies. I wonder if even Goebbels
went this far. While the German Chamber of Commerce was plotting in
the back rooms with Hitler working out the details of the final
solution did Germans read in their magazines about how it was decided
which 500 were the most Jew friendly German companies?
It takes 2/3 of the Senate to approve an international agreement such
as Copenhagen. The Founding Fathers thought this barrier would ensure
that any international treaty entered into by the U.S. would have at
least some bipartisan support. So when there is no bipartisan support
for anything, the prospects for any international treaties appear
dim.
Recommended by 3 Readers
42.Steven Earl Salmony Chapel Hill, North Carolina October 1st, 2009
7:56 pm
Dear hey-hey (#38),
Do you really believe people will keep pursuing the very same patently
unsustainable overconsumption, overproduction and overpopulation
activities we are in hot pursuit of now until the Earth boils? Human
beings are more intelligent and adaptive than frogs, are we not?
Could malignant narcissism, pathological arrogance and unbridled greed
have become such powerful human traits (because they have been
profanely regarded as attributes worthy of praise, richly rewarded and
judged to be virtuous)? Perhaps these traits of 'goodness' reduce
human beings to a behavioral repertoire reminiscent of bloated frogs
and other non-human creatures?
Steve
Recommended by 1 Reader
43.sas new york October 1st, 20097:56 pm
if the proposed carbon emissions restrictions enacted/enforced,
whether 20% reduction by 2020, or 80% reduction by 2050 -- or whatever
-- it will merely indicate that the economy is in a state of extended
collapse.
i do not believe the architects of the agw alarmism are unaware of the
necessity of a significant human dieback during the next century, and
since the subject of overpopulation is taboo, stuffing a potato in the
exhaust of the world economy (hat tip!) is the neatest way to
accomplish their goal of a planet safe from a fatally destructive
species that is unable to control its numbers any more than a bunch of
randy rabbits.
so, maybe cap & trade's a good thing!
when it's all over, the oecd countries will be lucky if their standard
of living has only descended halfway to the sol of the poorest
hellholes of the undeveloping world.
see the article in yesterday's nyt about the futility of trying to
scale up solar power in desert regions (or anywhere) without a
limitless supply of water.
we've past peak oil -- and probably peak water as well.
the die is cast. it's just a question of how we get from A to B.
have a nice day!
44.Bob NYC October 1st, 20097:56 pm
#29 "Anybody note how many times the word "international" is in the
bill? 161 times."
That is the reason I keep mentioning the Left. They are
internationalists, too good to be just Americans, ready to blame
America first for any reason, ready to send money that we don't even
have overseas, ready to put another country's needs ahead of our own.
It has to do with the feeling of superiority they get when they help
"lesser" people and perhaps linked to the old communist dream that was
international in nature and now discredited around the world with the
exception of Cuba, China, N Korea, some US intellectuals and
Washington DC.
Recommended by 1 Reader
45.Bob NYCOctober 1st, 2009 7:56 pm #36
"Definitely dishonest trash by the worst type of hypocrites
imaginable."
Great post!
Recommended by 2 Readers
46.Bob NYC October 1st, 2009 7:56 pm #41
"It takes 2/3 of the Senate to approve an international agreement such
as Copenhagen. The Founding Fathers thought this barrier would ensure
that any international treaty entered into by the U.S. would have at
least some bipartisan support. "
Our founding fathers are spinning in their graves like gyroscopes.
There are ways around that inconvenience. We used to do that with the
Soviets, we signed, never ratified, acted according to the treaties.
Recommended by 1 Reader
47.David B. Benson Pullman October 1st, 20097:56 pm
Seems it is time once again to remind certain commenters of some basic
facts of physics. Here is
Jim Galasyn:
Fundamentally, climate science is based on well-understood principles
of thermodynamics. Before humans burned the sequestered carbon (fossil
fuels) and released CO2, Earth was in radiative near-equilibrium with
space. Humans introduced a sudden, 500-gigaton excursion in the global
carbon budget. Because CO2 is a “heat-trapping gas,” Earth is now in
disequilibrium with space. To return to equilibrium, the atmosphere
must warm.
The rest is details. Interesting details, to be sure, but the basic
thermodynamics have been understood since Svante Arrhenius published
in 1896.
Recommended by 1 Reader
48.spalding craft north carolina October 1st, 200 911:21 pm
The bill may contain some semantic innovations, but it (at least its
summary) contains perhaps the most prodigious collection of agw
cliches and exaggerations in print, rivalling even some of the
comments in this blog. A few examples:
-oil companies are declared as the enemy, and getting off oil is a
panacea, leading to more jobs, better health, protection of national
security, preserving the world for our children, etc. etc. etc.
-renewable energy is our friend. Get a load of this: "every dollar
spent on clean energy creates four times as many jobs as an equal
investment in oil and gas".
-co2 emissions are now "carbon pollution", a scourge on the population
and world that dwarfs other kinds of pollution such as acid rain. This
scourge must be curtailed "to avert a climate disaster". The great
polluters are of course the fossil fuel interests, who until recently
were actually considered positive parts of American enterprise.
We should all be happy to know that agriculture is excluded from cap
and trade, as well as "small business", while it will cover "only 2%
of American business". The targets are the power companies and the
noxious substances that fuel them, oil and coal.
The spectre of inundation by sea level rise is trotted out, citing a
tiny Alaskan village that had to relocate because of melting ice
shelves. This "terrifying scenario will repeat itself farther south
and on far larger scales".
And finally, perhaps the newest of agw cliches and the piece de
resistance, an appeal for national security. A collection of "highly
decorated Admirals and Generals" declares that climate change
"threatens to bring more famine and drought, worse pandemics, more
natural disasters, more resource scarcity, and human displacement on a
staggering scale." Presumably the highly decorated officers includes
Senator Kerry himself, and natural disasters would include phenomena
like the recent earthquakes and tsunamies in the Pacific.
It seems that the two sponsoring Senators have bought the armageddon
scenario and take some pleasure in repeating it. This sort of
extremism will, of course, be met with opposition of the same stripe.
Can a reasonable solution result from this?
49.Peter NJ October 1st, 200911:21 pm #47
has the earth been in near perfect equilibrium for the last 3.5
billion years? and only out of kilter the last 100?
chhotemianinshallah
India proposes talks with EU, US on climate change
STAFF WRITER 10:44 HRS IST
Washington, Oct 3 (PTI) India has proposed bilateral dialogue with the
US and EU on the issue of climate change on the lines of one it is set
to hold with China later this month, Environment Minister Jairam
Ramesh has said.
The proposal in this regard to both the Europeans and the Americans
was made last week, Ramesh said here yesterday.
This would be on the lines of the first India-China energy dialogue
scheduled to take place in New Delhi on October 21, he said.
The meeting with China, Ramesh said, has nothing to do with Copenhagen
negotiations in December on climate change.
"It has to do with the actions of both the governments in climate
change. This is the first consultations. I hope we are able to make it
an annual affair," he said.
chhotemianinshallah
World leaders vow to tackle prob of climate change
STAFF WRITER 12:21 HRS IST
Lalit K Jha
Washington, Oct 3 (PTI) Ahead of the key Copenhagen meet in December
to tackle global warming, leading Indian environmentalist R K Pachauri
and 29 other global leaders have inked a declaration vowing to jointly
work to pursue clean transportation and back national climate change
legislations.
"Addressing the problems caused by climate change is the greatest
environmental challenge of our time," California Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger, who was among the signatories of the declaration, said
after a climate summit.
At the 'Governors' Global Climate Summit' "we heard leaders and
experts from around the globe discuss the innovative steps and
strategies being championed in the fight against global warming," he
chhotemianinshallah
October 04, 2009
Copenhagen negotiating text: 200 pages to save world?
David Adam
http://www.hindu.com/2009/09/30/stories/2009093055440900.htm
The draft agreement being discussed ahead of December’s crucial
Copenhagen summit is long, confusing and contradictory.
It is a blueprint to save the world. And yet it is long, confusing and
contradictory. Negotiators have released a draft version of a new
global agreement on climate change, which is widely billed as the last
chance to save the planet from the ravages of global warming.
Running to some 200 pages, the draft agreement is being discussed for
the first time this week as officials from 190 countries gather in
Bangkok for U..N. talks. There is only one meeting after this before
they meet in Copenhagen aiming to hammer out a final version.
The Guardian’s environment correspondent has analysed the draft text
which consolidates and reorders hundreds of changes demanded by
countries to the previous version, which saw it balloon to 300 pages.
It must be formally approved before negotiators can start to whittle
it down. Here are the key, edited sections with their meaning.
Traditional sticking points
The text includes sections on the traditional sticking points that
have delayed progress on climate change for a decade or longer:
— How much are rich countries willing to cut their greenhouse gas
emissions, and by when?
— Will large developing nations such as China make an effort to put at
least a dent in their levels of pollution?
— How much money must flow from the developed world to developing
countries to secure their approval? How much to compensate for the
impact of past emissions, and how much to prevent future emissions?
According to U.N. rules, for a new treaty to be agreed, every country
must sign up. The treaty is designed to follow the Kyoto protocol, the
world’s existing treaty to regulate emissions, the first phase of
which expires in 2012. Because the U.S. did not ratify Kyoto, the
climate talks have been forced on to parallel tracks, with one set of
negotiations, from which the U.S. is excluded, debating how the treaty
could be extended. This new text comes from the second track, which
lays out a plan to include all countries in cooperative action.
Edited extracts from the current draft of the U.N.’s global treaty to
tackle climate change, officially called document FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/INF.
2 from the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action Under
the Convention. The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change has
the ultimate objective, set at the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, to
prevent “dangerous anthropogenic interference” with climate.
I.27. [the parties shall work towards]:
Option 1. [as a stabilisation of GHG concentrations in the atmosphere
at [400] [450 or lower] [not more than 450] [450] [least 450] ppm
carbon dioxide equivalent (CO-2} eq) [and a temperature increase
limited to] [so that there is a very low or low level of risk that the
global mean temperature rise will be] 20C or below above the pre-
industrial level [with a probability greater than 50 per cent] [which
requires reversing the trend of increasing global greenhouse gas
emissions by 2020 at the latest].
Option 2. [as a stabilisation of GHG concentrations in the atmosphere
well below 350 ppm CO{-2} eq [and a temperature increase limited to
below 1.5{+0}C above the pre-industrial level] [with a probability
greater than 50 per cent of a temperature increase of less than 20}C
from pre-industrial level]..
Option 3. [as a global temperature increase limited to 20}C above the
pre-industrial level.]
Option 5.6 [on the basis of economic and technological feasibility.]
What this means ... Sets up the intended goal of controlling
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The square brackets contain text that
is provisional and often controversial. The options here span the full
spectrum, from option 2, an ambitious goal of 350 parts per million
CO-2}; [equivalent] — which is below today’s level — to option 5.6,
making carbon cuts only if they are economically feasible.
I.31. [To this end, [developed country parties]..., as a group,
[shall] [should] [reduce their [domestic] GHG emissions] [deeply cut
their GHG emissions]: (a) [By at least 25-40] [By 25-40] [By more than
25-40] [In the order of 30] [By at least 40] [By 45] [By at least 45]
per cent from 1990 levels by [2017] [2020], through domestic and
international efforts.
What this means ... Introduces the 25-40 per cent range of cuts by
rich countries that campaigners want to see by 2020. The distinction
between domestic and international efforts is critical. The latter
allows rich countries to buy offsets from abroad to count towards
their target, rather than make cuts at home.
I.34. [Supported and enabled by technology, financing and capacity-
building from developed country parties, the GHG emissions of
[developing country parties]... as a group, [shall] [should] [could]
realistically change their emission patterns by: (a) [[Significantly
deviate from the baseline by 2020] [Deviate in the order of 15-30 per
cent below the baseline by 2020] [Deviating from the baseline by
2020]; (b) [And] be reduced by 25 per cent from 2000 levels by 2050.]]
What this means ... This asks developing countries to reduce the
growth of their emissions by 2020. Clause (b) is significant because
it would commit China, India and others to binding cuts, albeit by
2050. Expect very stiff resistance.
III B.5 [The extent of mitigation actions undertaken by developing
countries will depend on the extent of effective provision of
financial and technological support by developed country parties.]
What this means ... Strong stuff from the developing world. Pay up or
we won’t act.
III A.17. [All [developed country parties] [shall][should]
[individually or jointly, ensure that their aggregate anthropogenic
carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of the GHGs listed in (x) do not
exceed][take leadership to] adopt [legally binding] [measurable,
reportable and verifiable] [[nationally appropriate] mitigation
commitments or actions] [expressed as] [including] [economy-wide]
quantified emission limitation and reduction [objectives] [for [up, to
and beyond 2012] the period from [1990][2013] [XXXX] until [2017]
[2020] [XXXX],]] [as inscribed in Annexure X] [of at least 40 per cent
relative to 1990, by 2020] while ensuring comparability of efforts
among them,[ based on their historical responsibility,] [[taking into
account] [national circumstances for parties “with economies that are
highly dependent on income generated from the production, processing
and export and/or consumption of fossil fuels” as specified in Article
4.8 (h)]
[differences in their national circumstances]]. [These commitments or
actions shall be inscribed in [Annex ...] [[Appendix ...][Schedule ...]
[...]]] [with a view to collectively reducing their GHG emissions in
the order of 30 per cent from 1990 levels by 2020]
What this means ... A key section. Just how much will developed
countries cut their emissions and by when? On what baseline? All
options remain open. There is a world of legal difference between
whether they “shall” or “should” take on cuts. And “nationally
appropriate” targets are weaker than if they are “legally binding.”
III A.11. [[Developed country parties] shall achieve their quantified
emission limitation and reduction objectives: Option 1 [exclusively
through domestic action.]; Option 2 [primarily through domestic
emission reductions efforts.] [A maximum of [X] per cent of their
commitments should be achieved through the use of [flexible] [carbon
market] mechanisms, including offsets].. Option 3 [through a
combination of domestic emission reductions efforts and [flexible]
[carbon market] mechanisms.]
What this means ... Sets out whether rich countries must cut carbon at
home or whether they can buy offsets from abroad.
II.33. By 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in
developing countries must be [at least $67bn] [in the range of
$70-140bn] per year. [Sources of new and additional financial support
for adaptation [must meet the full agreed incremental costs of
adaptation and initially be within a minimum range of $50-86bn per
annum and regularly updated in the light of new emerging science,
financial estimates and the degree of emission reductions achieved.]
What this means ... Rich countries will have to pay hundreds of
billions over the next decade to help poor nations adapt
IV.4 Highlighting that financial commitments have not been met by
developed country parties... and emphasising the ... need for these
parties to honour their commitments ... by providing resources to
support adaptation ... in developing countries.
What this means ... Bad blood and mistrust remain. Rich countries
including Britain have failed to keep past promises on climate
funding. — © Guardian Newspapers Limited, 2009
Posted by Naxal Watch at 12:42 AM
Sid Harth
US throws spanner into climate talks
Nitin Sethi, TNN 3 October 2009, 01:33am IST
NEW DELHI: The promise of a deal at Copenhagen seem to be turning into
a pipedream as the US has refused to put down hard numbers for
mitigation under the second phase of Kyoto Protocol at the ongoing
climate negotiations at Bangkok. EU too seems to be taking a deal-
breaking condition saying, "environmental integrity" was central to
the UN treaty and "equity" of different countries' rights was just one
element.
The negotiations at various levels seem to be grinding into a logjam
with US determined not to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol. The US
negotiators fought hard at different forums within the UN talks to
block any progress on industrialized countries' commitments to reduce
emissions in the mid-term under the second phase of Kyoto Protocol.
India stood steadfast in demanding that the rich countries put up
their offers in terms of hard numbers for emission reductions over
2012-2020 under the existing protocol. But, US and many other
developed countries seemed determined to do away with the Kyoto
Protocol entirely.
This is not the first time that US has voiced its opposition to the
Kyoto Protocol which demands quantified targets from rich countries.
US had not signed on to Kyoto earlier and it continues to oppose the
only tool the global treaty has for making measurable and comparable
reductions in the dangerous greenhouse gases.
The protocol is also seen by a select band of industrialized countries
such as US and Japan as a wall of differentiation constructed in the
convention. The parent treaty -- UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change -- lays most of the burden of mitigation on the industrialized
countries that caused it in the first place. The Kyoto Protocol
activates this principle of burden sharing into hard actions and
targets. The protocol in its first phase sets fixed percentages by
which countries reduce their emissions by 2012 below 1990 levels.
Many of the industrialized countries have not moved on a trajectory to
achieve the targets for 2012. Part of the discussions in the UN talks
have been to set a higher level targets for the second phase of Kyoto
Protocol between 2012-2020.
But the US, not keen to take on any commitments in the mid-term, has
always shown interest in disbanding with Kyoto Protocol and instead
taking on a series of actions that are decided by countries on their
own -- say energy efficiency targets -- and merely presented to the UN
forum. India and developing countries have pointed out that would make
the targets incomparable and render it impossible to figure out if any
significant reductions have been made in emissions to prevent a
climate calamity.
Other industrialized countries too have so far shown little interest
in offering credible and robust targets for the second phase of the
protocol. The offers so far on the table from the industrialized
countries, if implemented, would only bring in reductions in the range
of 11-18% by 2020 below 1990 levels. India and other developing
countries have demanded that the industrialized countries follow the
recommendations of the UN climate science panel -- IPCC -- and take
cuts in the range of 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020 which would put
the world on a trajectory to avoid temperatures reaching dangerous
levels in the decades to come.
Sid Harth
Converting trash into biofuel may cut CO2 emissions by 80%
ANI 30 September 2009, 01:51pm IST
WASHINGTON: Scientists in Singapore and Switzerland have suggested
that converting the trash that fills the world's landfills into
biofuel could cut global carbon emissions by 80 per cent.
Biofuels produced from crops have proven controversial because they
require an increase in crop production that has its own severe
environmental costs.
However, second-generation biofuels, such as cellulosic ethanol
derived from processed urban waste, may offer dramatic emissions
savings without the environmental catch.
"Our results suggest that fuel from processed waste biomass, such as
paper and cardboard, is a promising clean energy solution," said study
author Associate Professor Hugh Tan of the National University of
Singapore.
"If developed fully this biofuel could simultaneously meet part of the
world's energy needs, while also combating carbon emissions and fossil
fuel dependency," he added.
The team used the United Nation's Human Development Index to estimate
the generation of waste in 173 countries.
This data was then coupled to the Earthtrends database to estimate the
amount of gasoline consumed in those same countries.
The team found that 82.93 billion litres of cellulosic ethanol could
be produced from the world's landfill waste and that by substituting
gasoline with the resulting biofuel, global carbon emissions could be
cut by figures ranging from 29.2 percent to 86.1 per cent for every
unit of energy produced.
"If this technology continues to improve and mature these numbers are
certain to increase," concluded co-author Dr. Lian Pin Koh from ETH
Zürich. "This could make cellulosic ethanol an important component of
our renewable energy future," he added.
Sid Harth
India's thirst for groundwater raising global sea levels
ANI 4 October 2009, 01:35pm IST
LONDON: India's thirst for groundwater is threatening a major water
crisis, and adding to global sea level rise, says a report.
Virendra Tiwari, from the National Geophysical Research Institute in
Hyderabad, says that satellite measurements have shown that northern
India is sucking some 54 trillion litres of water out of the ground
every year.
He and his colleagues used gravity data from the GRACE satellite to
monitor the loss of continental mass around the world since 2002.
In their study report, the researchers highlight the fact that regions
where water is being removed from the ground have less mass, and,
therefore, exert a smaller gravitational pull on the satellite.
As regards their observations, Tiwari's team revealed that groundwater
under northern India and its surroundings was being extracted
exceptionally fast.
The researchers' calculations suggest that an average of 54 cubic
kilometres, enough to fill more than 21 million Olympic swimming pools
was lost every year between 2002 and 2008.
According to them, boreholes in the region show the water table is
dropping by around 10 centimetres a year, reports New Scientist
magazine.
John Wahr, of the University of Colorado at Boulder, considers
agriculture to be the prime culprit.
The researchers reckon that severe water shortages may hit the 600
million people living in the region in the next few years, if the
trend is not reversed soon.
The team also note in their report that the "lost" water does not just
disappear, most of it runs into the oceans.
They believe that it might be pushing up global sea levels by as much
as 0.16 millimetres each year, which is 5 per cent of total sea level
rise.
A research article on the findings has been published in Geophysical
Research Letters.
Sid Harth
India-led effort makes US bite dust on climate
Nitin Sethi, TNN 30 September 2009, 03:29am IST
NEW DELHI: The G77 won a big round at the UN climate negotiations that
began on Monday at Bangkok with US backing down from its threat to
block negotiations unless the line between industrialized countries
and emerging economies is blurred. India played a leading role in the
defensive surge of G77, which many have been claiming could fall apart
sooner rather than later.
On Monday, the US attempted to hold the entire negotiations to ransom
demanding that the emission reduction actions of developing countries
and industrialized countries be considered on a similar platform or it
would not engage in any further negotiations.
At present the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and
the Bali Action Plan drawn up in 2007 by all member countries of the
convention draw a clear distinction between the rich nations and the
rest.
The rich are obliged under these compacts to undertake binding
emission reduction commitments while the rest of the countries are
asked to undertake actions that are backed by finance and
technological support from the rich nations.
The US insisted a sub-group of member countries be established to work
on a merged mitigation agenda for industrialized and developing
countries. Australia, Japan, the EU and Norway, besides others
supported such a move.
"The US basically was attempting to blur the different obligations
that industrialized and other countries have under the existing
compact," said Meena Raman, attending the conference for the Third
World Network, a Malaysia-based think tank.
India rose to object immediately pointing out that the differentiation
between the rich countries -- responsible for majority of the
emissions till date -- and the rest was enshrined in the convention
and reiterated by the Bali Action Plan of 2007 and the meeting could
not take up any issue in contravention of the convention.
But in a move that has sent worrying signals back home in India, the
US negotiators oddly used Indian environment minister Jairam Ramesh's
statement at a meeting in US to back their position. They said the
Indian minister had suggested a broader interpretation of the Bali
Action Plan, which allowed such blurring of lines between rich and
emerging nations.
This got Indian negotiators up on their feet pointing that the US
negotiators had no right to speak on behalf of an Indian minister and
that India, at the formal negotiations, wanted complete adherence to
the existing compacts.
At this point, key countries Brazil and China also joined in with
other G77 countries backing them. China pointed out that the mandate
of the negotiations is to only `enhance' the implementation of the
existing convention and not rewrite it.
Sensing a logjam with the G77 unrelenting, the chair of the meeting
asked the countries to informally sort out the matter. By Tuesday
morning after the discussions and with the G77 sticking to its guns,
the US backed off and two sub-groups of member countries were allowed
to look separately at the rich nations' obligations and the actions of
the rest of the member countries.
While the US stratagem has not played off for now, observers noted
that it was not the last time industrialized countries would raise the
issue over coming days.
A highly placed Indian official told TOI, "India shall not agree to
any commitments except those placed on it by Parliament."
The controversy comes in the wake of recent suggestions by the Indian
government at different forums on loosening its existing climate
change negotiating position. While the suggestions from senior
government representatives have emanated outside the domain of
official UN negotiations, different parties have jumped at the shift
to interpret it to their advantage.
Sid Harth
EU backs US bid to corner India at climate talks
Nitin Sethi, TNN 3 October 2009, 03:50am IST
NEW DELHI: Differences between the rich and the developing countries
have turned into entrenched battle lines at the ongoing climate
negotiations in Bangkok, with the EU backing the contentious proposal
of the US to do away with the Kyoto Protocol -- the compact that binds
industrialized nations to emission reduction targets under the UN
convention.
While the US, which has not signed the Kyoto Protocol, has always
suggested its demise as the only way forward, the EU had so far not
displayed such an inclination.
The coming together of industrialized countries over the past two days
in the Thai capital signals a renewed and vigorous attempt to get
emerging economies, including India, to take on a set of
internationally binding emission reduction targets without financial
or technical compensation to cover for the economic costs of achieving
them.
India is leading the charge along with other key developing countries
against the move at the ongoing negotiations at Bangkok.
The convention at present demands commitments only from industrialized
countries to reduce their historically disproportionate emission
levels. The protocol turns these commitments into hard targets to be
achieved in fixed time.
While India and other developing countries have demanded for last two
years that the negotiations, as agreed upon under the Bali Action Plan
in 2007, only look to enhance the commitments under Kyoto Protocol and
the mother convention, industrialized nations made it clear in Bangkok
that they wanted to alter the convention and the protocol in order to
corner India and other large developing countries into taking
commitments.
The US wants another omnibus agreement or protocol which locks India,
China, Brazil and South Africa into taking emission control targets.
EU too has wanted action from the four to be brought under
international scanner but had so far not shown too keen an interest in
altering the existing protocol's basic structure which is under review
for second phase of commitment levels.
But at the Bangkok meet, EU made a tactical shift and said it would
prefer a new single "instrument" which binds countries from both sides
of the spectrum -- the industrialised and the developing -- into a
single regime. Interestingly, it also wants pieces of the earlier
protocol that are to its advantage to be chopped into the new deal.
India and others pointed out at the meet that the existing convention
and the understanding achieved by all countries at Bali in 2007
differentiates between "commitments" of the rich countries and the
"actions" of the rest. They also pointed out that the actions of the
developing countries, as per existing convention and decisions, is to
be undertaken only when enabled by finances and technology transfer
from the industrialized countries.
A single regime as proposed by EU and US will break the equity-based
differences enshrined in the convention and force the larger
developing countries with much lower per capita emissions to be
treated at par with the countries responsible for the historical
responsibility of GHG emissions.
Sid Harth
USD 75-100 billion a year needed to adapt to climate change: WB
PTI 1 October 2009, 12:57pm IST
BANGKOK: It will cost developing countries between USD 75 billion and
USD 100 billion a year to adapt to climate change for the next 40
years, a new World Bank study reveals.
The 'Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change' (EACC) study showed
that under the relatively dryer scenario, the adaptation cost is
estimated at USD 75 billion per year, while under the scenario that
assumes a future wetter climate, the cost is USD 100 billion.
In the draft consultation document, released at the ongoing new
climate change treaty talk here, is a key part of the overall analysis
involved in estimating the adaptation costs for major economic sectors
under two alternative climate scenarios.
"Roughly the costs of adapting to a two-degree celsius warmer world
are of the same order of magnitude as current overseas development
assistance," said Katherine Sierra, World Bank Vice President for
Sustainable Development.
Faced with the prospect of huge additional infrastructure costs, as
well as drought, disease and dramatic reductions in agricultural
productivity, developing countries needed to be prepared for the
potential consequences of unchecked climate change, World Bank said.
chhotemianinshallah
Antartica went through heat wave 15.7 million yrs ago: Study
STAFF WRITER 9:37 HRS IST
Washington, Oct 5 (PTI) Scientists have revealed that Antarctica went
through a heat wave nearly 15.7 million years ago during which plants
and algae were abundant, a scientific breakthrough which would help in
understanding climate change.
An international team, led by LSU Museum of Natural Science, has found
evidence of the warm period in Antarctica that lasted for a few
thousand years by analysing fossils.
Among the 1,107 meters of sediments recovered and analysed for
microfossil content, a two-meter thick layer in the core displayed
extremely rich fossil content.
This is unusual because the Antarctic ice sheet was formed about 35
million years ago, and the frigid temperatures there impede the
presence of woody plants and blooms of dinoflagellate algae, the
scientists said.
bademiyansubhanallah
Apple leaves US Chamber of Comm over climate clash
STAFF WRITER 3:8 HRS IST
Washington, Oct 7 (AFP) Computing giant Apple has decided to leave the
US Chamber of Commerce in protest over the organization's opposition
to tough climate change rules, according to a letter.
The firm "supports regulating greenhouse gas emissions, and it is
frustrating to find the Chamber at odds with us in this effort,"
according to Apple vice president Catherine Novelli.
"We would prefer the chamber take a more progressive stance on this
critical issue and play a constructive role in addressing the climate
crisis," said the Apple letter dated October 5, published in US media.
"However, because the Chamber's position differs so sharply with
Apple's, we have decided to resign our membership effective
immediately," it added.
Apple is the fourth major US corporation to walk out of the Chamber of
Commerce over its stance on climate change.
It followed similar moves by Pacific Gas and Electricity, PNM
Resources and Exelon.
bademiyansubhanallah
More floods like Andhra’s coming
Chetan Chauhan and Praveen Donthi, Hindustan Times
New Delhi/Vijaywada, October 09, 2009
First Published: 23:48 IST(9/10/2009)
Last Updated: 00:54 IST(10/10/2009)
Bursts of sudden rainfall — like the 600-per-cent-higher rain that
caused deadly floods in southern India — have gone up by 10 to 15 per
cent across India, and it is affecting what millions of farmers are
growing.
Experts wonder whether those numbers — culled by scientists from
official monsoon data — are signs of climate change. Climate change is
the rising of global temperatures, believed to cause a shift in
weather patterns.
Dr D.N. Goswami, director of Pune-based Indian Institute of Tropical
Meteorology, said rainfall data from 1951 to 2000 showed the frequency
of sudden rainfall had increased by 10 per cent in India. Such rain
often destroys crops.
“Incidence of flash floods may increase in coming years,” Goswami
said. “South Indian floods may be an extreme case … but such rain
incidents will increase in coming years because of the impact of
climate change on monsoons.”
Other studies have found similar patterns.
All that has two men in Andhra Pradesh flummoxed.
“Just when we had declared drought in the state, this unprecedented
rainfall came in two districts,” Dinesh Kumar, state disaster
management secretary told HT.
“For three months there was no rain and in five days it rained so much
that it will be sufficient for the whole year.”
Outside Vijaywada town, farmers in the Krishna basin are traumatised
after the destruction of high investment crops like cotton, sugarcane
and turmeric.
“For turmeric, we have to invest Rs 50,000 per acre. But now we don’t
know when floods will come, so we have to think of short duration
crops like lady finger, brinjal, chillies or pulses,” said farmer
Adinarayana, 36, of Pamurlanka village.
Unprecedented rainfall occurred for three days starting October 1 in
the Krishna and Godavari river basins. Some 700 mm lashed down over a
week.
“Rain patterns are changing faster than what we can realise,” said
R.K. Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
of United Nations. “It’ll have a huge impact on human lives and
agriculture and we need to adapt to it.”
But India is girding to face the challenge. Agriculture researchers in
Orissa have developed rice varieties that grow in a shorter time-
period. Some wheat varieties that can cope with temperature variance
of up to four degrees Celsius are being tested.
And the Centre is pumping money into research on farm crops. “We have
identified 10 research institutions all over the country to develop
crop varieties that meet the challenges of changing weather patterns,”
said an official of the agriculture ministry, not willing to be quoted
as he isn’t authorised to speak to the media.
Sid Harth
Climate Change: Hollow Rhetoric
By Marianne de Nazareth
09 October, 2009
www.Countercurrents.org
Developing nations are certainly concerned with the attitudes of the
developed nations, here at the Bangkok negotiations. Meenakshi Raman
who is a legal advisor of the Third World Network, showed her
annoyance by baldly saying “ there is a lot of hollow rhetoric by the
political leaders at these negotiations. Look at the actual
negotiating stance and you will see its just business as usual,” . She
said they are going back on their commitments made under the UNFCCC by
shifting their responsibility to the markets, thereby weakening their
obligations made.” Developed countries do not talk about the amount of
atmospheric space taken by them during the industrial revolution. But
now those same nations say to the developing world, sorry guys, your
limit is up, your atmosphere is constrained “ she added.
Mauritius, Egypt, Venezuela and the Philippines said they were
concerned that there was an attempt by the developing nations to kill
the Kyoto Protocol. They also felt there was an effort being made to
‘divide and rule’ like in the days of colonialism. The countries were
concerned that the main principles of the protocol were being
distorted and they were not willing to agree to a new structure that
they could no longer recognise.
Developed nations owe an adaptation debt to developing countries for
their historic overuse of the earth’s atmosphere for which developing
nations are suffering. Therefore it is imperative that developed
nations undertake deep emission reductions in order to leave the
remaining atmospheric space to developing countries. The money being
paid out to developing nations is not charity but simply that the
polluter pays. However now its being used by flipping the coin and
saying the one who pays may pollute, say developing nations.
Barbados, speaking for the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) was
concerned that there were such a few days left for Copenhagen and
failure there was not an option for the small island states. They
would all definitely go under.
At Bangkok one sees that the youth have decided to be more forceful in
pushing for a deal which is more transparent and equitable. A
declaration of “No Confidence in the Road to Copenhagen” was announced
today by the International Youth Delegation attending the UN climate
change talks. The delegation cited the failure of reaching a
commitment from developed countries on strong targets and a lack of
guarantee for protection of Indigenous peoples’ rights and interests,
in its declaration. The current text of the draft climate deal is so
weak and so full of “false solutions,” measures like offsetting that
actually make the problem worse, are unacceptable.
“The youth are sounding the alarm. These talks have been polluted by
self-interested corporations and countries looking to profit off of
our crisis,” said Joshua Kahn Russell from the U.S. and Rainforest
Action Network. “We cannot allow rich countries to use U.S. inaction
as an excuse to kill the Kyoto Protocol. Our future cannot be held
hostage to the politics and interests of the United States or any
other single country. We see Copenhagen as a beginning, not an ending.
We will not accept a dirty deal.”
The glaciers in the Himalayas are melting due to climate change, said
Anil Rimal from Nepalese Youth Climate Action. “This is happening
today, not in 2050, and people are losing their lives, homes and
livelihoods due to GLOF’s (Glacier Flood Outbursts).”
Gemma Tillack from the Australian Wilderness Society said, “ We will
never give up, because it is our future at risk.”
With less than two weeks of negotiations remaining before the
Copenhagen meeting, the pressure is on developed countries to commit
to providing finance and at least a 40percent reduction in emissions
by 2020. “If they do not, we will witness the derailment of this
climate deal in Copenhagen,” said Grace Mwarua from Kenya.
(The writer is a fellow with the UNFCCC and teaches a module on
Climate Change in Bangalore, India)
Sid Harth
G8 States Could Face Class Actions
On Climate Change
By Frank MacDonald
09 October, 2009
Irish Times
The US and other G8 countries could face class actions on behalf of
people in the developing world if they fail to take convincing steps
to cut the emissions blamed for causing climate change, a Filipino
environmental lawyer has warned
Antonio Oposa was speaking yesterday after a self-styled Asian
Peoples' Climate Court in Bangkok predictably found the G8 guilty of
"planetary malpractice" in violation of the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change.
Organised by the Tcktcktck campaign, which has a team of young T-
shirted "negotiator trackers" at the climate talks here, the two-hour
mock trial heard a case "filed" on behalf of children from Bangladesh,
Indonesia, Nepal, the Philippines and Thailand.
One of the "witnesses", a sherpa from Nepal, told presiding judge
Amara Pongsapich, chairman of Thailand's human rights commission, that
ice in the Himalayas was melting at a much faster rate than 30 years
ago, causing flash floods and severe drought. Afterwards, Mr Oposa
said it was "only a matter of time" until properly constituted
international tribunals began hearing class actions seeking reparation
from "over-consuming countries" for damage caused by climate change in
developing nations.
"A group of lawyers are actually thinking of it already," he said,
referring to a network called Global Legal Action on Climate Change.
"The countries most affected in Asia and Africa will begin to stand up
and take action if they get nothing from Copenhagen."
Frustration among the G77 group of developing countries over what they
see as a search for loopholes by rich nations to evade their
responsibilities led to a walk- out by delegates from one of the
sessions preparing for December's climate conference in the Danish
capital.
Yesterday, the G77 - which actually consists of 130 UN member states,
plus China - resorted to a familiar tactic by threatening to block
further talks unless more substantive progress was made in drafting a
realistic negotiating text for ministers to finalise in Copenhagen.
More frustration was evident among the International Youth delegation
at the Bangkok talks; they told a press briefing that they had "no
confidence in the road to Copenhagen" because the current text was "so
weak and full of ‘false solutions' that it's unacceptable".
They cited the failure to secure strong targets on cutting emissions
from developed countries, a growing concern that the Kyoto Protocol
would be allowed to expire in 2012 and lack of guarantees for
protection of indigenous peoples' rights and interests.
Joshua Kahn Russell, a US delegate from the Rainforest Action Network,
said: "We cannot allow rich countries to use US inaction as an excuse
to kill the Kyoto Protocol. Our future cannot be held hostage to the
politics and interests of the United States or any other country."
Anna Collins, representing the Youth Climate Coalition in Britain,
said young people had been "looking to the rich developed countries
like those in the EU to take a leading role to secure an ambitious
climate change deal in Copenhagen, but they are failing us."
Kim Carstensen, of the World Wildlife Fund, said delegates in Bangkok
were "still in the mode of talking in circles - on finance, adaptation
and mitigation. What's needed is a strong political will to
consolidate the [negotiating] texts for a decisive outcome in
Copenhagen."
Kaisa Kosonen, Greenpeace International's climate policy expert, said
it was "no wonder developing countries are getting very impatient"
when there was as yet "no real targets on the table and no real
finance" to help poorer countries adapt to climate change.
At the Climate Action Network's daily briefing, she said developed
countries had "avoided discussing their targets" to reduce emissions
for the past four years and still had not agreed on how these should
be measured or even whether 1990 should be the base year.
Referring to moves by the US and others to replace the Kyoto Protocol
with a less binding agreement under the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change, Ms Kosonen said the world "doesn't have
time to start from scratch" and needed to keep the "architecture" so
laboriously built around Kyoto.
She said 1990 "must be the base year" against which to measure cuts in
emissions - as it is under the protocol - and there must also be five-
year commitment periods, with the emphasis on domestic action rather
than seeking offsets by buying carbon credits abroad.
A report published yesterday by the Netherlands Environmental
Assessment Agency said current proposals by the developed countries to
reduce emissions by 10-15 per cent by 2020 "do not yet suffice" to
limit global warming to a rise of 2 degrees Celsius in average
temperatures.
"Developed countries as a group would need to increase their reduction
targets for 2020 by at least 6 to 10 per cent, in order to keep the 2
degrees objective [agreed both by the EU and G8] within reach", it
said, adding that global cost would be only 0.2 per cent of GDP in
2020.
© 2009 Irish Times
Sid Harth
Climate Change: A Lack Of Urgency In Bangkok?
By Marianne de Nazareth
08 October, 2009
www.Countercurrents.org
How much more death and devastation does the world need to sit up and
realise that the catastrophic effects of Climate Change are already
upon us? There has been heavy flooding in several states in India,
typhoons devastating the Philippines, Vietnam and parts of Thailand.
Asia seems to be bearing the brunt of climate change. And yet, here in
the Bangkok negotiations, the developing nation representatives
complain, that there is a lack of urgency in the stance of the
developed nations, in coming to a quick and amicable solution.
Quamrul Islam Chowdhury of the Bangladesh delegation said, “ we are
facing a sea level rise which requires a scaling up of financial
resources and technology transfer by the Annex 1 countries at a much
more rapid speed. A 45 percent cut in emissions by Annex 1 countries
by 2020 is imperative.”
“ We are just two months away from Copenhagen and the Annex 1
countries wish to put an end to the Kyoto protocol,stalling the very
process we have worked towards, for all these years,” states Qingtai
Yu special climate change envoy for China.
“There are several funding opportunities available like imposing
levies on the emissions caused by passengers of international shipping
and aviation,” advises David Lesolle from the Botswana delegation.
“Everyone who flies should be able to take on this critical levy and
pay towards their impacts of travel on climate change.”
Jonathan Pershing of the US delegation said the US is working on a hub
and spokes method of bringing technology to each country. “ The new
government is working towards a new policy but it will take time”, he
said, “ but the strongest part of the whole process is what each
country does at home. A national action plan in each separate country,
is what will make things work over the next 50 years.”
However developing nations felt that the US was not helping sort the
issue instead as David Lesolle stated, “ we are like two elephants
fighting in a room and if the fighting continues there will be a lot
more problems happening for poorer countries to contend with. We have
one planet and we all need to live on it.”
Yu from China said “ What we are fighting for is the right to
development. The problem of climate change was created by unrestrained
emissions over centuries by the developed nations since the industrial
revolution. We are the victims and so the Annex 1 countries have to
pay for that. Look at the percapita emission levels of developed
nations. The per capita emission levels in China per person is 1/3 the
per capita emission levels in developed countries.
Dessima Williams of the Grenada delegation firmly asserted that, “
Adaptation is the here and now and we need to build resilience for the
present and the future. Commitments that are legally binding are
needed. We all can see climate change empirically unfolding on the
ground today. We cannot look at 50 years hence we have to look at the
problem of immediacy now. Modalities are not a substitute for
substance and 1 percent of the GDP of Annex 1 countries for adaptation
is necessary, for the developing world’s survival.”
Karl Falkenberg of the European Commission felt that REDD (Reducing
Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) was one of the
mechanisms which could help to alleviate the problem. “ But fossil
based energy development in poor countries, is not alleviating
poverty, but only causing its growth.”
“ The current Arab position is mainly focussed on protecting the oil
trade rather than saving the planet from the adverse effects of
climate change,” says Wael Hmaidan, the executive director of IndyACT,
taking the problem to a whole new dimension. “ Saudi Arabia has
utilized its political weight in the region to dominate the Arab
voice.” NGO’s are concerned about Saudi Arabia’s obstructionist role
among developing nations and this will affect the poorest nations who
are reeling under the impact of climate change.
It looks like a caudron of problems which are on the boil here in
Bangkok and hopefully negotiators can work towards some amicable
decision with Copenhagen just 60 days away.
As Jonathan Pershing of the US delegation said on a positive note, “ A
year ago my country was not even interested in an agreement. Today
there are startling changes and tremendous growth.”
“What we are trying to define is a robust, international way forward.
Developing countries by and large are dissastisfied with the financial
architecture in place. Leaders of developed countries must provide the
political greenlight on industrial countries targets on emission
reductions and commited financial packages. We are trying to put real
meat on the bones of the Kyoto protocol as I do not believe in
throwing away old shoes, before we have a new pair. Unless we see an
advancement on ambitious targets, it is very difficult to continue the
good work of the negotiators. We have a clear indication from science
as to the rate of emission cuts. If what we achieve in Copenhagen is
not strong enough, then we have no option left but to reconvene to
gain more ambitious targets,” said Yvo de Boer the UNFCCC Executive
Secretary.
With 60 days left for the final negotiations in Copenhagen, one hopes
that countries find a working solution out of this political
wrangling, which has the fate of our planet and all our lives at
stake.
Marianne de Nazareth is a freelance journalist who writes for various
publications. She is a fellow with the UNFCCC and presently in Bangkok
covering the negotiations.
Sid Harth
While We're Off Fighting Terror,
The Planet's Crumbling
By Richard Steiner
07 October, 2009
Seattle PI
Although first posted in 2004, this well organized, meticulously
inclusive assessment is as timely as ever and its sets of facts speak
for themselves in terms of showing the most central problems being
faced on our planet.
History has shown that human societies often misjudge risk, and that
is the case today. With world attention focused almost exclusively on
terrorism and Iraq, another, even more serious security threat deepens
-- the global environmental/humanitarian crisis.
While we remain virtually hypnotized by terrorism, humanity is quietly
destroying the biosphere in which we live, ourselves and our future
along with it. Just since 9/11, 25 million children died from
preventable causes, the world's population grew by 200 million people
and thousands of species went extinct. Also, 250,000 square miles of
forest were lost, 50,000 square miles of arable land turned to desert,
8 billion tons of carbon were added to the atmosphere and air
pollution claimed more than 4 million lives.
Our boat is sinking, we know the causes and consequences, and we know
how to solve the problem. Yet policy-makers keep rearranging the deck
chairs. Left unattended, this broad environmental/humanitarian crisis
will foreclose any hope for security in the world. Certainly we must
address terrorism, but just as certainly we must ensure our planet's
sustainability.
Some of the key indicators of our current condition help put these
relative risks in perspective.
Population
World population stands at 6.4 billion, more than four times its
number at the start of the 20th century. Although some nations have
reached population stability, many of the poorest, developing nations
are far from it. The population -- growing by 74 million a year -- is
projected to reach 9 billion by 2050, the additional billions coming
almost exclusively in the poorest countries.
The largest generation of young people ever, some 1.7 billion ages 10
to 24, is just now reaching reproductive age. Where fertility remains
high there is widespread poverty, discrimination against women, high
infant mortality and lack of access to family planning, health care
and education. More than 350 million women lack any access to family
planning. Some religions oppose contraception, and female infanticide
has become epidemic. Programs to stabilize population need about $20
billion a year (about one week's worth of world military expenditures)
but now receive about $3 billion a year.
Consumption
Conspicuous consumption has become a homogenizing force across the
developed world. Just since 1950, we have consumed more goods and
services than all previous generations combined. The consumption of
energy, steel and timber more than doubled; fossil fuel use and car
ownership increased four-fold; meat production and fish catch
increased five-fold; paper use increased six-fold, and air travel
increased 100-fold.
In the United States, where malls are more prevalent than high
schools, shopping has become the primary cultural activity. Although
world economic output continues to increase, when real costs are
calculated, sustainable economic welfare has been in decline since the
'70s. One measure of resource consumption of humanity -- our
"ecological footprint" -- surpassed sustainable levels in the late
'70s, and for an average American is now 20 times that of a person in
some developing countries.
Studies estimate that, if the developing world were to consume at our
rate, another five or six planets would be needed to sustain this
level of consumption. The United Nations says that a 10-fold reduction
in resource consumption (or a 10-fold increase in energy/material
efficiency) in industrialized countries will be needed for adequate
resources to be available for developing countries.
Rich-poor divide
The unequal distribution of consumption adds to environmental, social
and economic damage as well. The gap in per-capita income between rich
and poor nations has doubled in the past 40 years. The upper 20
percent in economic class -- Europe, Japan, North America -- account
for more than 80 percent of the material and energy consumed globally
while the poorest 20 percent account for just 1 percent of
consumption. The world's 350 billionaires have a combined net worth
exceeding that of the poorest 2.5 billion people. Those poor live on
less than $2 a day and lack basic sanitation, health care, clean water
and adequate food.
Despite unprecedented economic expansion of the '90s, today some 900
million adults are illiterate and 30,000 kids die every day from
preventable causes. Poor countries pay more than $350 billion a year
just to service the interest on their debt to developed countries (a
total of $2.4 trillion) and often try to raise this money through
environmentally destructive activities. Some countries spend more to
service their foreign debt than on education and health care combined.
Biodiversity
Ecologists fear we are losing between 50 and 150 species each day, a
rate thousands of times higher than the evolutionary background
extinction rate of about one species a year. Some estimate that we
have lost perhaps 600,000 species since the "biotic holocaust" began
around 1950; if present trends continue, half of all species on Earth
would be extinct in the next 50 years. Overhunting, invasive species,
pollution and climate change are factors in this sixth mass extinction
event, but by far the greatest cause is habitat loss. The lost
ecological services could be devastating. It may take 5 million to 10
million years for biological diversity to recover.
Forests
Half of Earth's original forest cover is gone, and an additional 30
percent is degraded or fragmented. Only 20 percent of the original
forest on Earth remains today as large, relatively undisturbed
"frontier forests." And half of this frontier forest is threatened by
human activity, mostly by logging. Another 100,000 square miles of
forest is lost each year, mostly in the tropics, and only a very small
amount of this forest loss is offset by regrowth.
Since 1960, about 30 percent of the Earth's tropical forests have
disappeared and with them, thousands of species. Between 50 percent
and 90 percent of the terrestrial species inhabit and depend upon the
forests, and more than half of the threatened vertebrate species on
Earth are forest animals. The link is clear: lose forests -- lose
species.
Food
Today about 1 billion people are undernourished and 600 million are
overnourished. The United Nations lists 86 countries that can't grow
or buy enough food and predicts that by 2010 global food supply will
begin to fall short of demand.
More than 6 million people a year, mostly children, die from
malnutrition. Grain production is declining and environmentally
damaging meat production continues to increase. The 1.3 billion cattle
(weighing more than all of humanity) have degraded a quarter of the
planet's land surface.
More than 10 percent of world farmland and 70 percent of the world
rangeland is degraded, and poor agricultural practices result in the
loss of more than 20 billion tons of topsoil a year.
Water
Fresh water may well be the most precious substance on Earth. People
use about half of all available fresh water, causing aquifers to
shrink around the world.
Some 70 percent of all water used by humans goes to irrigation; most
simply leaks and evaporates from inefficient irrigation systems. Some
water tables, such as the north China plain, drop by more than a meter
a year. Two billion people have no choice but to drink water
contaminated with human and animal waste and chemical pollution.
The World Health Organization estimates there are 1.5 billion cases of
diarrhea a year in children from contaminated water, causing 3 million
deaths.
Today, water supplies in 36 nations in Africa, Asia and the Middle
East are not sufficient to meet grain production needs. In China, 400
cities suffer from acute water shortage and half of the nation's
rivers are polluted. The world lost half of its wetlands in the past
century, and more than 22,000 square miles of arable land turns into
desert each year. It's projected that in 20 years, the demand for
water will increase by 50 percent and two-thirds of the world
population will be water-stressed.
Atmosphere
Air pollution exceeds health limits daily in many cities in the world.
Some 5,000 people a day die from air pollution, and kids in some
cities inhale the equivalent of two packs of cigarettes every day just
by breathing the air.
Carbon emissions from burning fossil fuel now stand at 6.5 billion
tons a year (four times 1950 levels), resulting in atmospheric carbon
dioxide concentrations 33 percent greater than pre-industrial levels.
Global warming is no longer seriously doubted, and nine of the hottest
years on record have occurred since 1990. The warming has accelerated
the melting of polar ice caps and mountain glaciers; a rising sea
level has inundated some Pacific islands, and more frequent and severe
droughts, storms and floods cost more than $50 billion and 20,000
lives a year. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded
most of the warming over past 50 years was human-induced.
Oceans
Once thought to be inexhaustible, the Earth's oceans are more polluted
and overexploited than at any other time in history. Seventy percent
of world fish populations are either overfished or nearly so. Marine
pollution has increased dramatically, and warming ocean temperatures
have killed more than a fourth of the world's coral reefs. The 1998
coral "bleaching" event killed almost half of all Indian Ocean corals
in just a few months, and Australia's Great Barrier Reef is threatened
with complete collapse by the end of the century if warming continues.
If we connect these dots, the picture is clear: We are approaching a
breaking point on the home planet.
The fate of the Earth may well be decided in our lifetime, and we all
should begin behaving as though we are living together on one small,
precious, life-sustaining spaceship, which indeed we are.
The solution is straightforward -- stabilize population, reduce
consumption and share wealth. We know exactly how to do this; we just
need to pay for it.
The United Nations says $40 billion a year -- about what consumers
spend on cosmetics -- would provide everyone on Earth with clean
water, sanitation, health care, adequate nutrition and education.
The secretary general of the 1992 Earth Summit cautioned, "no place on
the planet can remain an island of affluence in a sea of misery ...
we're either going to save the whole world or no one will be saved."
Without urgent attention, the global ecosystem will continue to
unravel and we'll consign future generations to a nightmare of
deprivation, insecurity and conflict.
It's time to broaden our understanding of security beyond just that of
terrorism to securing a sustainable future for spaceship Earth.
Richard Steiner is a professor and conservation specialist at the
University of Alaska-Fairbanks.
bademiyansubhanallah
Congrats Mr Obama, now show some climate leadership
Amit Bhattacharya Friday October 09, 2009
Dear Mr Obama,
Congratulations on getting the Nobel Peace prize, one of the greatest
honours the world bestows on persons who have shown exemplary
leadership in pursuit of peace. What an amazing year you have had:
first the US presidentship and now the Nobel. You have truly become an
icon of hope, justice and peace in the world. That’s a remarkable
achievement for a man who happens to be the US president – a post
that’s historically not exactly been equated with peace and justice.
But as you have repeatedly pointed out, with power and honour come
great responsibility.
Mr Obama, now is the time to show that responsibility to the world.
Many people across the globe find it a touch ironic that you have been
awarded the Nobel for your leadership at the time when the United
States is hardly showing any at the international climate talks.
In fact, the US is being seen as a country that’s holding up progress
on a treaty that could prevent the worst effects of climate change
from visiting the planet. At the just concluded climate talks at
Bangkok – where again no progress was made – the US failed to make any
fresh commitment on cutting its greenhouse gas emissions. Worse, it
again called for scrapping of the Kyoto Protocol – the only
international treaty that seeks commitments from polluting countries
on reducing their carbon emissions. The present negotiations, as you
know, are for phase two of the Protocol which seeks emission-cut
commitments from countries beyond 2012. By continuing to call for
doing away with the Kyoto treaty at this late hour when there are
barely seven days of scheduled negotiations before the Copenhagen
talks begin in December, the US could derail the entire process.
It was your Democrat predecessor in White House, Mr Bill Clinton, who
negotiated the historic Kyoto Protocol in 1997. The treaty required
the US and other industrialized countries to make modest cuts in their
CO2 emissions, averaging 5% from the 1990 levels. Of course,
subsequently Mr George Bush refused to ratify the treaty. These were
decisions you had no control over and you have time and again said
that America would reclaim its rightful place on the climate table.
You’ve also pushed a bill to reduce emissions in the US by 17% from
2005 levels – which translates to a 4% cut from the 1990 levels – by
2020. That’s a good start but falls way below what even the Kyoto
Protocol sought to achieve.
The world clearly wants you to do more to repay the climate debt
America owes it. The US has been the single biggest CO2 emitter since
around 1915 (when it overtook Europe). Its cumulative share in human
induced carbon emissions currently stands at around 28% (World Energy
Outlook 2009) - in other words, the US is responsible for almost one-
third of the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuels since 1890.
Scientists say much of this carbon is still in circulation and causing
global warming.
That’s a tremendous debt US owes the world. Yet the US continues to
tie any CO2-reduction commitments to actions taken by China and India,
countries that started developing only in the last 20-30 years.
You, of course, are aware of what needs to be done to redress the
situation. The US has to pledge deeper carbon cuts to energize the
flagging climate talks. The world, in turn, is aware that any
initiative you take has to be put through the grind within the US and
get the nod of the US Congress. That’s often not easy. But it’s
exactly what leadership is all about.
In the coming days, many observers and commentators would say that the
Nobel given to you is based on the promise you have brought to the
world and not on the delivery of that promise. America’s leadership in
clinching an epoch-changing deal at Copenhagen will change that view.
Mr Obama, the world is watching your moves, more so after the Nobel.
Now is the time to deliver on the promise.
Sid Harth
INTERVIEW - India says flexible on climate deal
Fri Oct 16, 2009 8:57pm IST
By Sean Maguire and Krittivas Mukherjee
NEW DELHI (Reuters) - India will scale back demands for deep emissions
cuts by rich nations if a global climate deal includes a generous
package of technology transfers and finance, environment minister
Jairam Ramesh said on Friday.
In the latest sign India wants to appear flexible ahead of the
December negotiations in Copenhagen on cutting climate-harming
emissions, Ramesh said New Delhi was no longer insisting on 40 percent
cuts in emissions by 2020.
"The developing world's demand...is a minimum of 40 percent. Now I am
saying, look, that is a political statement," said Ramesh, a fiesty
technocrat credited with restoring credibility to India's stance in
international climate politics since he took office in May.
"If we say, let's start with 25 percent, that's a beginning. I'm not
theological about this. It's a negotiation. We have given a number of
40 but one has to be realistic."
Ramesh said it was still difficult to envisage a comprehensive and
ambitious deal being struck in Copenhagen, recommending that further
talks be scheduled for 2010.
"We may not get the perfect agreement. This is Copenhagen 1.0. You may
have Copenhagen 2.0 a couple of months later...If there is a political
agreement on the broad framework we need to pursue, we can go back,
work the numbers, and come back."
Many countries are unwilling to commit to cuts before knowing the
position of the United States, the world's biggest emitter per capita,
where legislators are unlikely to pass laws outlining their promises
on carbon cuts until next year.
A huge gap also exists between rich countries reluctant to pay the
fiscal and lifestyle costs of deep cuts in their emissions, and
developing states who say they must be allowed to increase emissions
so their economies can catch up.
Ramesh said rich countries such as the United States were offering
"anaemic" cuts. But they still could help seal a global deal by
transferring emissions-reducing technology and paying to reduce the
impact of climate change on vulnerable communities.
"It's a package," Ramesh said.
"I would like the U.S. to come into the mainstream (of climate
politics) and if they can't better their 5 percent (emission cut)
offer, look at technology, look at finance."
FINANCE
Developing countries such as India and China are among the most
threatened by climate change, but their huge populations mean they
will still be heavily reliant on burning fossil fuels to try to lift
millions out of poverty.
Developing countries, under no obligation to make any cuts under the
existing Kyoto protocol, say they could make the shift to low-carbon
economy with a helping hand from the rich.
But negotiations have struggled on disagreement over how far rich
countries should fund action in developing countries.
Initial talk of huge assistance packages has subsided and Ramesh
indicated a lower start-off figure would be sufficient.
"My own numbers say that if by 2015 we're able to get a $15-20 billion
financing mechanism, going up to a $100 billion by 2020, then we can
make progress," said Ramesh, who already faces domestic criticism for
softening India's position.
Many larger developing countries, such as India, say they are taking
voluntary steps to curb the growth of their emissions, such as
increased use of renewable energy and imposing energy efficiency
standards, to help seal a global deal.
Ramesh said Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, keen to overturn India's
image as obstructionist in multi-lateral negotiations, had mandated
him to be flexible.
"I tell you my prime minister has told me two days ago, 'don't block,
be constructive, work pro-actively, make sure there's an agreement.'
What more can I say?"
Ramesh will allow monitoring of green projects built with
international finance and prepare annual reports on climate change
that could be submitted to the U.N.
Insistence on outside monitoring of compliance with emissions pledges
riles nationalist sensitivities in developing states.
Ramesh said India would monitor its own progress.
"Every year we are prepared to make public a climate policy document
which authenticates all our activities," he said.
"The verification is that of (India's) parliament...I am not
accountable to any international organisation," he said.
"Maybe in the year 2020 after the developed countries have actually
cut their emissions by 25 percent I may revisit this position but as
of now I am not obligated."
© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved
Sid Harth
FACTBOX - What is holding up progress in climate talks?
Fri Oct 16, 2009 2:35pm IST
REUTERS -
U.N. climate talks on expanding the fight against global warming have
largely stalled, making the outcome of a major climate summit in
Copenhagen in December uncertain.
With less than 60 days to the Copenhagen meeting, negotiators face
serious differences in finding a way to get the United States and
large developing nations to sign up to a deal that leads to big
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Following are efforts to
expand or replace the Kyoto Protocol climate pact.
MONEY
No money, no deal. Developing nations, who say wealthy countries are
largely to blame for climate change to date, want cash to help them
green their economies. Money to adapt to rising seas and greater
extremes of weather is also essential, they say.
Without cash and clean-energy technology, they see no point in taking
anything more than voluntary steps to curb the growth of their
greenhouse gas emissions.
Rich nations have so far failed to put significant sums on the table
and instead talk of "fast-start" cash in Copenhagen for initial
adaptation and technology transfer programmes.
Details on larger and longer-term funding would come later but there
remains disagreement on whether this should be mostly public money or
raised through carbon markets and levies on shipping and aviation
fuels.
The United States says its hands are tied until the Senate passes a
climate bill. The European Union will likely have clarity on funding
after a leaders' meeting in a few weeks.
TARGETS
Rich nations have also failed to put final emissions reduction targets
for 2020 on the table. Collectively, the figures offered are far below
the 25-40 percent cut from 1990 levels by 2020 the U.N. climate panel
says is needed to help limit the growth of carbon pollution in the
atmosphere.
Many rich nation's targets are also conditional on the outcome of
Copenhagen or the actions of big developing nations, such as top
greenhouse gas polluter China.
Developing nations want rich countries to adopt tougher targets to
show they are serious in fighting climate change.
KILL KYOTO?
Just as contentious is the legal framework of a broader climate pact
to succeed Kyoto from 2013. The European Union says Kyoto hasn't
worked and that most rich nations will fail to meet their 2008-12
emission targets. The U.S. wants a new agreement that focuses on
binding domestic action and wants all nations to put their emissions
reduction steps into a registry.
Developing nations want Kyoto to remain since there's nothing better
to replace it. They fear wealthy states are trying to dodge tough
emissions cuts by 2020 and point to a history of broken promises on
financing and failure to meet past emissions cuts.
MEASUREMENT
Rich nations want all countries to provide regular and detailed
reports on their efforts to cut emissions and to agree on ways to
check, or verify, these steps really lead to greenhouse gas
reductions.
But the G77 bloc of developing countries say they should not be part
of a universal measurement, reporting and verification system, saying
richer nations should be held to a tougher standard. More broadly,
developing nations say they shouldn't be treated the same way as rich
countries in terms of how their efforts to fight climate change are
treated in a new pact.
Analysts say the rigid split in actions by rich and poor nations under
U.N. climate treaties is no longer valid, pointing to China, India,
Indonesia and Brazil being among the top greenhouse gas emitters.
Getting them to agree to binding steps to cut emissions is crucial.
(Reporting by David Fogarty; Editing by Jeremy Laurence)
chhotemianinshallah
Chinese, U.S. presidents in phone link on ties, climate change
www.chinaview.cn 2009-10-21 17:13:14
BEIJING, Oct. 21 (Xinhua) -- Chinese President Hu Jintao and his
U.S. counterpart, Barack Obama, exchanged views on bilateral ties and
climate change during a phone conversation Wednesday morning.
Obama expressed appreciation over China's contribution to the
success of the G20 Pittsburgh summit in September, saying that he
looked forward to visiting China in November and discussing with Hu
issues of mutual concern.
Related
China reiterates "common but differentiated responsibilities" on
climate change issue
UN chief urges global leaders to act for agreement in Copenhagen
Looking forward to exchanging views on their bilateral relations
and important regional and international issues with Obama, Hu said,
"China is ready to work with the U.S. side to ensure a successful
visit by President Obama and further promote the positive, cooperative
and comprehensive relationship between the two countries."
On climate change, Hu said the Copenhagen Conference to be held in
December would be an important meeting of the international community
in efforts to tackle climate change.
It conforms to the interests of all parties concerned, including
China and the United States, to strive for a wide consensus and a
successful Copenhagen Conference on the basis of the U.N. Framework
Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol, under the
principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" among
developed and developing countries, and in line with the Bali Roadmap,
Hu said.
"Although problems remain in talks for a final deal, there are
hopes for a positive result at the Copenhagen Conference as long as
the convening parties work together closely," he said.
It is essential that any result of the conference should embody
the basic principles of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate
Change and the Kyoto Protocol, and lock on the achievements of the
Bali Roadmap, he added.
"With shared challenges and interests in dealing with climate
change, cooperation between China and the United States not only
benefits collective global efforts against the problem, but also is
highly significant for the progress of their relations," said the
Chinese president.
China was ready to work with all sides concerned, including the
United States, to enhance coordination and cooperation for a positive
result at the Copenhagen Conference, a better collective fight against
climate change and a greater contribution to sustainable development
worldwide, he said.
For his part, Obama said as the Copenhagen Conference is imminent,
the United States is willing to work with all parties concerned to
push for achievements of the meeting. Both the Untied States and China
have taken important measures in dealing with climate change. The two
sides should make concerted efforts to push for the adoption of
concrete and meaningful steps in facing up to the challenges of
climate change at the Copenhagen Conference, and to make the
conference a success, he said.
Editor: Liu
bademiyansubhanallah
Unity doomed apartheid. Next up: climate change
By Desmond Tutu
The intense debate about dealing with climate change has mostly taken
place in rich countries. The United States, European Union and China
have driven negotiations, and every top-level conversation has been
about what's thought to be possible — and often what's convenient —
for these strong forces.
But as the countdown begins to the decisive Copenhagen climate talks
in December, new voices are making themselves heard. These victims
have become more demanding as the realities of climate change have
become more apparent. Maplecroft, a global risks security group, lists
28 countries as most vulnerable to climate change, and 22 of them are
in Africa.
Last month, the African Union's chief negotiator at the climate talks,
Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, said Africa would not only
demand fair compensation for climate damage from the countries that
caused the problem, but would also demand that rich nations cut
emissions and hold global warming to as few degrees as humanly
possible.
Science on our side
The new African assertiveness stems from new science. After Arctic sea
ice melted dramatically in 2007, scientists began re-evaluating their
predictions. It became clear that basic survival was at stake for many
countries. The low-lying islands of the Maldives, though poor, have
begun saving a portion of each year's national budget to buy a new
homeland if, and when, their current home sinks beneath the waves.
Kenya's ongoing drought vividly illustrates what uncontrolled climate
change might bring to the African continent.
Many top scientists agree that there's a number the world needs to
know. It's 350 — as in 350 parts per million of the heat-trapping gas
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The growing consensus is that it's
the most carbon we can have in the atmosphere without causing terrible
climate havoc. Since we're already past that level, at 390 parts per
million,it also implies that we need much swifter political action
than governments have supported in the past to reverse this trend. It
also means, among other things, that we need a rapid effort to replace
the burning of polluting coal with cleaner energy sources everywhere.
350 and counting
Normally, voices from places such as Ethiopia, the Maldives and Kenya
are sidelined in international forums. But this time, it might be
different because a determined movement is building around the world.
This Saturday, 350.org, an organization that I support, will
coordinate thousands of events and rallies in 170 countries to bring
the number 350 to global attention.
Sharing the goals of 350.org will be internationally prominent
messengers, including the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri, and NASA's top climate scientist,
James Hansen.
Groups will gather in the world's most iconic places — from Table
Mountain in Cape Town to the tops of Himalayan peaks. Across the
planet, churches will ring their bells 350 times that day. Last
weekend, Maldivian President Mohamed Nasheed led 13 Cabinet members in
an underwater meeting to highlight the country's rising sea levels.
People in almost all the nations of the earth are involved — it's the
same kind of coalition that helped make the word "apartheid" known
around the world.
In South Africa, we showed that if we act on the side of justice, we
have the power to turn tides. Worldwide, we have a chance to start
turning the tide of climate change with just such a concerted effort
today.
Desmond Tutu is the former Anglican archbishop of Cape Town and a
Nobel Peace Prize winner.
(AP)
Posted at 12:15 AM/ET, October 22, 2009 in Environment - Forum, Forum
commentary
chhotemianinshallah
Is the Red Dragon a green threat?
Ignore the scaremongering of environmentalist writers and thinkers:
China should be free to develop as it wishes.
by James Woudhuysen
In 2003 Lester R Brown, the influential president of the Earth Policy
Institute, Washington, established the modern green conception of
China. Brown wrote in Plan B:
‘If China were to have a car in every garage, American-style, it would
need 80 million barrels of oil a day – more than the world currently
produces. If paper consumption per person in China were to reach the
US level, China would need more paper than the world produces…. If the
fossil-fuel based, automobile centred, throwaway economic model will
not work for China, it will not work for the other three billion
people in the developing world…’ (1)
In Plan B 2.0, Brown redoubles his attack. China’s consumption of oil,
and indeed its consumption of everything, is one of the main reasons
why he has published a revised edition of his book. The intervening
years, Brown says, have shown that ‘there are not enough resources for
China to reach US consumption models. The Western economic model… will
not work for China’s 1.45billion in 2031’. (2)
It’s true that the Chinese Communist Party’s 30-year resort to the
capitalist market has not brought the most rational, smoothest or even
the fastest kind of economic development that might have been possible
for China. But this is not Brown’s point. His disgust with what he
calls the Western economic model is, in fact, a petit-bourgeois
American’s distaste for growth itself – and especially for growth in
living standards and the whole apparatus of human consumption.
The Chinese, Brown means, should not have a car in every garage, the
way he imagines every American does. They should not develop. If, as
the opening lines of his book announce, our global economy is
outgrowing the capacity of the earth to support it, moving
civilisation ever closer to decline and possible collapse; if our
‘preoccupation’ with economic growth means that we have lost sight of
how large the human enterprise has become relative to the earth’s
resources – then China, which out-consumes the US in grain, meat, coal
and steel, must be brought to some kind of halt.
At the moment, China consumes only a third the amount of oil that
America does. Yet Brown is particularly unyielding here. The world’s
production of oil, he says, will soon reach a peak, and thereafter go
into decline. As a result, ‘China’s fast-expanding use of oil is
already helping create a politics of scarcity’. In oil as in the other
four basic commodities, then, Brown asks severely: ‘What if China
catches up to the United States in consumption per person?’ (3)
In his book Black Gold, the delightfully named George Orwel, a senior
writer for America’s Oil Daily and Petroleum Intelligence Weekly,
spells out the familiar answer to this question. Growing demand for
oil, he says, ‘is putting a strain on the global supply system’ (4).
At Morgan Stanley, chief economist Stephen Roach thinks that the
demands of China and India will make oil prices go beyond $60-70 a
barrel. A senior energy analyst at Merrill Lynch accuses China of
hoarding oil. (5) Since 2004, in fact, China’s consumption of oil has
obsessed analysts throughout the West.
Perhaps China should be less grasping. Or perhaps things are not so
simple.
The West’s focus on China’s oil consumption
Thankfully, the authors of China and the Global Energy Crisis are
encyclopaedic about, but not obsessed with, oil – the main subject of
their book. They refuse to indulge in the alarmism that, along with
excessive euphoria, so often attends Western discussions of all things
Chinese. According to Tatsu Kambara, for decades Japan’s leading,
hands-on authority on Chinese petroleum, and Christopher Howe, a top
British academic in Chinese and Japanese economics and technology,
there ‘appears to be no fundamental reason why China’s demands on the
world energy economy should prove unmanageable’. (6) In that sense, at
least, China should have no inhibitions about pursuing the comforts
and lifestyles of the West.
Anyway, Kambara and Howe show how it is not just demanding energy
users that will affect the future of energy in China. In a slim, lucid
volume, written from a free-market standpoint but with impeccable
research and excellent charts, they show how, in Chinese energy, it is
research, exploration, refining capacity, pricing, inter-regional
capacity-sharing, nationwide transport and distribution, and
international arrangements for supply that contain the keys to the
future. What is important is not just Chinese consumption of energy
per person, as Brown would have it, nor even the much more significant
use of energy by China’s government, agriculture, services and
industry (including very much the energy industry itself). What are
also important are China’s human ingenuity, its current and future
skills in engineering, and its general level of technological
prowess.
We should be talking not just of 1.45 billion mouths to feed in 2031,
as Brown imagines, but also of the innovations that literally millions
of Chinese scientific brains could bring to the domains of energy,
transport and everything else. Brown notes that China is ‘far and
away’ the world leader in solar water-heating panels (it has 52m
square metres of panels and wants four times that by 2015). But that,
apart from China’s strengths in the unrelated field of farming carp,
is the sole technological plaudit Brown is prepared to give the
country (7).
Also critical to China’s energy future, as Kambara and Howe note, are
the institutions of Chinese government, and what they politely term
‘internal reform’. Like Britain, China lacks, in 2007, a powerful
energy ministry (though Gordon Brown may well finally create one).
It’s facts like these that should incite our interest, and indeed our
critique of the Chinese Communist Party. The story of Chinese energy
is not that of limited supply and burgeoning demand, but of
considerable natural endowments mired in chaotic Maoist ‘planning’.
Take oil. After the turmoil of the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s,
China’s petroleum sector managed to raise output by 20 per cent a year
and, after 1973/4 and the OPEC oil crisis, sent pricey exports of oil
to Japan. Yet according to European authorities, by the late 1970s,
crises in the petroleum industry alone got so bad that they proved a
major factor, if not the major factor, in converting the Communist
Party to Deng Xiaoping and his ’Open Door’ policy of marketising and
internationalising all aspects of the Chinese economy (8). From then,
the evidence of Kampara and Howe suggests, matters actually
deteriorated. The 1979 Sixth Five Year Plan looked forward to a
quadrupling of China’s total output by 2000 and a doubling of its
energy output from 100m metric tons to 200m over the same period; in
fact, bureaucratic neglect of oil exploration subsequently turned
China into the world’s second largest importer of oil after the US. In
2004, domestic output of crude oil was merely 174m metric tons, and
imports amounted to a shocking 126m tons.
Yet for greens and, more importantly, for Western governments, China
isn’t a massive monument to the confusions of Stalinist planning. For
them, in the long tradition of Malthus and Keynes, it is mostly the
demand side, and especially consumption by individuals, that counts.
But where Malthus and Keynes thought that there was too little
consumption, bourgeois opinion now has it that there is too much. (9)
For proof, one need only look at Sir Nicholas Stern’s 2006 review on
the economics of climate change. As part of it, the Treasury
commissioned a 36-page report titled Climate Change Mitigation
Strategies for the Transportation Sector in China. That came complete
with admonitions about the need for the Chinese to drive less and to
‘engage in effective sustainable urban planning [sic] to minimise
transportation needs’ – even though in 2004, there were only about
nine cars for every 1000 Chinese, compared with about 800 cars for
every 1000 Americans. (10)
The tale is largely the same with the Paris-based Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and Development, the club for rich nations
(mostly). Even though it does not count China among its members, the
OECD last year published no fewer than 51 recommendations about what
China should do to improve its environmental performance (11).
Like many Western diktats on China and the environment, these two
reports were prepared with semi-official help from China itself. But
Chinese participation in and acquiescence to Western strictures on the
environment never stop the West in its new-century craze for telling
Beijing, yet again, what it should do. Lester Brown, for instance,
wants China to impose carbon taxes. And at the recent G8 summit at
Heiligendamm, Germany, China did not have to be a member of the G8 for
George Bush to insist that, for him to sign up to any post-Kyoto UN
agreement based on a 50 per cent cut in carbon emissions by 2050,
China – and India – would have to make concessions.
Whatever the field, and especially in the domain of climate change,
the idea is that China should slow down, obey Western environmental
norms, and yet not have what we have.
China as No 1 emitter
Perhaps because, as Kambara, Howe and Orwel all point out, China meets
70 per cent of its energy needs from its abundant coal, these authors,
who are strongly orientated to oil and natural gas, hardly touch at
all on China’s contribution to world greenhouse gas emissions.
Surprisingly, Brown doesn’t either, preferring to write about China’s
considerable environmental afflictions. Nor, in his informative but
thoroughly Green general primer on climate change, does Robert Henson.
It’s the same story, too, with Friends of the Earth, the Green Party
and Greenpeace. China is lambasted for its treatment of forests,
management of water, and for its air quality; but apart from noting
that China has been commissioning a one-gigawatt (1000MW) coal-fired
power plant every five days, greens have been fairly quiet about China
and global warming.
That will change. All in all, Western perceptions of environmental
doom are more and more refracted through the blunt, one-sided prism of
Chinese consumption. We can be sure that much critical scrutiny will
surround the environmental dimensions of the Beijing Olympics in 2008.
Already our very own Olympic Delivery Authority’s 10 ‘milestones’ for
the Games in London in 2012 do not just emphasise energy and
sustainability, but are also all organised to be achieved ‘by Beijing
2008’. (12)
Something is going on here. Western governments and greens have enough
eyes in their head to know that China dislikes patronising requests to
conform to Western environmental dogma. So what is more respectfully
suggested instead is that the Chinese cannot be expected to restrain
themselves if we do not restrain ourselves first. At London mayor Ken
Livingstone’s ‘State of London’ conference, Paul de Zylva, head of
Friends of the Earth England, called for the 2012 Olympics go be ‘a
climate change showcase’. At a 24 June Architecture Foundation panel
in which I will be one of the participants, one of the questions for
debate is: ‘Could London be a model for sustainable big cities around
the world?’ (13) For each feast, China does not have to be physically
present for it to be a Banquo. In a globalised economy, the British
public will more and more compare UK national, urban and personal
performance in greenhouse gas emissions not just with American excess,
but with the Chinese sort as well. Already, in closing Friends of the
Earth’s The Big Ask Climate Debate in November 2006, Tony Blair has
observed that ‘any action we take to cut emissions would very quickly
be undone by the economic growth of India and China’. (14)
To aid British dealings with the Chinese on subjects such as climate
change, Lord Sainsbury has already declared science to be ‘an
instrument of foreign policy’. (15) On top of this, we will soon all
be asked to do our bit with greenhouse gas emissions… so that China
will do its much bigger bit. Here, the Guardian’s George Monbiot has
given a tremendous hostage to fortune. Of his book Heat, he writes,
‘I concentrate on the rich nations for this reason: until we have
demonstrated that we are serious about cutting our own emissions, we
are in no position to preach restraint to the poorer countries. The
rich world’s most common excuse for inaction can be expressed in one
word: China. It is true that China’s emissions per person have been
rising by around two per cent a year. But they are still small by
comparison to our own. A citizen of China produces, on average, 2.7
tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. A citizen of the United Kingdom emits
9.5, and of the United States, 20.0. To blame the Chinese for the
problem, and to claim that their rapacious appetites render our
efforts futile, is not just hypocritical. It is, I believe, another
manifestation of our ancient hysteria about the Yellow Peril.’ (16)
It’s fascinating to learn that a typical Brit personally emits 9.5
tonnes of carbon; it’s reassuring to learn that a typical Chinese
isn’t so bad; and it fairly warms this old leftist’s heart to see the
attack mounted on that ancient, dangerous menace, Sinophobia. Indeed,
at the time of the G8 summit, Ma Kai, minister in charge of the
National Development and Reform Commission, China’s chief economic
policymaking and planning agency, made the same point as Monbiot about
his country’s low emissions per head (17). But it will not be long,
hopefully, before China’s average personal consumption rises; and,
given the mistakes of Chinese state planners in the past, it’s hard to
credit Ma Kai’s promise that Chinese GDP energy intensity per head
will fall by 20 per cent between 2005 and 2010. Above all, a big
Western stink has already grown up about China’s overall, national
contribution to greenhouse gases.
In a special issue on global warming, Time magazine raised the alarm
in spring 2006. China’s booming economy, it said, would make it the
world’s No 1 emitter of greenhouse gases ‘as early as 2020’ (18). Yet
a year later, China was under even more pressure. The International
Energy Agency, Paris, reported that its impact on greenhouse gases
would exceed that of the US as early as… November 2007. The Guardian‘s
environment correspondent, John Vidal, declared China the world’s
‘biggest emissions culprit’ (19).
In November, the IEA will publish its annual World Energy Outlook.
China and India, the world’s fastest growing energy markets, will be
the special focus of the 2007 edition. We must look forward to that;
and, the month after, we shall have to see what happens around China
at the meeting in Bali on what to do after 2012, when the 1997
Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
– the Kyoto Protocol – expires.
In my view the portents for international harmony around Chinese
emissions do not look too great. China reserves the right to develop;
but other nations don’t want it to develop in the way that it sees
fit. North America, Western Europe and Australasia would rather chain
China back than see it grow.
China as energy imperialist
On top of oil and carbon, the third way in which China has felt the
West’s restrictive grip in energy matters is around its activities
abroad. Today, following the example set since the 1970s by the Japan
National Oil Corporation, China’s oil firms are active in countries
that include
Venezuela
Kazakhstan
Kuwait
Indonesia
Myanmar
Algeria
Sudan
Angola
Nigeria
Libya
Republic of Congo
Gabon
US congressmen rebuffed the Chinese National Offshore Oil Company in
August 2005, when it made a $18.4bn bid for Unocal Corporation, a
small Californian firm with extensive exploration interests in south-
east Asia. But just two months later, as Orwel reminds us, China
National Petroleum Corporation laid out $4.2bn for PetroKazakhstan, a
Canadian company making oil and gas in former Soviet Republics.
Moreover, as Kambara and Howe also relate, China is also interested in
Canada’s oil sands (20).
Yet it is not China’s North American initiatives in energy that have
caught the attention. Nor does Beijing’s recent 25-year gas and oil
deal with Iran appear to exercise Washington as much as Orwel says it
does (21). No, what angers the West about Chinese energy policy is its
pursuit of African resources. On 13 June, that well-known authority
on international affairs, Hollywood actress Mia Farrow, took a lead.
Turning a spotlight on the 2008 Olympics, she indicted China for
‘underwriting genocide’ in Darfur – not just by selling the Sudanese
regime arms, but also by buying its oil.
Farrow launched Dream for Darfur, a campaign to put the heat on China,
and her partner in arms, Eric Reeves, professor of English at Smith
College, Northampton, Massachusetts, published China, Darfur and the
Olympics: Tarnishing the Torch? (22) For Reeves, the 25.8million
barrels of oil that Sudan is set to sell China by the end of 2007 will
make Sudan China’s sixth-largest source of external oil; so:
‘given the rapidly growing petroleum needs of the Chinese economy, and
the enormous Chinese stake in Sudanese oil production [China imports
approximately two-thirds of Sudan’s oil exports], the geo-strategic
significance of Sudan could hardly be clearer… Nothing does more to
account for Chinese complicity in the scorched-earth clearances in
southern Sudan during the latter stages of the north/south civil
war.’ (23)
At the time this paradigmatic example of subtle political economy
emerged, a senior official in the Bush administration said that,
behind the scenes, it too was having a ‘very lively’ debate over the
nature of the ‘growing Chinese footprint’ in Africa and beyond (24).
What should China do? Implicitly, Kambara and Howe resist the
traditional green gambit on energy – that supply, in China as
elsewhere, should be decentralised (‘distributed’, as New Labour has
it), and certainly not become reliant on overseas energy resources
such as those of Africa. Kambara and Howe show that the successes of
China’s main post-war oil field, the giant Daqing (Great Joy) field
first drilled in 1959, were achieved despite the Maoist policy of
Chinese ‘self-reliance’ in energy, not because of it. In the 1930s,
Stalin tried and failed with his nationalist stance of socialism in
one country. In 2007, socialism with Chinese characteristics, as the
regime in Beijing likes to describe it, will fare no better. Kambara
and Howe argue:
‘However much the leadership may wish to revert to the days when
China’s energy policies could be largely indifferent to the outside,
this is not a long-term option. In terms of imported energy supplies,
technological solutions for developing their own resources, and
probably in terms of finance, China needs the support of the global
economy and all parties need to get to grips with the implications of
this.’ (25)
Kambara and Howe are right. In energy as elsewhere, China needs
international collaboration, not a growing chorus, from the West, of
sanctimonious disapproval. Whatever the misdeeds of late-arriving
Chinese bureaucrats in Africa and the Sudan, we can be certain that,
for historical reasons alone, the West is in little position to attack
Chinese foreign policy for its imperialism in oil. As Philip Cunliffe
has written on spiked:
‘adopting the cause of Darfur allows Western liberals not only to side
with good against evil, but also to push China around as well. Given
the Sudanese government’s economic ties with China, Darfur offers the
opportunity for the West to demonstrate its moral superiority over the
greedy, oil-addicted, anti-environmentalist Chinese.’ (26)
In the twentieth century, the Western left always vulgarised the ideas
of the Russian revolutionary, Vladimir Lenin, in its fixation on raw
materials in general and oil in particular as the key wellsprings of
imperialism. In the 21st century, the Green remains of the Western
left stand ready unthinkingly to extend the insult ‘imperialist’ to
China’s international search for oil. After all, the liberal
fascination with oil wars now goes further than dissing Haliburton for
its conduct in Iraq. (27)
The West promises more and more to hold up to the light China’s
conduct with Africa’s oil wealth, like its record on climate change.
But we cannot take these new revelations at face value. China has a
whole lot to put right; but what the Chinese people deserve from
internationalists in the West is our unstinting solidarity with their
commendable desire to get away from backbreaking harvests, slum
accommodation, and endless bicycle repairs.
Conclusion: China’s right to develop
In a film earlier this year for the UK’s Channel Five, Jonathon
Porritt, a top British green, fastened on China, so the Observer tells
us, ‘as an example of how booming economic growth has produced an
explosion of consumerism with mixed results: millions have risen out
of poverty, but the consequences for the environment are severe’.
Porritt added: ‘The total spend on advertising is just so enormous now
that it’s little wonder people are seduced into this idea that their
personal happiness results from spending in the way they’re being
encouraged to do.’ (28)
Porritt’s condescension to people ‘seduced’ by advertising did not
single out the Chinese. But Western greens, and more and more bien
pensant Western commentators, believe that the Chinese, like everyone
else, will never achieve happiness through development and economic
growth. Why? Because human beings are stupid. They are wrong to pursue
meaning and durable emotional satisfaction through consumer goods.
This last is an accurate observation that is still breathtaking in its
banality. Yet it is taken as good coin not just in the West, but in
developing countries, too. Just as, in the film Comandante (2003)
Fidel Castro told a sycophantic Oliver Stone of his commitment to the
green cause, so South Africa’s Stalinist premier Thabo Mbeki has
rediscovered the wisdom of the Bible in his desire to moderate
economic development:
‘We must therefore say that the Biblical injunction is surely correct,
that “Man cannot live by bread alone”, and therefore that the mere
pursuit of individual wealth can never satisfy the need immanent in
all human beings to lead lives of happiness.’ (29)
What Mbeki hints at in his disdain for individual wealth, Western
greens, despite their inhibitions, will soon make all too clear to the
Chinese. The Chinese, it’s widely felt, are on the wrong track: our
track, the West’s outdated, twentieth century track of
industrialisation, urbanisation, cars, suburban sprawl, massive energy
use and concomitant destruction of the environment. So no matter how
great their momentum, the Chinese must somehow be stopped from their
ultimately unfulfilling quest for riches.
China’s reactionary regime is not immune from such doctrines. Just as
Mbeki learned his creed from the University of Sussex, so the Chinese
elite of management-minded Stalinists has imbibed environmentalist
misanthropy from Lester Brown – and from US treasury secretary Hank
Paulson, too. In defending his country’s record with carbon emissions,
Ma Kai has the nerve to write:
‘Without China’s strict family planning policies, the country’s
population would have increased by 138m people since 1979, resulting
in an extra 330m tonnes in emissions. The policy has contributed
significantly to easing the world’s population expansion and curbing
greenhouse gas emissions.’ (30)
What a scandal that this bureaucrat from Beijing should outdo even
Lester Brown in his carbonista desire to restrict human procreation!
Everywhere we can find evidence of the Chinese authorities indulging
Green prejudices. There is no space for genuine dissent in China, but
the regime was happy to tolerate, during the May holiday in Haidian
Park, northwest Beijing, a four-day rock festival, co-organised by
Greenpeace, themed ‘Green’ and ‘Peace’. It was preceded with video
recordings of 18 popular Chinese bands talking about ‘something every
individual can do to help bring about change, ranging from not using
disposable chopsticks, changing light bulbs, riding bikes, to using
your own shopping bags’. (31)
Similar patterns have emerged with urban planning. In that discipline,
as Robert Henson records, just northeast of Shanghai, at the mouth of
the Yangtze River, British environmentalism has a major influence:
‘The new city of Dongtan will be built from scratch on Chongming,
China’s third largest island. The population of up to 50,000 expected
by 2010 will drive hybrid cars or pedal bikes along a network of
paths. Renewable power for homes and businesses will flow from a
centralised energy centre being developed in partnership with the
University of East Anglia. It will draw in part on an array of wind
turbines on the island’s west edge. More than half the island will
stay agricultural, to minimise unnecessary food transportation. The
British firm Arup, which is designing Dongtan, may extend the concept
to several other Chinese cities’. (32)
Well, at least the energy centre will be centralised, even if many
Dongtanians, it seems, will have the dubious privilege of being able
to ‘drive’ pedal bikes along paths, not roads.
From the point of view of oil use and greenhouse gas emissions,
China’s aerospace industry looks likely to cause the next green panic
in the West. Chinese airlines had 560 planes six years ago; they have
more than 1,000 today; civil aviation minister Yang Yuanyuan believes
they will have 5,000 by 2025. Boeing believes that air traffic in or
linked to China will grow by 7.4 per cent over the next 20 years,
nearly double the global rate of expansion, and that growth in air
cargo traffic will nearly hit 11 per cent over the same period (33).
In March, Beijing announced plans for China to go head-to-head with
Boeing and Airbus in producing its own large commercial airliner by
2020.
Little will stop China in its course, and certainly whinges on the
part of Western greens are unlikely to make it deviate. But there
remains three points still to register.
First: earlier this month, Giovanni Bisignani, director-general of the
International Air Transport Association (Iata), called on makers of
passenger aircraft to develop a zero-emissions machine by 2050. Yet if
anyone is going to improve seriously on the advances in energy
efficiency already racked up by Boeing and Airbus, it will be the
Chinese. The West might like to improve the energy efficiency of its
transport systems, but its general fear about the consequences of
innovation has already made it raise big questions about the real
merit of ‘alternative’ sources of energy such as bio-fuels.
China has yet to feel this kind of trepidation. While even innovations
of a green stripe make the West nervous, China has on its side a
youthful population that is, by international standards,
scientifically literate and willing to take risks, and an attachment
to scale that is often more rational, at least in engineering
principle, than the West and its fad for energy microgeneration.
Compared with a neophyte West, China has a sceptical approach, born of
bitter experience, to the merits of distributed energy supply.
Brown is right that China is strong in solar power: its $5.5bn company
Suntech is the world’s third largest manufacturer of solar cells,
after Sharp and Q-cells. China has also allowed Suzlon Energy, India’s
biggest maker of wind turbines, to open the largest turbine factory in
the world (34). Moreover, if any nation is likely to bring about truly
‘clean’ coal, it’s China. China may come to lead the way in carbon
capture and storage (CCS). Hopes are high that the Tsinghua-BP Clean
Energy Center, launched – with the assistance of Tony Blair – in
Beijing in July 2003, will make a breakthrough in polygeneration, in
which coal is turned into a synthetic gas, generating a range of
petroleum substitutes as well as a cleaner fuel for modern combined-
cycle power plants.
The second point is that the Chinese elite cannot be relied upon to
deliver. China’s Tenth Five Year Plan, for 2001-5, proved a
‘disastrous guide’ to the future, according to Kambara and Howe: the
overall target for energy consumption in 2005 was exceeded by the end
of 2002, with office and residential construction looking, for 2010
and 2020, like more ‘intractable’ guzzlers of energy than new capital
plant or new vehicles (35).
Even the Chinese regime is exasperated by its failure to deliver.
China’s Eleventh Five Year Plan, for 2006-10, set the economy a target
of increasing the energy efficiency of production by four per cent a
year; yet performance has been very poor. Efficiencies only rose by
little more than one per cent in 2006, prompting prime minister Wen
Jiabao regularly to berate officials for their energy failings.
A state-led switch from heavy to light industry, which brought major
gains in energy efficiency during the Deng era, is also out of the
question. Energy-gulping steel, aluminium, chemicals, paper and pulp
are today the sectors in which China’s exports boom (in steel, China
is now worldwide No 1 in both production and exports). Reading Kambara
and Howe, it’s also clear that Chinese state planning has failed to
deal with regional disparities. China’s 24 provinces continue to
compete with each other for energy resources, rather than share them.
Worse, while the location of energy development has shifted west from
Daquing, as far as the problematic Tarim basin in China’s far west,
the location of industrial development has moved south from the north-
east and Shanghai, toward Guangdong, Fujian and the export centres of
the eastern seaboard generally (36). Nearly three decades after the
Deng reforms, the vastness of China, by no means a God-given,
immutable or natural fact, continues to frustrate Chinese energy
planners.
The final and most important point is that, in energy-related matters,
the West may come to need China more than China needs the West. At the
moment, a report like Climate Change Mitigation Strategies for the
Transportation Sector in China can only discuss hybrid electric
vehicles, fuel cell vehicles, or the use of ethanol and bio-diesel as
fuels by giving the Chinese a lecture: in familiar style, the report
concludes not only with a peremptory list of the ‘Chinese Supporting
Policies Required’ for these technologies, but also another,
positively Pavlovian list of ‘International Investment Opportunities’
around them – opportunities for the West, that is (37). But already it
is China Aviation Industry Corporation (Avic 1) that has won
Bombardier, Canada, as a partner to build and export new, regional
jets to world markets. It is China that could emerge, through a
Western intermediary, as a supplier of between 500 and 2,000 carriages
for InterCity Express, high-speed trains that will replace Britain’s
30-year old InterCity 125s (38).
In these transport technologies, China starts from a low base, but
with – to mix metaphors – a clean slate. In housing, too, as I’ve
argued on spiked, it’s China that has the best chance of manufacturing
the millions of new, inexpensive, energy efficient homes that the
world, including Britain and much of the West, needs each month (39).
Facts like these show that it is in the interests of the West, never
mind the interests of the Chinese masses, for China to develop and
grow. It should refuse to give up its sovereignty in energy matters to
the latest batch of Western missionaries issuing instructions. Of
course, so long as workers in China are ruled by a repressive
Stalinist elite, mistakes, with energy and with the environment, will
no doubt be magnified – and their different dimensions should be
clearly and patiently delineated, not covered up by Mao’s heirs. But
the principle that China be allowed to grow, and to find its own way
to progress in energy, is something that Westerners should rally
round.
China has the right to development, and the right, too, to truck for
oil with sovereign governments in the Third World. But China is easily
important enough, in 2007, for its growth and development to be in the
whole world’s interest. Western governments and Western multinationals
can, should and will do business with China. But China’s energy future
should be decided in the court of Chinese public opinion, not by the
salons of the Earth Policy Institute, London’s liberal intelligentsia
or Mia Farrow.
James Woudhuysen is professor of forecasting and innovation, De
Montfort University, Leicester. His website is here.
China and the global energy crisis: development and prospects for
China’s oil and natural gas, Tatsu Kambara and Christopher Howe,
Edward Elgar, 2007 (buy this book from Amazon(UK))
Plan B 2.0: rescuing a planet under stress and a civilisation in
trouble, Lester R Brown, Norton, 2006 (buy this book from Amazon(UK))
Black Gold: the new frontier in oil for investors, George Orwel, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2006 (buy this book from Amazon(UK))
The Rough Guide to Climate Change: the symptoms, the science, the
solutions, Robert Henson, Rough Guides, 2006 (buy this book from Amazon
(UK))
(1) Plan B, Lester B Brown, Norton, 2003, quoted in Capitalism as if
the world matters, Jonathan Porritt, Earthscan, 2005, p165
(2) Plan B 2.0, Lester B Brown, Norton, 2006, pp10-11
(3) Plan B 2.0, Lester B Brown, Norton, 2006, page x
(4) Black gold: the new frontier in oil for investors, George Orwel,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2006, p8
(5) Black gold: the new frontier in oil for investors, George Orwel,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2006, p127
(6) China and the global energy crisis: development and prospects for
China’s oil and natural gas, Tatsu Kambara and Christopher Howe,
Edward Elgar, 2007, p126
(7) Plan B 2.0, Lester B Brown, Norton, 2006, pp197, 17
(8) See Technological superpower China, Jon Sigurdson, Edward Elgar,
2005, pp6-7
(9) For the way in which John Maynard Keynes draws on the Reverend
Thomas Malthus, and in particular shares the latter’s focus on
consumption, see Keynes, The general theory of employment, interest
and money, 1936. In Chapter 23, Notes on mercantilism, the usury laws,
stamped money and theories of under-consumption, Keynes remarks that,
in the later phase of Malthus, ‘the notion of the insufficiency of
effective demand takes a definite place as a scientific explanation of
unemployment’.
(10) The Auto Project on Energy and Climate Change, Climate Change
Mitigation Strategies for the Transportation Sector in China, July
2006, pp11, 19, 33
(11) Review Of China: Conclusions And Recommendations (Final), OECD
Working Party On Environmental Performance, 9 November 2006
(12) Demolish, Dig, Design: The Olympic Delivery Authority’s
milestones’ to Summer 2008, Olympic Delivery Authority, April 2007
(13) See How can a boomtown be green?
(14) See Tony Blair’s response to your comments on the Friends of the
Earth website
(15) Sainsbury, reply to author’s question, ‘Atlas of Ideas: Mapping
the new geography of science’ conference at the Institution of
Engineering and Technology, London, organized by DEMOS, 17 January
2007
(16) Heat, George Monbiot, Allen Lane, 2006, pp xii-xiii
(17) ‘China is shouldering its climate change burden’, Financial
Times, 3 June 2007
(18)‘Clean power for China’, Time, 3 April 2006
(19) ‘China could overtake US as biggest emissions culprit by
November’ http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2064726,00.html
(20) Black gold: the new frontier in oil for investors, George Orwel,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2006, pp132, 133; China and the global energy
crisis: development and prospects for China’s oil and natural gas,
Tatsu Kambara and Christopher Howe, Edward Elgar, 2007, p122
(21) Black gold: the new frontier in oil for investors, George Orwel,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2006, pp128
(22) China, Darfur, and the Olympics: Tarnishing the Torch?
(23) China, Darfur, and the Olympics: Tarnishing the Torch?
(24) ‘Darfur adds to US doubts over Beijing’s foreign policy’,
Financial Times, 14 June 2007
(25) China and the global energy crisis: development and prospects for
China’s oil and natural gas, Tatsu Kambara and Christopher Howe,
Edward Elgar, 2007, p126
(26) Intellectual imperialism by Philip Cunliffe, 10 May 2007
(27) See for example Oil wars: how wars over oil further destabilise
faltering regimes, edited by Mary Kaldor and Yahia Said, Pluto Press,
2007
(28) Stop shopping ... or the planet will go pop, Observer, 8 April
2007
(29) Nelson Mandela Memorial Lecture, Thabo Mbeki, University of
Witwatersrand, 29 July 2006, on
(30) ‘China is shouldering its climate change burden’, Financial
Times, 3 June 2007
(31) See the video footage of Chinese bands on the Greenpeace website
(32) The Rough Guide to climate change: the symptoms, the science, the
solutions, Robert Henson, Rough Guides, 2006, p287
(33)‘Beijing forges ahead with building its own industry’, Financial
Times, 18 June 2007
(34)‘Sunlit uplands’, A special report on business and climate change,
The Economist, 2 June 2007, pp20, 23
(35) China and the global energy crisis: development and prospects for
China’s oil and natural gas, Tatsu Kambara and Christopher Howe,
Edward Elgar, 2007, pp130-131
(36) China and the global energy crisis: development and prospects for
China’s oil and natural gas, Tatsu Kambara and Christopher Howe,
Edward Elgar, 2007, p77
(37) Climate Change Mitigation Strategies for the Transportation
Sector in China, July 2006, Table 6: Summary of alternative vehicle
technology and fuel options for China, p33
(38) ‘Bombardier and China’s Avic sign joint venture’ and ‘Global
groups chase UK train order’, Financial Times, 19 June 2007
(39) Constructive ideas from the East by James Woudhuysen, 13 October
2005
spiked, Signet House, 49-51 Farringdon Road, London, EC1M 3JP Tel:
+44 (0)207 40 40 470 Email: email spiked
© spiked 2000-2009 All rights reserved.
chhotemianinshallah
Brendan O’Neill
Has China had a green ‘Damascene conversion’?
The sight of President Hu almost apologising to the West for his
country’s vast economic growth was a revealing snapshot of our
times.
There was something very peculiar about President Hu Jintao of China
appearing before the United Nations in New York yesterday to declare
his nation’s commitment to cutting its carbon emissions.
Hu is the leader of the most populous and most industrious nation on
Earth. He oversees the world’s third largest economy (after the US and
Japan) and the world’s largest exporting nation, which produces 60 per
cent of the world’s mobile phones, 55 per cent of its DVDs, more than
half of its digital cameras, and 75 per cent of its children’s toys.
His country has a staggering two trillion dollars in foreign exchange
(the largest reserves in the world), and as a result of the
industrialisation that has taken place over the past 30 years it now
has 655 cities (compared with 193 in 1978), a life expectancy of 73.4
years (compared with 36.5 years in 1949, when the People’s Republic of
China was established), a population of 1.3billion (compared with
542million in 1949), and 20.2million students in higher education
(compared with 117,000 in 1949).
Yet here was Hu speaking to the leaders of some far less productive
nations, whose economies have been stagnating for many years and many
of whom have become financially reliant on China, on their terms – in
the language of lowering carbon emissions, achieving sustainability,
and elevating the need to ‘clean up the planet’ over the naked pursuit
of economic growth. Hu spoke, not in the language of a political
leader of an industrious nation, but in the language of those Western-
based international organisations and NGOs that problematise economic
growth for having a dirty and allegedly devastating impact on the
planet. ‘Global climate change has a profound impact on the survival
and development of mankind’, he said. ‘It is a major challenge facing
all countries.’ (1)
This curious event – which was tellingly welcomed by some greens as
evidence of a ‘Damascene conversion’ amongst top Chinese officials to
the climate-change cause – was revealing. It demonstrated that China
is keen to be accepted into the international fold, and that it
recognises – whether in a calculated or genuinely internalised fashion
– that the best way to achieve that is to make a very public pledge to
be true and devoted to tackling climate change, the only unifying
cause and source of moral purpose amongst Western nations today. And
it also revealed that, despite their relative economic weakness, Anglo-
American societies’ new green-leaning politics and morality are the
dominant forces in the international sphere, to the extent that one of
the most powerful nations on Earth – whose economic growth over the
past 30 years has lifted 235million people out of absolute poverty and
thus has been responsible for 67 per cent of the recent total
reduction in global poverty (2) – feels the need almost to apologise
to Western leaders and NGOs for creating a ‘carbon footprint’ in the
process of achieving such mammoth things.
Hu’s speech was the end product of months of diplomatic pressure and
discussion between Western officials and Chinese officials. In the run-
up to the UN Copenhagen Climate Summit in December – the event,
hysterically described by some greens as the ‘last chance to save the
planet’, at which international leaders will hammer out a new climate
change treaty – Western observers have been putting pressure on China
to make a statement on climate change. Like imperialism turned on its
head, 20 British diplomats (for the record, Britain’s manufacturing
has fallen from 21 per cent of economic activity in 1986 to 13 per
cent of economic activity today) and at least twice as many American
diplomats have moved to Beijing to ‘monitor and nudge’ the Chinese
position on climate change ahead of Copenhagen (3). Where Western
powers once carved up China into ‘spheres of influence’ in order to
exploit its resources and labour, now Western officials intervene with
a moral mission to encourage China to ‘respect its own natural
resources’ (4).
The backdrop to this flurry of diplomatic activity, to what one
journalist describes as the ‘cajoling and compromise’ in the Western-
China debates about climate change, has been an increasing cultural
demonisation of China’s economic growth. Amongst Anglo-American
officials and observers, the mainstream view of modern China is that
it is dirty, polluting and potentially even a poisonous threat to the
relatively cleaner and calmer West (5). Industrialised China is
described as a ‘rapidly advancing dystopia where rivers run black’;
apparently it is putting the planet on ‘the fast track to irreversible
disaster’; it is a den of ‘toxins and pollutants’ (6). It was this
build-up of shrill assaults on Chinese growth, coupled with the
diplomatic pressure and, most importantly, the global dominance of the
green ethos, that encouraged Hu to make his much-applauded speech at
the UN yesterday.
In one sense, Hu’s very public embrace of the climate change ethos –
which follows on from China’s own development of various climate-
change programmes in recent years – can be seen as a calculated
diplomatic move. As Frank Furedi has argued, despite all the claims
that China represents a threat to world stability, in truth it is
‘essentially a status quo power whose interests are best served by the
maintenance of an open global economy’; China’s future is ‘closely
linked to the continuation of the present world order’ (7). Thus it
makes sense for China to seek to remove the one political and cultural
barrier that was put in the way of it becoming a respected member of
the ‘international community’ (despite its population of 1.3billion,
its influence across Asia, and its flood of capital that helped fund
the West’s credit boom): that is, its ‘dirtiness’, or more accurately,
its seeming unwillingness to embrace the bible of sustainability. At a
time when much of international diplomacy, in terms of trade,
influence and political relationships, is carried out in enviro-speak,
the Chinese clearly recognised the benefits of making a green public
statement. They even hired the British PR firm Freuds to help them
cultivate a new green image (8). Some have pointed out that Hu failed
to deliver on various green demands, because he intends to plough on
with economic growth while making conciliatory gestures to the green-
leaning international community.
However, Hu’s speech also reveals that some layers of the Chinese
bureaucracy have genuinely internalised the Anglo-American politics of
environmentalism. It was not done entirely for show. Environmentalism
offers to the Chinese authorities, so disconnected and aloof from
their people, a semblance of moral purpose and legitimacy. When I
visited Beijing with a group of Western journalists last week, the
authorities were most keen to show us their green schemes: the air
quality-measuring machines erected across the city; the factory that
is leading the world in developing electric cars; the use of hi-tech
vans to record the CO2 emissions of cars and motorbikes, which can be
banned from the roads if their pollutant output is judged to be too
high. Seemingly unable to justify their economic growth in terms of
human interest, the Chinese authorities have instead created a system
of excuse-making and apologia for their leaps forward. The
environmentalist ethos also allows them to introduce new authoritarian
measures: public smoking bans, driving restrictions and the sacking of
workers have all been justified in the name of ‘protecting China’s
environment’ (9).
Hu’s speech provided a striking snapshot of our topsy-turvy times – an
era in which economically stagnant nations can lecture industrious
nations about their moral responsibilities, and in which powerful
leaders feel the need to prostrate themselves before UN officials, and
effectively Greenpeace and the like, in order to win international
acceptance. It also revealed the double standards at play in the
contemporary debate about China. For those of us who believe in
progress, and in liberating all of humanity from poverty, there is
something nauseating about the leaders and commentators of nations
that were built on industry and manufacturing now chastising the
Chinese for ‘making the same mistakes’ (10). Having benefited from the
gains of coal-fired industry, the development of modern industrial
cities and the technological and nuclear revolutions, comfortable
Western observers now attack China for using the ‘dirtiest fuel of
all: coal’ to create a ‘polluted society’ that is ‘the world’s largest
producer of greenhouse gases’ (11). Such accusations come across as
shamelessly hypocritical.
This is not to argue that there are no problems with China’s
industrialisation, or that the Chinese have to go through the
Victorian-style industrialisation that a country like Britain
experienced. As Leon Trotsky argued, it is often possible for late-
developing countries to exploit the advances made by nations that
developed earlier, with ‘the assimilation of [the] material and
intellectual conquests of the advanced countries’. However, much of
the attack on China’s dirty and frequently old-fashioned growth is
based on a double-standards-driven assault on its temerity to grow at
all, to be so big and populous in the first place, to aspire to become
a wealthier, healthier and more advanced nation. Many observers who
attack the means of Chinese growth – coal, manufacturing, the smog-
producing creation of things – are really offended by the ends: the
creation of a society of relatively wealthier people living more
‘impactful lives’.
The problem with the diplomatic and cultural ‘cajoling and compromise’
over China’s growth is that the question of what is fundamentally in
the Chinese people’s interests gets elbowed off the agenda. An
historic growth that has transformed the lives of millions and
millions of people is discussed as creating a ‘new dystopia’; the
transformation of a nation is measured not by how much it has
benefited its people, but in terms of the levels of toxins and
pollutants and by how much it has ‘impacted on Gaia’; a genuine
discussion about how China might develop further, and how its economic
and social transformation has benefited Western nations (in terms of
the flow of Chinese capital and Beijing’s interest in stabilising the
world order and economy), is sidelined in favour of the evasive and
sometimes dishonest diplomo-speak of ‘climate targets’ and ‘low-carbon
futures’ (12).
We should remember that a full fifth of humanity lives in China. And
for all the labelling of China as the ‘world’s biggest producer of
greenhouse gases’, these 1.3billion people still consume less than we
do in the less-populated nations of America and Britain. Their living
standards and ability to make choices are infinitely more important
than the delicate sensibilities of Western observers who fantasise
that Chinese growth is somehow polluting their local children’s
playground.
Brendan O’Neill is editor of spiked. His satire on the green movement
- Can I Recycle My Granny and 39 Other Eco-Dilemmas - is published by
Hodder & Stoughton. (Buy this book from Amazon(UK).)
(1) President Hu Jintao commits China to carbon-cutting deal, The
Times, 23 September 2009
(2) Facts about poverty in China, Wall Street Journal, 13 April 2009
(3) Copenhagen begins in Beijing. The world waits, Guardian, 16
September 2009
(4) Copenhagen begins in Beijing. The world waits, Guardian, 16
September 2009
(5) See And the gold medal for China-bashing goes to…, by Brendan
O’Neill
(6) See And the gold medal for China-bashing goes to…, by Brendan
O’Neill
(7) See China: threat or opportunity?, by Frank Furedi
(8) Copenhagen begins in Beijing. The world waits, Guardian, 16
September 2009
(9) See Hypocrisy of Olympian proportions, by Nathalie Rothschild
(10) See And the gold medal for China-bashing goes to…, by Brendan
O’Neill
(11) See And the gold medal for China-bashing goes to…, by Brendan
O’Neill
(12) President Hu Jintao commits China to carbon-cutting deal, The
Times, 23 September 2009
bademiyansubhanallah
Friday, October 30, 2009
Beautiful, Beautiful Copenhagen
Like a big rugby or soccer match, the build-up has already begun to
Copenhagen '09! On the 7th of December, teams of negotiators from 192
countries will kick-off a two-week marathon round of talks in order to
secure a new climate treaty to succeed Kyoto.
More than 15,000 will attend the talks - from journalists to
politicians, diplomats and campaigners; as well as presidents and
heads of state from around the globe. Keen to give the right
impression from the start, the Danish organisers are ensuring that,
for instance, all water available at the summit is tap-water, with no
bottles on summit bargaining tables. They've also insisted that a
minimum of 65% of the food and beverages available on site will be
organically produced.
Whilst the city boasts an impressive and reliable public transport
system (which will be free of charge for the delegates) many will of
course arrive by air, with the massive carbon footprint which that
will entail. A recent UN climate conference in New York in September
produced 450 tonnes of carbon. However, the carbon cost of getting
delegates (including 50 presidents and 35 prime ministers) to and from
New York, including flights, motorcades, police escorts, etc. was
neutralised by directly funding a rural power project in India. The
funding will support a scheme which transforms agricultural byproducts
such as corn husks and stalks in electricity. It's still unclear if
the organisers of the Copenhagen summit will do the same!
The COP15 meeting (as its known) is the 15th meeting of the Conference
of Parties - a group brought together by the UN framework convention
on climate change. As such, they are in a race against time to have an
agreement in place and ratified by all parties before the Kyoto
agreement starts to become obsolete in 2012.
Kyoto was negotiated back in 1997 and things have changed utterly
since then. Back then, the US was the single largest emitter of
greenhouse gases. Now that dubious honour goes to China - an
indication of the massive growth that we've seen in the Chinese
economy.
Despite an on-again, off-again debate as to whether climate change and
global warming are actually occurring at all, the weight of evidence
and scientific support suggests that it is a real problem already and
is going to get worse. The most recent report from the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) pointed out that
between 1906 and 2005 the earth's average temperature has risen by
0.74 degrees. Now that doesn't seem like a lot in theory. If I put my
dinner in the oven to cook and I'm out by 0.74 degrees, it's hardly
likely to make a difference. But, on the global scale, if this
continues there will be serious consequences.
This increase in temperature is caused by the famous 'Greenhouse
Effect' - a natural phenomenon which only becomes a problem when you
pump loads of CO2 into the atmosphere. On its own, the greenhouse
effect is useful to us - without it, the average temperature on earth
would be around minus 19 degrees celsius (as opposed to 14 degrees at
the moment). Due to the vast quantities of CO2 emitted into the
atmosphere since the industrial revolution, the greenhouse effect is
going into overdrive and the Earth's climate is being effected.
That's why December's summit will focus on reducing the amount of CO2
and various other 'Greenhouse Gases' which countries are allowed to
emit. The task is easier said than done since greenhouse emissions go
hand-in-hand with economic prosperity. Particularly at this time,
countries want to do little that will constrain their businesses and
economies.
However, industrialised countries will be asked to reduce their
emissions substantially. Developing countries such as China and India
will be asked to limit the growth in their emissions - despite their
wishes to grow their economy. Money will be discussed too. Poor
countires will require massive amounts of cash to curb their emissions
and to adapt to the problems a changing climate will pose.
It will be an interesting summit. Already, the various sides are
flagging their opening positions. The stakes are high in beautiful
Copenhagen.
Posted by ScienceWriter at 5:29 PM
bademiyansubhanallah
Climate politics eclipses climate science (Comment-Countdown to
Copenhagen)
November 15th, 2009 SindhToday
For the last few weeks, leaders of industrialised countries have been
busy reducing expectations from next month’s critical Copenhagen
climate summit, while their counterparts in the developing world
declare ambitious plans to control emissions of the greenhouse gases
(GHG) that are warming the world.
In the process, it now appears that the industrialised countries are
ignoring the overwhelming majority of climate scientists around the
world, who have said global GHG emissions must start falling by 2015
if the world is to avoid the catastrophic effects of climate change.
Many of the rich countries have not declared the extent to which they
will reduce their GHG emissions after 2012, though the deadline for
doing so is past.
The declarations that have been made are clearly not enough for GHG
emissions to start going down after 2015.
In its benchmark fourth assessment report published in 2007, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – a group of over
2,500 scientists and over 7,500 peer reviewers from around the world,
headed by R.K. Pachauri of India – had said that if global warming was
to be kept within two degrees Celsius, GHG emissions must start
falling after 2015.
That IPCC report was based on scientific evidence of climate change
between 2003 and 2006. Since then, past and present members of the
IPCC have found evidence that global warming effects are accelerating
faster than they had predicted – be it in the area of more frequent
and more severe extreme weather events such as droughts, floods and
storms; or the retreat of Himalayan glaciers, especially small ones;
or the melting of Antarctic and Arctic ice sheets which are already
raising the sea level to the point where the first line of islands in
the Sundarbans facing the Bay of Bengal have disappeared.
So despite the continued carping of the few climate sceptics left
around the globe, it is now clear that climate change is here, it is
already affecting our lives adversely and now we are essentially left
with two issues. One, how do we keep global warming down to a minimum?
Two, how do we adapt to the changed climate?
Science has a clear answer to the first question – minimise use of
fossil fuels, as their use is the major cause of the emission of
carbon dioxide, the main GHG.
This is where climate politics takes over because, despite the
rhetoric to the contrary, most industrialised countries are reluctant
to change over from coal- and oil-based economies. Their argument:
there is no point in their doing so when large emerging economies like
India and China are going to base their economies on coal and oil in
the foreseeable future.
This argument does not take into account the fact that almost all the
GHGs in the atmosphere today have been put there by the rich
countries. It ignores the fact that China overtook the US as the
world’s biggest GHG emitter only in 2007, and that India is still
fifth. The per capita GHG emissions in the US is around 20 tonnes per
year.
But the developing countries are the ones taking action. India has an
ambitious plan to generate 20,000 MW from solar power by 2022, a
hundredfold increase from today. China has set some tough energy
efficiency standards. Brazil has announced it will reduce GHG
emissions by 38-42 percent by 2020.
Among the rich countries, the EU had consistently led the way to a
greener economy, till its industrial leaders started telling its
governments a few months back that this was making them uncompetitive
vis-a-vis the US, which has so far steadfastly refused to be part of
any legally binding global treaty to reduce emissions. Now, in their
anxiety to bring the US within such a system, the EU leaders have been
bending backwards to weaken any possible Copenhagen agreement.
It has now reached the point where most observers feel there will be
no legally binding treaty to indicate the extent to which rich
countries will reduce their GHG emissions after 2012, when the
commitment period of the current treaty, the Kyoto Protocol, runs out.
At best, there may be a political statement of intent, and even that
at the insistence of host country Denmark.
Rich countries are also unwilling to pay poor countries to help them
mitigate GHG emissions and to adapt to the effects of the climate
change caused by the industrialised world.
The most conservative estimate – made by the World Bank – of the money
needed for adoption is $70-100 billion a year. Not even a miniscule
fraction of that is on the table, while developing countries are
already being forced to spend huge sums to cope with climate change
effects. India spent over 2.7 percent of its GDP last fiscal,
according to the government’s latest economic survey.
As a worried world readies for the Copenhagen summit (Dec 6-18),
veteran observers offer one crumb of comfort. The squabbles were just
as intense before the Kyoto climate summit, where the current protocol
was signed.
(Joydeep Gupta can be contacted at joyd...@ians.in)
[LM1]
bademiyansubhanallah
We’re out of time to conclude global action plan in Copenhagen: Obama
November 15th, 2009 SindhToday
London, Nov. 16 (ANI): US President Barack Obama has recognized that
it would be impossible to reach a fully internationally legally
binding climate agreement in Copenhagen next month as very little time
is left for that.
After a unscheduled meeting with Denmark’s Prime Minister Lars Lokke
Rasmussen and Chinese President Hu Jintao in Singapore, Obama
acknowledged that next month’s meeting should have a realistic aim of
making it a first-stage series of commitments rather than an all-
encompassing protocol.
“There was a realistic assessment by the leaders that it was
unrealistic to expect a full internationally legally binding agreement
to be negotiated between now and when Copenhagen starts in 22 days,”
The Guardian quoted Michael Froman, US deputy national security
adviser for economic affairs, as saying.
There will now be intense discussions on whether the political
agreement at Copenhagen contains any detailed meaningful commitments.
Rasmussen, the host and chairman of the climate talks, insisted that
the Copenhagen talks could still set political targets and outline
commitments.
“Given the time factor and the situation of individual countries we
must, in the coming weeks, focus on what is possible and not let
ourselves be distracted by what is not. The Copenhagen agreement
should finally mandate continued legal negotiations and set a deadline
for their conclusion,’ Rasmussen said.
Obama spoke in support of the proposal, cautioning the group not to
let the ‘perfect be the enemy of the good’, Froman said. (ANI)
[NF]
bademiyansubhanallah
November 25, 2009
PERIPATETIC PRESIDENT TO PRESS FOR PROGRESS....
To demonstrate the U.S. commitment to combating global warming, many,
here and around the world, hoped President Obama would personally
travel to Copenhagen next month for the United Nations meeting on
climate change. They got their wish.
Mr. Obama, who had previously not committed to making an appearance at
the summit, will deliver a speech on Dec. 9 en route to Oslo, Norway,
where he will accept the Nobel Peace Prize on Dec. 10.
Mr. Obama had been under considerable pressure from other world
leaders and environmental advocates to make the trip as a statement of
American commitment to the climate change negotiations. The talks,
involving more than 190 nations, are expected to produce a wide-
ranging interim political declaration but stop short of proposing a
binding international treaty.
Delegates are expected to commit to completing the treaty next year.
Mr. Obama has said recently that he would attend the session if his
presence could help lead to a successful outcome. It is significant
that he will appear at the beginning rather than at the end of the 12-
day meeting. Most major decisions at such environmental forums come at
the very end of the process.
Mr. Obama will tell the delegates to the climate conference that the
United States intends to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions "in the
range of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020," according to a White
House official.
In a statement this morning, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), who's helping
lead the Senate fight on a climate bill, said of the president's
travel plans, "This could be one hell of a global game changer with
big reverberations here at home. For the first time, an American
Administration has proposed an emissions reduction target and when
President Obama lands in Copenhagen it will emphasize that the United
States is in it to win it. This announcement matches words with
action. The Obama Administration is now undeniably mustering bona fide
leadership on climate change, not merely departing from Bush
Administration intransigence and ideology."
Now, as we talked about last week, the larger plans for the Copenhagen
meeting have already been scaled back a bit, with leaders eyeing a two-
step process -- incremental progress this year, and a commitment to
renew the next stage of efforts next year.
But Obama's in-person lobbying efforts will give the talks a boost,
and signal to the world that the United States intends to lead.
—Steve Benen 10:35 AM
Comments (8)
Of course, the only angle that the media will cover will be whether
Obama bows at all during his trip.
Posted by: Old School on November 25, 2009 at 11:07 AM | PERMALINK
More and more it looks like the United States is approaching global
warming in the wrong way. We're trying to pretend that we can solve
global warming by continuing to do the same things, only do them more
slowly. We're demanding that the third world make promises of
sacrifice that they won't fulfill.
Instead, the United States should move ahead on their own, and let the
world eat our dust (and breathe their own pollution).
Did it take a treaty to get the world to move from typewriters to word
processors? Did it take a series of world conferences to get people to
switch from telephones attached to copper wires?
Hell no.
The president of the U.S. should start an all out, land-a-man-on-the-
moon-and-bring-him-back-by-the-end-of-the-decade push to end the use
of all fossil fuels. He should announce that the federal government
will support research in both pure and applied science, that it will
provide grants for students who want to go to college to study
science, that it will fund pilot projects and that it will subsidize
commercial products.
In a few decades, the world will run out of oil. When that happens,
either the U.S. or China will renewable energy technology to everyone
else. When that happens, the winning economy will rule the world,
while the loser . . . .
Now if only the United States had a president who actually believes in
changing the status quo.
Posted by: SteveT on November 25, 2009 at 11:08 AM
Obama's in-person lobbying efforts will...signal to the world that the
United States intends to lead.
And a bunch of 'centrist' Business Dog Democrat Senators will tell the
world to f*** off.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist on November 25, 2009 at 11:38 AM
The mere fact that Obama had even considered not going tells you all
you need to know about what a fraud this guy is.
Posted by: scott on November 25, 2009 at 12:42 PM
In a few decades, the world will run out of oil. When that happens,
either the U.S. or China will renewable energy technology to everyone
else. When that happens, the winning economy will rule the world,
while the loser . . . .
A rapid development of alternative energy supplies will guarantee that
oil remains plentiful and cheap. The winning economy will be the
economy that persistently spends the least on alternative energy,
while forcing the other to spend the most. Oddly, the US right now is
stimulating demand (the tax credits for purchase) while China is
stimulating production, with the result that the US imports solar
panels and wind turbines from China. With these strategies in place,
China looks to be the winner, and in the not-too-distant future.
Besides that, China is building up both its nuclear power capacity and
its coal power capacity faster than the US is doing.
If winning national competitions is your goal, make sure your strategy
addresses that goal. I expect that whatever Obama says in Copenhagen
will influence the Chinese government as much as his recommendations
on civil rights did. If that happens, a US focus on reducing CO2 will
put US economic development behind Chinese economic development for a
long time to come.
Posted by: MatthewRMarler on November 25, 2009 at 1:11 PM
It's a bit late to lead years after Europe introduced cap and trade.
I'd settle for a United States which is ready to follow.
Posted by: Robert Waldmann on November 25, 2009 at 1:23 PM
Obviously, the message has not gotten out to all... the phrase "global
warming" has been replaced by "climate change", which I suspect was
done to buffer increasing criticism of the "warming" argument (snark,
snark).
Posted by: pencarrow on November 25, 2009 at 4:22 PM
Good luck. Mean that.
Down here in New Zealand our ever more ridiculous govt just passed an
Emissions Trading law that doesn't have a cap, has the govt subsidise
the biggest polluters by giving them credits, and continues to do so
well till about 2050, or beyond for certain sectors. Result: polluters
are actually encouraged to emit, public debt increases and NZ as a
whole will have to spend more money meeting it's Kyoto obligations by
buying credits. Positive feedbacks. Huzzah.
Thankfully our PM won't be going to Copenhagen, ( he doesn't like bad
news).
He does however become all giggly when he gets a chance to talk to
your Mr Obama. Could y'all do us a favour and get Obama to call our
guy an ass or something?
Posted by: Peebles on November 25, 2009 at 5:16 PM
chhotemianinshallah
Q+A-What is China's "carbon intensity" target?
Thu Nov 26, 2009 7:17am EST
BEIJING, Nov 26 (Reuters) - China has unveiled its first firm target
to curb greenhouse gas emissions, laying out a carbon intensity goal
that Premier Wen Jiabao will take to climate talks as his government's
central commitment.
(For the main story on China's carbon intensity target, click
[ID:nPEK421])
Following are questions and answers about carbon intensity.
WHAT IS CARBON INTENSITY?
Carbon intensity is the amount of carbon dioxide emitted for each unit
of economic output. Often carbon dioxide is measured in tonnes, while
gross domestic product (GDP) in a local currency represents economic
output, but any units can be used.
Other greenhouse gasses like methane are added to the total by
calculating the amount of carbon dioxide that would have the
equivalent global warming potential.
Emissions are usually calculated indirectly, through looking at inputs
such as the amount of coal burnt in a power plant, rather than
attempting to capture and weigh carbon dioxide gas.
WHY HAS CHINA CHOSEN CARBON INTENSITY?
Cutting carbon intensity allows China to meet international demands
for it to count and curb its emissions, without giving up its
insistence that development must come first while millions of Chinese
citizens are still living in poverty.
By agreeing to control its emissions China will also pave the way for
a carbon market, as accurate measurements of emissions are a vital
cornerstone for any market for permits to emit.
However, if China's economy expands too fast, even massive
improvements in carbon intensity may not be enough to contain
dangerous increases in emissions.
A carbon intensity figure can be worked out for anything from a single
factory to an entire country.
HOW CHALLENGING IS THE TARGET?
Beijing said it faces "special hardships" in meeting the goal, and
Chinese experts said after a five-year energy efficiency drive further
improvements would be tough.
But the current goal -- to boost energy efficiency 20 percent over the
5 years to 2010 -- has already brought even larger improvements to
carbon intensity.
Every tonne of coal saved means a corresponding amount of emissions
are avoided. And an expansion of renewable and nuclear power has
further cut back China's emissions growth.
So Beijing is likely to be at least halfway to reaching its 2020 goal
by the end of next year, many analysts say.
WHY NOT AN EMISSIONS CAP?
China has repeatedly rejected calls to commit to a peak year or level
of emissions because of its worries such a target could hinder efforts
to tackle poverty.
A cap could be a logical next step for Beijing if it can meet its
initial carbon intensity targets.
Some Chinese experts have said emissions could peak around 2030-2035
with enough spending and the right policies, but officials have been
more wary of such ideas. [ID:nPEK276833]
Under the Kyoto Protocol and the U.N. framework which governs efforts
to tackle global warming, developing countries do not have any binding
obligations to cap emissions.
HOW DOES CHINA'S CURRENT CARBON INTENSITY STACK UP?
According to figures published by the United States Department of
Energy, China in 2006 emitted 2.85 tonnes of carbon dioxide from
fossil fuels for every $1,000 of gross domestic product (GDP), around
15 percent lower than a decade earlier.
In comparison, the United States in 2006 emitted 0.52 tonnes of carbon
dioxide for every $1,000 of GDP, while Switzerland produced 0.17
tonnes, and impoverished Chad just 0.07 tonnes.
For further comparisons see: here (Reporting by Emma Graham-Harrison
and Ben Blanchard; Editing by David Fogarty) ((emma.graham-
harr...@thomsonreuters.com; +86 10 6627 1203; Reuters Messaging:
emma.graha...@reuters.net)) ((If you have a query or comment on
this story, send an email to news.feed...@thomsonreuters.com))
© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved
...and I am Sid Harth
Sid Harth
US announces emission cuts, China follows suit
TNN 27 November 2009, 02:46am IST
BEIJING/NEW DELHI: China on Thurday declared that it would reduce the
carbon intensity of its economy by 40-45% below 2005 levels by 2020.
This significant manoeuvre is bound to step up pressure on India and
other emerging economies to relax their stand at the forthcoming
climate-change talks in Copenhagen.
China made it clear that the cut in carbon intensity would be purely
voluntary. But coming a day after US indicated that it would offer a
fixed target for greenhouse gas reductions, it is sure to have
repercussions for cliamte change negotiations, giving a hand to those
who argue that India needs to do more.
There is a fear that India might come under pressure from a possible
US-China duet and runs the risk of getting isolated at the Copenhagen
talks, beginning on December 7.
Such fears had already been expressed by a section in the government
which pressed for flexibility in India's negotiating stance.
Earlier in the month, Brazil had made a conditional offer to reduce
its emissions through forestry if it was provided international
funding to control deforestation of the Amazonian forests. The move
was interpreted by some as a sell-out to the industrialised
countries.
The Chinese move comes a day after the US administration, that held
out for long, announced that it would offer a target of reducing its
greenhouse gas emissions ``in the range of'' 17% by 2020 as compared
to 2005 levels.
When converted to benchmarks set under Kyoto Protocol, this works out
to 4% reduction below 1990 levels - almost seven times less than what
the EU has offered and less than 1/10th of what the UN IPCC requires
industrialised countries to do to check catastrophic climate change.
But this has been showcased as a concession and will be used as a
bargaining chip at Copenhagen and beyond.
The developed countries have said that their offers are contingent on
emerging economies taking on commitments as well as availability of
cheap carbon offsets to limit the economic impact of emission
reductions.
India, China and other emerging economies have not been asked by the
rich countries to undertake absolute emission reduction cuts. But this
is only a partial respite. There have been growing pressure from the
industrialized countries that India and key developing countries also
undertake `substantial action'.
Hours before his departure for China, environment minister Jairam
Ramesh went into a huddle with senior officials to craft India's
response to Beijing's move. Sources said that Jairam's meetings with
the Chinese on November 27 and 28 may offer some clarity on how India
plans to deal with the US-China pincer.
The challenge for India will now be how to escape being seen as the
hurdle. One senior official said: ``These are not absolute reductions,
please note, and they are purely voluntary, China has not offered them
as a commitment towards an international compact. This is along the
lines that China had informed us of. But they leave a positive
impression internationally.''
In fact, the Chinese are aiming to earn goodwill without doing
much.The industrialized countries are obliged under the existing UN
treaty to reduce their emissions by absolute levels below a fixed
benchmarked year. China, in comparison has offered a purely voluntary
reduction in its carbon intensity - the amount of carbon dioxide
emissions emitted for every dollar of GDP it generates. The carbon
intensity target also provides enough leverage for `creative
accounting' in measuring success of targets.
Another expert within the government also pointed out that the Chinese
government had already reported reduction in energy intensity and had
recently announced 3.35% year-on-year reduction for the first half of
2009. "If one was to go by Chinese figures all they are saying is they
shall continue to undertake only those actions to reduce energy
consumption they have already committed to. This is business as usual
for China after it's announced its ambitious renewable energy and
afforestation targets."
But other key government officers also pointed out that the fine print
of the Chinese offer was bound to get a bit lost in the international
political rhetoric at the moment. "While China is not deviating from
the G77 position, the noise for India to take action from outside
India, and even within some sections of the government could
increase," an official close to the developments told TOI.
Xie Zhenhua, deputy head of the powerful National Development and
Reform Commission of China, announced the Chinese move in Beijing on
Thursday and said, "So far we have not seen concrete actions and
substantive commitments by the developed countries. As we've made this
commitment, well, Chinese people stick to their word."
But it is not clear if Beijing was prepared to allow the outside world
to closely examine its implementation of its environmental program.
Both India and China had earlier opposed any outside interference on
this issue.
China has proposed that developed nations contribute 1 per cent of
gross domestic product to subsidize efforts by poorer nations to cut
carbon-dioxide emissions. That translates to more than $140 billion
for the US alone. Of course, Washington is far from accepting it.
"Appropriate handling of the climate change issue is of vital interest
to China's social and economic development and people's fundamental
interests, as well as the welfare of all the people in the world and
the world's long-term development," the Chinese State Council said in
the statement.
That both President Obama of the US and his Chinese counterpart Hu
Jintao would skip the head of the states meeting scheduled at
Copenhagen on December 18 is seen as signalling their intent not to
raise expectations of any big concessions from the two leading
polluters attending the talks.
Sid Harth
Apocalypse alert!
Jonathan Leake, Sunday Times, London
21 November 2009, 05:19am IST
Six months is all it took to flip Europe's climate from warm and sunny
into the last ice age, researchers have found. They have discovered
that the WHEN TRUTH IS STRANGER THAN FICTION: The scenario of a sudden
big freeze seems straight out of the film The Day After Tomorrow
(left) northern hemisphere was plunged into a big freeze 12,800 years
ago by a sudden slowdown of the Gulf Stream that allowed ice to spread
hundreds of miles southwards from the Arctic.
Previous research has suggested the change may have taken place over a
longer period - perhaps about 10 years.
The new description, more reminiscent of the Hollywood blockbuster The
Day After Tomorrow, emerged from one of the most painstaking studies
of past climate changes ever attempted.
"It would have been very sudden for those alive at the time," said
William Patterson, a geological sciences professor at the University
of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon , Canada, who carried out the research.
"It would be the equivalent of taking Britain and moving it to the
Arctic over the space of a few months."
His findings, published at a recent conference, reinforce a series of
studies suggesting that the earth's climate is highly unstable and can
flip between warm and cold very rapidly with the right trigger.
Most such research is based on analysing cores drilled from ice or
from the sediments found at the bottom of oceans or lake beds. In such
cores the ice or sediments are found in layers whose composition shows
what the climate was like at the time they were laid down. Ice cores
drilled from the Greenland ice cap have already shown that the big
freeze of 12,800 years ago - known as the Younger Dryas mini-ice age -
happened fast but lacked the detail to pin it down precisely.
Patterson, however, obtained mud deposits from Lough Monreagh, a lake
in western Ireland, a region he says has "the best mud in the world in
scientific terms" . Patterson used a precision robotic scalpel to
scrape off layers of mud just 0.5mm thick. Each layer represented
three months of sediment deposition, so variations between them could
be used to measure changes in temperature over very short periods.
Patterson found that temperatures had plummeted, with the lake's
plants and animals rapidly dying over just a few months. The
subsequent mini-ice age lasted for 1,300 years.
What caused such a dramatic event? The most likely suspect is the
sudden emptying of Lake Agassiz, an inland sea that once covered a
swathe of northern Canada.
It is thought to have burst its banks, pouring freezing freshwater
into the North Atlantic and Arctic oceans, disrupting the Gulf Stream,
whose flows depend on variations in temperature and salinity.
A single year's disruption in the Gulf Stream could have been enough,
said Patterson, to let ice grow far to the south of where it usually
formed. Once it had taken over, the Gulf Stream was unable to regain
its normal route and the cold took hold for about 1,300 years.
Some scientists have suggested that if the Greenland ice cap melts it
could have a similarly dramatic effect by disrupting the world's ocean
currents.
Other research has shown that rapid climate flips are normal. In its
4.5-billion-year history, the earth has experienced at least four
major ice ages, of which the last, the Quaternary, is still
continuing.
Within each ice age, however, there are periods when ice advances or
retreats and in the last 60,000 years alone the earth is thought to
have warmed or cooled by up to 7°C at least 20 times. The current
interglacial period has lasted about 10,000 years.
"Human civilization has grown up in a period of remarkable climatic
stability," said Tim Lenton, professor of earth system sciences at the
University of East Anglia . "In the period from 65,000 to 10,000 years
ago there were periods of abrupt warming and cooling roughly every
1,500 years, when the temperature in Greenland might fall or rise by
10°C in a decade." Patterson's findings are supported by other
research by Chris Stringer, professor of human origins at the Natural
History Museum in London.
He believes the extinction of Neanderthals roughly 30,000 years ago
was linked to a series of rapid climate fluctuations that began about
40,000 years ago. He said: "Climate is basically unstable, so one of
the mysteries is why it has stayed warm for the last 10,000 years.
"Some researchers have suggested this may be linked to activities of
early humans, who started growing crops and clearing forests 8,000
years ago. "That may have put enough greenhouse gases into the air to
stave off another ice age, but the problem now is that we have gone
too far the other way. "The amount of greenhouse gases in the air is
greater than at any time in the earth's history, so ironically, the
threat now is from global warming."
Patterson is still focusing his efforts on the past. He has built a
new robot capable of shaving tiny slivers from the shells of
fossilized clams, showing temperature almost day by day from millions
of years ago.
Sid Harth
Dead Sea may dry out completely by 2050
PTI 25 November 2009, 05:21pm IST
LONDON: With water level falling by a meter a year and no measures has
been taken yet to reverse the decline, the Dead Sea may soon shrink to
a pond or even dry out completely by 2050.
According to officials, the political strife in the Middle East has
been undermining measures to halt the decay of the world's lowest and
saltiest body of water.
"It might be confined into a small pond. It is likely to happen and
this is extremely serious. Nobody is doing anything now to save it,"
Dureid Mahasneh, a water expert in the Jordan valley, was quoted as
saying by The Telegraph.
The shoreline of the world-famous lake, a tourism destination renowned
for the beneficial effect of its minerals, has receded by more than a
kilometer and may dry out completely by 2050, said Mahasneh, who is
also a former local government head.
"Saving the Dead Sea is a regional issue, and if you take the
heritage, environmental and historical importance, or even the
geographical importance, it is an international issue," he said.
The Dead Sea, landlocked between Jordan, Israel and the West Bank, is
rapidly vanishing because water that previously flowed into the lake
is being diverted, as well as being extracted for industrial and
agricultural purposes.
Jordan has recently decided to build a $2-billion pipeline to
refilling the Dead Sea without help from Israel or the Palestinian
Authority. But, the expert said the project alone cannot address the
problem.
Sid Harth
Smaller glaciers more vulnerable to climate change: Study
PTI 24 November 2009, 05:27pm IST
NEW DELHI: Smaller Himalayan glaciers are proving much more vulnerable
to climate change than the area's larger glaciers, says a new report
contradicting the recent environment ministry backed study which
claimed that glacier melting can't be linked to global warming.
A joint team from WWF-India, a well-known conservation organisation
and Birla Institute of Technology analysed the three year data
available from the on-going research to monitor two central Himalayan
glaciers since 2006 - Gangotri and Kafni having length of 30 km and
4.2 km respectively.
The study entitled, "Witnessing Change: Glaciers in the Indian
Himalayas," says that while small glaciers are retreating fast and
some of them have even vanished.
Himalayan glaciers too are retreating but at a reduced rate and the
larger glaciers like Gangotri are unlikely to disappear in near future
due to their large mass balance.
However, the study by former deputy director general of the Geological
Survey of India V K Raina, which was recently released by Environment
Minister Jairarm Ramesh, claimed that climate change can't be cited as
a reason for melting of glaciers in the absence of conclusive
scientific evidence.
However, Ravi Singh, Secretary General of WWF India said that, "These
glaciers are perhaps more vulnerable to local climate variations.
"We see a need for more long-term and continuous assessment to monitor
the hydro-meteorological parameters existing in the vicinity in order
to better predict future water resource scenarios."
bademiyansubhanallah
Climate change trial run in Port of Spain
ANI
Port of Spain, November 27, 2009
First Published: 11:22 IST(27/11/2009)
Last Updated: 11:25 IST(27/11/2009)
Commonwealth leaders from 53 member nations, mainly former British
colonies begin their three-day summit in Port of Spain from on Friday.
Host Prime Minister Patrick Manning has said the meeting aims to send
a firm message in favor of cooperation to limit global warming ahead
of UN climate change talks due in Copenhagen on December 7-18.
"We hope to arrive at a political statement that can add value to the
process that will culminate in Copenhagen next month ... what we can
do is raise our voices politically," Manning told a news conference on
Thursday.
Manning also said UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, French President
Nicolas Sarkozy and Danish President Lars Lokke Rasmussen would join a
special discussion session on climate change to be held by the
Commonwealth leaders on Friday.
He said the Commonwealth's wide membership, bringing together wealthy
industrialized nations like Britain, Canada and Australia with some of
the world's smallest and most vulnerable states, made the group
especially "reflective of world opinion" in the climate change debate.
Although most nations are not very hopeful of a final binding legal
climate treaty text coming into effect in Copenhagen, prospects for a
broad political agreement have improved by public promises of
greenhouse gas curbs by China and the United States. President Obama
has even said that he would be attending the Copenhagen meet, giving
it a higher profile.
Meanwhile Commonwealth Secretary General Kamlesh Sharma said it would
be up to the Commonwealth leaders to decide on the effectiveness of
their fight against global warming, but he added "If I get a very
clear direction, the happier I'll be".
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said that CHOGM leaders must
agree on 'a strong statement on the dangers of letting climate change
continue unchecked'.
bademiyansubhanallah
Security tightened in Port of Spain ahead of UK Queen's arrival
ANI
Port of Spain, November 27, 2009
First Published: 11:16 IST(27/11/2009)
Last Updated: 11:18 IST(27/11/2009)
Britain's Queen Elizabeth and members of her royal household are
arriving in Port of Spain on Friday to attend the Commonwealth Heads
of Government Meeting (CHOGM).
Security arrangements have been put on the highest levels at the
Carlton Savannah Hotel where she will be staying.
Local police will provide escort and assistance to the Queen's
security entourage on her arrival and departure to the hotel, said
security personnel.
Trinidad and Tobago's Trade and Industry Minister Mariano Browne said
that only a few persons have received accreditation passes to be in
the area of the Savannah Hotel.
Media accreditation also has been very difficult to get. Security
arrangements he added, will not be hampered since citizens will have
the opportunity to shop and move about freely.
Questions have been raised about the difference with the 'less'
security arrangements put in place for CHOGM than that of the heavy
security arrangements for the Fifth Summit of Americas held in April.
Browne said the security arrangement was not less, but in fact 'more
complex' since the movement of persons will be handled differently.
The main difference of course is that US President Barak Obama is not
here!
Brown said they have learned from the Americas Summit as to what
elements of security they could eliminate and what they need to fine
tune. They have also prepared for the worst nightmare, ie
"eventualities".
The main security is of course near the Hyatt Regency Hotel and others
nearby where the delegates are staying. The media is in the Caribbean
Princess, a massive ship stationed on the Pacific. Here too the
security is very tight with metal detectors and scanning machines at
various points.
bademiyansubhanallah
International media parks itself in cruise liner for CHOGM summit
ANI
Port of Spain, November 27, 2009
First Published: 11:19 IST(27/11/2009)
Last Updated: 11:21 IST(27/11/2009)
The Caribbean Princess is a little city in itself and is one of two
cruise liners placed at the seafront not far from the Hyatt Hotel, the
venue of this year's 21st Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting
(CHOGM).
The Caribbean Princess will cater to the international media.
Rooms on the cruiser start at 1200 dollars per night for Royal Suite
and the lowest priced is the Interior State Room at 300 dollars per
night. All meals are included.
The media ship is just a few minutes walk from the Media Center.
About 5,000 foreign delegates are expected to attend this year's
CHOGM, and the Trinidad and Tobago Government has pulled out all steps
to make the event memorable.
With the capital city of Port of Spain having only 1,700 hotel rooms,
the government has come up with "floating" hotels for its overseas
guests.
Apart from supplying an additional 2,500 rooms, the Serenade of the
Seas and the Caribbean Princess also provide convention facilities and
dining venues.
A host of meetings are taking place on board these two ships, while a
casino has been transformed into a trade show with up to 20 table-top
exhibits, the Malaysian Star reports.
Leaders of 53 Commonwealth countries and other dignitaries have
started converging on this twin island country. They will discuss
global, political and economic issues and some pressing problems faced
by member countries and the global community.
The 45-minute ride from the airport to the city provides many familiar
sights - coconut trees dot the roadside while red sloping houses give
the feeling of being in south India.
There are a number of skyscrapers near the financial centre. Temples,
churches and mosques are also visible.
The republic covers an area of 5,128 square kilometres and consists of
two main islands, Trinidad and Tobago, and numerous smaller land
forms. It is rich in oil and natural gas and offers eco-tourism
attractions.
Under British rule for 165 years from 1797, the islands gained
independence in 1962 and later became a republic in 1976.
The country with a 1.3 million population is made up of descendants of
settlers from Africa, Asia, South America, Europe and the Middle East.
chhotemianinshallah
Friday, Nov. 27, 2009
Obama to plead US case at global warming summit
By H. JOSEF HEBERT - Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama will commit the United States to
substantial cuts in greenhouse gas pollution over the next decade -
despite resistance in Congress over higher costs - when he travels to
a major climate conference in Copenhagen next month.
Obama will attend the start of the conference Dec. 9 before heading to
Oslo to accept the Nobel Peace Prize. He will "put on the table" a
U.S. commitment to cut emissions by 17 percent over the next decade,
on the way to reducing heat-trapping pollution by 80 percent by mid-
century, the White House said.
Cutting U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by one-sixth in just a decade
would increase the cost of energy as electric utilities pay for
capturing carbon dioxide at coal-burning power plants or switch to
more expensive alternatives. The price of gasoline probably would
increase, and more fuel-efficient automobiles - or hybrids that run on
gasoline and electricity - probably would be more expensive.
Protesters wearing face masks depicting, from left to right, France's
President Nicolas Sarkozy, Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper,
Russia's Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, German Chancellor Angela
Merkel, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Italy's Prime Minister
Silvio Berlusconi and EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso take
part in a protest on climate change ahead of the Copenhagen Climate
Conference, outside of the building housing the European Union
representative office in Jakarta, Indonesia, Wednesday, Nov. 25,
3009.
RETRANSMISSION of a graphic that first moved on Nov. 18; graphic
shows countries’ change in carbon dioxide emissions from 2007 and
- J. Bell /AP
CLICK FOR MORE PHOTOS
Obama's promise of greenhouse emissions cuts will require Congress to
pass complex climate legislation that the administration says will
include an array of measures to ease the price impact. The bills
before Congress, for example, would have the government provide
polluters free emissions allowances in the early years of the
transition from fossil fuels, as well as direct payments to many
consumers facing high costs.
Carol Browner, Obama's assistant for energy and climate change, on
Wednesday cited a Congressional Budget Office study that said there
would be $173-a-year estimated cost to the average household by 2020
if greenhouse gases were cut by 17 percent from 2005 levels. But the
CBO analysis also said that if cost-blunting measures in the
legislation were not taken into account, the cost to households could
jump to $890 per household.
Other studies conducted by pro-industry groups have put the average
household costs between $900 to more than $3,000 a year, although many
of those studies do not take into account new energy conservation
efforts and assume a more pessimistic view of new technology
development that could bring actual consumer costs down.
Obama's stopover on the conference's second day - instead of later,
when negotiations will be most intense and when most other national
leaders will take part - disappointed some European and U.N. climate
officials, as well as some environmentalists.
Others said Obama's personal appeal will resonate with the delegates
from more than 75 countries and help reset the U.S. image on the
climate issue after eight years in which the Bush administration
staunchly opposed mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases.
Yvo de Boer, the United Nations climate chief, said it is important
for the United States to establish emissions reduction targets and a
financial commitment to helping developing countries address climate
change.
"If he comes in the first week to announce that, it would be a major
boost to the conference," de Boer told The Associated Press.
Obama's participation had been in doubt since it became clear that the
Dec. 7-18 conference was unlikely to produce a binding agreement. The
original goal of the conference was to produce a new global climate
change treaty to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. But in recent weeks
it became clear that delegates were likely to produce at best an
outline for an agreement to be considered late next year.
The White House said Obama is expecting "robust mitigation
contributions" from China and other emerging nations as part of any
final agreement. He pressed for cooperation on climate change in
meetings with Chinese President Hu Jintao in Beijing last week, and
with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh during a state visit at the
White House Tuesday.
China said Thursday that Premier Wen Jiabao will take part in the
Copenhagen summit.
And China's State Council pledged that the country will cut carbon
dioxide emissions per unit of gross domestic product by 40 to 45
percent by 2020, compared with levels in 2005. Given the expected huge
increases in its economy over the next decade, China's global warming
emissions should still increase - but at a much slower pace than if
the nation had made no changes.
The White House said it will send a half-dozen Cabinet secretaries to
the talks, including Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Commerce
Secretary Gary Locke, as well as the head of the Environmental
Protection Agency, which is preparing regulations to cut greenhouse
gases.
The high-profile delegation is intended to reinforce Obama's stance,
despite the bitter debate in Congress. The House narrowly passed
legislation requiring a cap on greenhouse gases from power plants and
industry, but it's still unclear whether Senate Democrats will be able
to muster the 60 votes needed to approve a similar bill.
Action in the Senate has been put off until next spring.
Associated Press writers Seth Borenstein and Julie Pace in Washington,
and Jan Olsen in Copenhagen contributed to this report.
chhotemianinshallah
Obama to set goals to reduce emissions
GOING TO COPENHAGEN
President's target reflects U.S. political reality
Interactive Graphic
Global Emissions
Explore changes in carbon emissions from fossil fuels for G-20
countries, selected developing nations and others critical to the
climate debate.
By Juliet Eilperin and Michael D. Shear
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, November 26, 2009
The White House announced Wednesday that President Obama will attend
U.N.-sponsored climate talks in Copenhagen next month and commit the
United States to specific targets for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions.
The administration's decision to identify a series of goals, including
cutting emissions over the next decade "in the range of" 17 percent
below 2005 levels, is a calculated risk, given that Congress has never
set mandatory limits on greenhouse gases.
The figure amounts to a 5.5 percent cut below the 1990 levels that
most countries use as a reference point, much less than what most
other nations have called for. It is also less than what President
Bill Clinton endorsed in the Kyoto talks in 1997 and well below the 25
to 40 percent cut that the European Union has asked of industrialized
countries.
However, the target will be contingent on passage of domestic
legislation, and that figure reflects the current U.S. political
reality. The House already passed such a target, and Sen. John F.
Kerry (D-Mass.), who is working on a bipartisan bill, said in an
interview that the short-term target is "a strong and good place to
be."
Obama has come under intense pressure from world leaders and his
domestic supporters to take the lead in forging a global pact to slow
climate change.
He will visit the Danish capital Dec. 9, one day before he goes to
nearby Oslo to accept the Nobel Peace Prize, which he won in part for
his efforts to restart talks that have been stalled in recent years.
But he will arrive well before more than 75 heads of state gather in
Copenhagen for the high-level portion of the talks, which at best will
produce a political deal to be ratified as a legally binding treaty in
2010.
Deputy national security adviser Michael Froman said the goals are
being offered in the context of nations such as India and China
following suit. "At this point, it's critical that all countries, all
major economies come forward with their mitigation actions . . . to
maximize the chance of progress in Copenhagen," he told reporters
Wednesday.
But that critical question -- to what extent China and India, which
are not bound by the same obligations as industrialized countries
under the U.N. process, would cut their emissions as part of a global
pact -- remains unanswered. The top leader of each nation, both of
whom met with Obama over the past week and a half, are expected to
announce their own climate plans within days.
Ned Helme, president of the Center for Clean Air Policy, said Obama is
"walking a knife's edge" to encourage China and India to act without
alienating Congress. "It's a calculated risk, but it's the right
play."
A senior administration official said: "We don't know specifics yet.
We have had many conversations with main players on the importance of
the major developing countries doing their part, but we don't know
what they're going to do yet."
For months, leaders of industrialized and developing nations have been
calling on the United States -- and, to a lesser extent, China, which
together with the United States accounts for about 40 percent of the
world's emissions -- to commit to cuts that would be deep enough to
secure a political deal in Copenhagen. Most other major greenhouse gas
emitters, including the European Union, Australia, Brazil, South Korea
and Indonesia, have identified how they would curb their carbon
dioxide output in the near future.
"Without any significant offers from the U.S. and China, only half of
the world's emissions will be covered," Swedish Environment Minister
Anders Carlgren told the European Parliament on Tuesday. "Let me be
very clear on this: An agreement in Copenhagen stands and falls with
significant bids from the U.S. and China."
Most environmental groups and European leaders lauded Obama's decision
to identify climate targets -- including further reductions of 30
percent by 2025 and 42 percent by 2030 -- and his decision to go to
Copenhagen.
Danish Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen, who pioneered the idea of
forging a political agreement next month that could be finalized as a
binding treaty in 2010, said, "The visit emphasizes the will of the
president to contribute to an ambitious global deal in Copenhagen."
But domestically, some question whether the administration will be
able to deliver on its promises. Ben Lieberman, a senior energy and
environment policy analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation,
said it appears the administration is making "the same mistake the
U.S. delegation made at Kyoto in 1997, promising abroad what probably
can't be delivered at home . . . And, while it's a large enough number
to pose a real risk to the U.S. economy, [it] is also a target that
does not satisfy many in the international community who complain that
America has not done enough."
Robert Dillon, spokesman for Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), the top
Republican on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said it is
"a positive sign" that Obama will attend the climate talks but
emphasized that any final U.S. target will be determined by lawmakers
rather than international negotiators.
"Regardless of what the administration says in Copenhagen, the real
negotiations on reduction cuts happen here in Congress," Dillon said.
"We pass the laws."
Comments
chrisbrown12 wrote:
Temperature trends are not just a matter of graphics that can be
manipulated but of accurate messurements. The GRACE satellites have
indicated ice loss in both the arctic and antarctic zones which is
leading already to dramatic shifts as ice melts. It does no good to
deny that this is happening and so the doubters fall back to their
next line of defense: i.e. it's all a natural process and that it has
been hotter in the past. If you go back more than 100 thousand years
before the current era, alright but who wants to see half of the world
underwater?
When a publication like Science from the official body of academic
scientists runs article after article proving links between
accelerated CO2 concentration levels and melting glaciers, how can
this be doubted. The last US administration deliberately manipulated
their measurements to reassure the energy lobby. That has since
stopped. Instead the lonely voices of a Senator from Oklahoma attacks
the current administration and almost the entire scientific community.
Could it be that a representative of a state like Oklahoma (and let's
not forget Alaska and Texas) could have an agenda that is in the
interests of oil companies?
The last trench for the climate-change deniers is to throw their hands
up and say, it's too late anyway and who needs places like Florida.
The fact that Sen. Imhoff is crowing about the hacked data from the
British University is significant. He is promoting law-breaking and
knows full well that stealing a copy of someone's private
correspondence is illegal.
I can't be bothered to respond to the wrong-headed who refuse to take
the time to inform themselves about Methane in Scandanavia or the
disappearing glaciers in Alaska and Glacier Park.
Chris Brown in Hamburg
11/27/2009 7:28:12 AM
Recommend (0) Report Abuse Discussion Policy
dennisbaker2003 wrote:
Dennis Earl Baker
103 - 66 Duncan avenue west
Penticton British Columbia V2A6Z3
Phone/Fax 778-476-3673
25/11/2009
The Copenhagen Diagnosis, 2009: Updating the world on the Latest
Climate Science. Has again indicated urgency in action is imperative.
Here's my solution and immediate areas of impact.
dennisb...@hotmail.com
RE : The solution to climate change.
( human excrement + nuclear waste = hydrogen )
The USA discharges Trillions of tons of sewage annually, sufficient
quantity to sustain electrical generation requirements of the USA.
Redirecting existing sewage systems to containment facilities would be
a considerable infrastructure modification project.
It is the intense radiation that causes the conversion of organic
material into hydrogen, therefore what some would consider the most
dangerous waste because of its radiation would be the best for this
utilization.
I believe the combination of clean water and clean air, will increase
the life expectancy of humans.
The four main areas of concern globally are energy, food,water and
air!
The radiologic decomposing of organic materials generates Hydrogen
By using our sewage as a source of energy we also get clean air ,
clean water, and no ethanol use of food stocks. Eat food first, create
energy after.
Simply replacing the fossil fuel powered electrical generating
facilities with these plants, would reduce CO2 emissions, and CH4
emissions, to acceptable levels, globally.
This would require a completely new reactor facility capable of
converting human waste into hydrogen and then burning the hydrogen to
generate electricity on site.
This solution is sellable to citizens because of all the side issue
solutions. I've been able to convince most simply with concept of
using nuclear waste to a productive end.
Superbugs ( antibiotic resistant ) apparently are created in the
waters sewage is discharged into, which is one more side issue
solution.
Anything not converting into hydrogen will potentially be disposed of
using Transmutation.
The water emitted from hydrogen burning will have uses in leaching
heavy metals from other contaminated site clean ups.
I thank you for your consideration, please feel free to contact me
anytime.
Dennis Baker
11/27/2009 1:35:25 AM
Recommend (0)
truthseeker1 wrote:
joshuasweet: And still the political groups are going to Copenhagen,
to make every one return to the 1900 levels of carbon emissions the
truth is out there but they have ignored these truths
TS: that's not what the WP article said. So what is your real source
here? Rush Limbaugh???
TS adds: See what's MISSING in your post is whether the SCIENCE is
saying there is a real problem with global warming@!
Since you use Wikipedia - -why not look up what it actually says on
global warming
<<National and international science academies and scientific
societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular
on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or
endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position
of January 2001 that states:
An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a
warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new
and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last
50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]
Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing
has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-
committal positions />>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_consensus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
11/26/2009 9:22:09 PM
Recommend (1)
textonyc wrote:
Obama and his crowds continue in their attempt to destroy america.
Goverment health care tax, War Tax, Stimulus/Porkulus and now Al
Gore's Cap and Tax as he and GE is already selling carbon credits.
How many dems are following this pied piper? The democrats will soon
realizes that a political fool
is one who does not listhe to his constituents.
11/26/2009 8:58:26 PM
Recommend (5)
joshuasweet wrote:
And still the political groups are going to Copenhagen, to make every
one return to the 1900 levels of carbon emissions the truth is out
there but they have ignored these truths and are planning to go ahead
with the reduction of carbon emissions by up to 80% with notable
exceptions being excluded from the required reductions' like China
with emissions over 6,000 million metric tons. Mexico produced more
than 430m tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2006, making it the 13th largest
emitter in the world. The use of the per capita CO2 emissions as a
rule of measure is sort of lop sided when you consider that the
population density of the populace regions makes the statistical
reference unacceptable, it is like dividing a pie into shares the more
people the smaller the share, thus the per capita CO2 for five million
is less than that for one million, and thus statically the million
will have a burden a lot higher than the five million all be it that
the five million will produce more CO2.
Something very wrong is going on here, and it amounts to treasonable
behavior on many of those involved. And Still the lie is believed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Countries_by_population_density.svg
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/11/26/us/politics/26climate-graphic.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mopitt_first_year_carbon_monoxide.jpg
11/26/2009 8:40:46 PM
Recommend (4)
truthseeker1 wrote:
weidenhof: The United States is not an industrialized country.
Factories have closed, entire industries have moved to China and other
Asian Counries. Example Steel City, Pittsburgh's main industry is a
gambling casino. We are asked to reduce emissions, reduce electric and
water usage, however new sports arenas are constructed or old venues
expanded, a major waste of energy.
ts: You describe todays' POLITICS, not the SCIENCE.
Since when was our current political situation -- rational??
And I agree with you too that while we need to do provide some level
of healthcare for the poor, unless we cut out the costs from the
special interests (which the Dems in Congress have not) then the plan
is simply not financially sustainable for the future.
There is really a consensus on global warming -- by the scientists You
are right -- no one is taking it seriously as it is predicted to
accelerate into the future.
11/26/2009 8:33:59 PM
Recommend (0)
truthseeker1 wrote:
Egw: Obama needs to wake up. This global warming, climate change has
been proven to be junk science/
Ts: So what non-scientific Right Wing sources are YOU listening to0?
Tons of them out there. Exxon/Mobil is helping funding some Others are
just Libertarian/Hard Right Conservative in political outlook (all
regulation is evil)
Disagree?
CHALLENGE: Show me one world renown scientific agency that says
climate change is junk science please.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Egw: Besides that we cannot afford for millions of more people to
loose their jobs & all Americans electric bills to go up.
TS: You are living in the past, egw.
We can’t afford NOT to get off our oil habit.
I’ll let Boone Pickins explain it to you:
<<America is addicted to foreign oil.
It's an addiction that threatens our economy, our environment and our
national security. It touches every part of our daily lives and ties
our hands as a nation and a people.
The addiction has worsened for decades and now it's reached a point of
crisis.
In 1970, we imported 24% of our oil.
Today it's nearly 70% and growing.
Oil prices have come down from the staggering highs of last summer,
but lower prices have not reduced our dependence on foreign oil or
lessened the risks to either our economy or our security.
If we are depending on foreign sources for nearly 70% of our oil, we
are in a precarious position in an unpredictable world.
In additional to putting our security in the hands of potentially
unfriendly and unstable foreign nations, we spent $475 billion on
foreign oil in 2008 alone. That's money taken out of our economy and
sent to foreign nations, and it will continue to drain the life from
our economy for as long as we fail to stop the bleeding.
Projected over the next 10 years the cost will be $10 trillion - it
will be the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind.
Can't we just produce more oil?
America uses a lot of oil. Every day 85 million barrels of oil are
produced around the world. And 21 million of those are used here in
the United States.
That's 25% of the world's oil demand. Used by just 4% of the world's
population.
Can't we just produce more oil?
Consider this: America imports 12 million barrels a day, and Saudi
Arabia only produces 9 million a day. Is there really more
undiscovered oil here than in all of Saudi Arabia?
World oil production peaked in 2005. Despite growing demand and an
unprecedented increase in prices, oil production has fallen over the
last three years. Oil is getting more expensive to produce, harder to
find and there just isn't enough of it to keep up with demand.
The simple truth is that cheap and easy oil is gone.
http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/
11/26/2009 8:26:10 PM
Recommend (0)
truthseeker1 wrote:
khaley09 Going back to horse and buggy and grist mills along the river
would probably cut emissions even further.
TS: Nope, needs a high tech solution. too many people --
' Afraid we need to go FORWARD, not BACKWARDS in time.
11/26/2009 8:21:25 PM
Recommend (1)
khaley09 wrote:
Going back to horse and buggy and grist mills along the river would
probably cut emissions even further.
11/26/2009 8:15:05 PM
Recommend (0)
egw7777 wrote:
Obama needs to wake up. This global warming, climate change has been
proven to be junk science. Besides that we cannot afford for millions
of more people to loose their jobs & all Americans electric bills to
go up. Do they think they can keep putting more & more on the American
people along with taxes & this ridiculous healthcare bill that is
going to cost us more for less coverage. I think England knows now
since they would not let Gore's propaganda climate DVD be shown to
their students as they found 9 untruths in it. Kerry must be getting
some kind of kick back from it as he is pushing it so hard & I thought
Graham had told his constituents he would stop supporting it but then
went back on to supporting it again. He keeps flip flopping. That
enviorment bull is what helped California to almost go bankrupt.If
they do not wake up & realize they have got to cut taxes & stop all
this spending that 2010 they are gone.That is the only way we are
going to get jobs back. Let capitalism go back to work. They cannot
keep running our country down, the people down & giving out money like
for cash for clunkers, & tarp money & get out of the business of
trying to run corporations & tell them how much they can pay their
CEO's & charge the rich & the large corporations more taxes telling
people that they will pay for all these programs. Most people are not
so stupid to not know that they just raise the price of their products
& we the middle class pay for it anyway. They really think we are
stupid. I heard the other day that Kerry was going to have to have a
hip replacement. Good thing he has good insurance & is rich & isn't on
Obamacare. Otherwise they would tell him he is too old to spend that
much money on & send him home with pain pills.
11/26/2009 8:11:22 PM
Recommend (4)
truthseeker1 wrote:
to alance: actually there are multiple areas to reduce global warming
gases, when people switch to panic mode:
#1 technically Livestock (cows, sheep, chickens, pigs, and goats) are
responsible for 18 percent of the green house gases that cause global
warming. Cows are the biggest component of the livestock problem.
#2 The 18% is made up not only directly from the livestock ( belching
from cows, etc) , but also INdirectly from: Burning fuel to produce
fertilizer to grow feed, to produce meat and to transport it - and
clearing vegetation for grazing - produces 9 per cent of all emissions
of carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas. And their wind and
manure emit more than one third of emissions of another, methane,
which warms the world 20 times faster than carbon dioxide.
#3 CO2 is still responsible for two-thirds of the **additional**
warming caused by all the greenhouse gases emitted as a result of
human activity in the last few hundred years. (Note it is counted in
the livestock 18% where it deals with production and transportation of
cows)
But it is true, that SAVINGS in the agriculture area from going
vegetarian could offset some of the CO2 emitted from cars,
electricity, etc.
Not to mention that there are OTHER major environmental problems from
livestock (not related to global warming
-- ACID RAIN: Livestock also produces more than 100 other polluting
gases, including more than two-thirds of the world's emissions of
ammonia, a main cause of acid rain.
-- DEFORESTATION: Ranching, the report adds, is "the major driver of
deforestation" worldwide, and overgrazing is turning a fifth of all
pastures and ranges into desert
-- WATER USAGE. Cows also soak up vast amounts of water: it takes a
staggering 990 litres of water to produce one liter of milk.
-- POLLUTED WATER: And the pesticides, antibiotics and hormones used
to treat them get into drinking water and endanger human health.
-- The pollution washes down to the sea, killing coral reefs and
creating "dead zones" devoid of life. One is up to 21,000s sq km, in
the Gulf of Mexico, where much of the waste from US beef production is
carried down the Mississippi.
-- OTHER Wastes from feedlots and fertilizers used to grow their feed
over-nourish water, causing weeds to choke all other life.
11/26/2009 7:59:13 PM
Recommend (0)
alance wrote:
We need a wholesale change in our national building codes to maximize
energy savings for residential construction.
We should mandate building contractors install leak proof, energy
efficient windows, adequate insulation, reflective film for windows
and reflective coatings for roofs.
We should mandate solar hot water and heating. Half the energy we use
for heating and air conditioning is wasted. We need high tech, energy
efficient heat pumps.
National building codes for energy efficiency would do more for long
term savings and environmental health than taxing carbon.
11/26/2009 7:51:49 PM
Recommend (0)
jacquescustodian2 wrote:
Study: Arctic Sea Ice Melting Faster Than Expected
by Randolph E. Schmid
WASHINGTON - Arctic sea ice is melting so fast most of it could be
gone in 30 years. A new analysis of changing conditions in the region,
using complex computer models of weather and climate, says conditions
that had been forecast by the end of the century could occur much
sooner.
In this July 19, 2007 file photo, an iceberg melts off Ammassalik
Island in Eastern Greenland. (John McConnico / AP) A change in the
amount of ice is important because the white surface reflects sunlight
back into space. When ice is replaced by dark ocean water that
sunlight can be absorbed, warming the water and increasing the warming
of the planet.
The finding adds to concern about climate change caused by human
activities such as burning fossil fuels, a problem that has begun
receiving more attention in the Obama administration and is part of
the G20 discussions under way in London
__________________
Three leading scientists who on Tuesday released a report documenting
the accelerating pace of climate change said the scandal that erupted
last week over hacked emails from climate scientists is nothing more
than a "smear campaign" aimed at sabotaging December climate talks in
Copenhagen.
"We're facing an effort by special interests who are trying to confuse
the public," said Richard Somerville, Distinguished Professor Emeritus
at Scripps Institution of Oceanography and a lead author of the UN
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
Dissenters see action to slow global warming as "a threat," he said.
11/26/2009 7:50:43 PM
Recommend (0)
truthseeker1 wrote:
AtlasShrugged said: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6425269/The-real-climate-cha
“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early
21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a
globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree
and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly exaggerated
computer predictions combined into implausible chains of inference,
proceeded to contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.”
===================================
TS: I see you are an Ayn Rand Libertarian (ie essentially all
government regulations are evil) type.
TS says: Tsk Tsk Your source is Telegraph,UK a hard right wing paper,
known to cherry pick and distort the truth to the point of a lie (or
at least an urban legend)
Proof: January 2005 article by Telegraph (see accessible on the
internet)
<<'If you don't take a job as a prostitute, we can stop your benefits'
By Clare Chapman
Published: 12:01AM GMT 30 Jan 2005
A 25-year-old waitress who turned down a job providing "sexual
services'' at a brothel in Berlin [Germany] faces possible cuts to her
unemployment benefit under laws introduced this year. />>
The distortions were so egregious, even Snopes.com listed the article
as an URBAN LEGEND,
Snopes shows step by step below how this story was invented by
Telegraph for "ideological" reasons.
http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/brothel.asp
It providing an example of how Telegraph had manipulated a
hypothetical into a truth showing it was a case where
<<like a game of "telephone," a story was sensationalized for
political purposes and passed from one news source to the next, and
somewhere in the rewriting and translating process what was originally
discussed as a mere hypothetical possibility has now been reported as
a factual occurrence. />>
That is what I see ... again... cherry picked lines by Telegraph
without giving the context. i.e. TRASH.
11/26/2009 7:15:33 PM
Recommend (0)
truthseeker1 wrote:
For those interested in the SCIENCE of global warming -- pick up a
general SCIENCE magazine like Discover, Scientific American,
NewScientist, Science, etc.
There is a strong consensus by the 10,000 climatologists around the
world that global warming is a serious potential threat by the next
generation:
To see rebuttal to many of the common skeptical misinformation on
global warming, I would recommend
1) NewScientist's online
CLIMATE CHANGE -- A GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html
2) or SKEPTICAL SCIENCE
http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
or 3) Grist
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php
Cheers. Surely there are some people out there who look outside of
Rush Limbaugh-types and FOX for their science news sources????
11/26/2009 7:09:53 PM
Recommend (0)
weidenhof4 wrote:
The United States is not an industrialized country. Factories have
closed, entire industries have moved to China and other Asian
Counries. Example Steel City, Pittsburgh's main industry is a gambling
casino. We are asked to reduce emissions, reduce electric and water
usage, however new sports arenas are constructed or old venues
expanded, a major waste of energy. NASCAR, baseball, football,
professional. college, high school, middle school, night games use
huge amounts of energy. Transportation to the various arenas expends
tremendous amounts of energy, all contributing to Green House Gas
emissions. Obama and his political allies, like John Kerry apparently
didn't know these thousands of sports teams waste energy. No other
country has the vast sports economy like the United States, in fact
many of the teams in the U.S. has Green Card carrying players.
Sacrifice, if Global Warming is as threatening as reported in the
press, it is time we explore, Why colleges that proclaim Global
Warming is reaching catastrophic proportions, continue to build new
areans, expand buildings,and uproot communities. Th Obama
administration plans to nationalize health care, requiring massive
construction of buildings, offices and roads. I am asked to lower the
temperature in my home, while a football stadium has a heated playing
field to counteract inclement weather, reportedly caused by Global
Warming.
11/26/2009 7:05:31 PM
Recommend (4)
truthseeker1 wrote:
Gee -- where is the concern by the consensus of the top world renown
scientific organization that global warming is on a trend to be a
serious threat to the planet by the next generation?
FACTS:
"Since 2007 no scientific body of national or international standing
has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-
committal positions."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_consensus
Specifically, the "consensus" about anthropogenic climate change
entails the following:
1) the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the
range of natural variability;
2) the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of
the greenhouse gas CO2;
3) the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
4) if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will
continue; and
5) a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame
represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.
These conclusions have been explicitly endorsed by:
the following list of scientific organization with international
standing in the sciences (ie who have issued statements in support of
global warming):
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia Academy
Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
In addition to these national academies, the following institutions
specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have
endorsed these conclusions:
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
These organizations also agree with the consensus:
The Earth Institute at Columbia
University Northwestern University
University of Akureyri University of Iceland
Iceland GeoSurvey National Centre for Atmospheric Science
UK Climate Group Climate Institute Climate Trust
Wuppertal Institute for Climate Environment and Energy
Royal Meteorological Society Community
Research and Development Centre Nigeria
Geological Society of London
Geological Society of America
UK Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
American Association for the Advancement of Science
National Research Council
Juelich Research Centre
US White House US Council on Environmental Quality
US Office of Science Technology Policy
US National Climatic Data Center
US Department of Commerce
US National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service
The National Academy of Engineering
The Institute of Medicine
UK Natural Environment Research
Council Office of Science and Technology Policy
Council on Environmental Quality National Economic Council
The National Academy of Engineering
The Institute of Medicine
UK Natural Environment Research Council
Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology Engineers
Australia American Chemical Society
The Weather Channel
National Geographic
11/26/2009 7:02:38 PM
Recommend (0)
jmayfield68 wrote:
Has any loony liberal bothered to:
… calculate the impact of these reductions on the U.S. economy?
… told the American people what that impact will be?
… and explained why it’s okay for us to take it in the ear while China
and India continue their irresponsible, polluting ways?
11/26/2009 6:49:50 PM
Recommend (3)
alance wrote:
I have been an environmentalist my whole life, but as a climate
rationalist I can not buy scare tactics. They are totally
counterproductive. I reject fears of rising sea levels, melting
glaciers and demonizing the oil industry and climate skeptics.
Rampant deforestation is far more dangerous to the health of this
planet. We should be urging nations to plant more trees and use
substitutes for wood whenever possible.
We should utilize all low tech & low expense measures first before we
demand nations spend billions and trillions for high tech & high
expense measures.
11/26/2009 6:31:10 PM
Recommend (2)
yankee11 wrote:
The IPCC is nothing more than an appendage attached to the rear
crevice of the UN. Corruption is in their blood.
11/26/2009 6:28:25 PM
Recommend (4)
Commentschrisbrown12 wrote:
Temperature trends are not just a matter of graphics that can be
manipulated but of accurate messurements. The GRACE satellites have
indicated ice loss in both the arctic and antarctic zones which is
leading already to dramatic shifts as ice melts. It does no good to
deny that this is happening and so the doubters fall back to their
next line of defense: i.e. it's all a natural process and that it has
been hotter in the past. If you go back more than 100 thousand years
before the current era, alright but who wants to see half of the world
underwater?
When a publication like Science from the official body of academic
scientists runs article after article proving links between
accelerated CO2 concentration levels and melting glaciers, how can
this be doubted. The last US administration deliberately manipulated
their measurements to reassure the energy lobby. That has since
stopped. Instead the lonely voices of a Senator from Oklahoma attacks
the current administration and almost the entire scientific community.
Could it be that a representative of a state like Oklahoma (and let's
not forget Alaska and Texas) could have an agenda that is in the
interests of oil companies?
The last trench for the climate-change deniers is to throw their hands
up and say, it's too late anyway and who needs places like Florida.
The fact that Sen. Imhoff is crowing about the hacked data from the
British University is significant. He is promoting law-breaking and
knows full well that stealing a copy of someone's private
correspondence is illegal.
I can't be bothered to respond to the wrong-headed who refuse to take
the time to inform themselves about Methane in Scandanavia or the
disappearing glaciers in Alaska and Glacier Park.
Chris Brown in Hamburg
11/27/2009 7:28:12 AM
Recommend (0)
dennisbaker2003 wrote:
Dennis Earl Baker
103 - 66 Duncan avenue west
Penticton British Columbia V2A6Z3
Phone/Fax 778-476-3673
25/11/2009
The Copenhagen Diagnosis, 2009: Updating the world on the Latest
Climate Science. Has again indicated urgency in action is imperative.
Here's my solution and immediate areas of impact.
dennisb...@hotmail.com
RE : The solution to climate change.
( human excrement + nuclear waste = hydrogen )
The USA discharges Trillions of tons of sewage annually, sufficient
quantity to sustain electrical generation requirements of the USA.
Redirecting existing sewage systems to containment facilities would be
a considerable infrastructure modification project.
It is the intense radiation that causes the conversion of organic
material into hydrogen, therefore what some would consider the most
dangerous waste because of its radiation would be the best for this
utilization.
I believe the combination of clean water and clean air, will increase
the life expectancy of humans.
The four main areas of concern globally are energy, food,water and
air!
The radiologic decomposing of organic materials generates Hydrogen
By using our sewage as a source of energy we also get clean air ,
clean water, and no ethanol use of food stocks. Eat food first, create
energy after.
Simply replacing the fossil fuel powered electrical generating
facilities with these plants, would reduce CO2 emissions, and CH4
emissions, to acceptable levels, globally.
This would require a completely new reactor facility capable of
converting human waste into hydrogen and then burning the hydrogen to
generate electricity on site.
This solution is sellable to citizens because of all the side issue
solutions. I've been able to convince most simply with concept of
using nuclear waste to a productive end.
Superbugs ( antibiotic resistant ) apparently are created in the
waters sewage is discharged into, which is one more side issue
solution.
Anything not converting into hydrogen will potentially be disposed of
using Transmutation.
The water emitted from hydrogen burning will have uses in leaching
heavy metals from other contaminated site clean ups.
I thank you for your consideration, please feel free to contact me
anytime.
Dennis Baker
11/27/2009 1:35:25 AM
Recommend (0)
truthseeker1 wrote:
joshuasweet: And still the political groups are going to Copenhagen,
to make every one return to the 1900 levels of carbon emissions the
truth is out there but they have ignored these truths
TS: that's not what the WP article said. So what is your real source
here? Rush Limbaugh???
TS adds: See what's MISSING in your post is whether the SCIENCE is
saying there is a real problem with global warming@!
Since you use Wikipedia - -why not look up what it actually says on
global warming
<<National and international science academies and scientific
societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular
on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or
endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position
of January 2001 that states:
An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a
warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new
and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last
50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]
Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing
has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-
committal positions />>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_consensus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
11/26/2009 9:22:09 PM
Recommend (1)
textonyc wrote:
Obama and his crowds continue in their attempt to destroy america.
Goverment health care tax, War Tax, Stimulus/Porkulus and now Al
Gore's Cap and Tax as he and GE is already selling carbon credits.
How many dems are following this pied piper? The democrats will soon
realizes that a political fool
is one who does not listhe to his constituents.
11/26/2009 8:58:26 PM
Recommend (5)
joshuasweet wrote:
And still the political groups are going to Copenhagen, to make every
one return to the 1900 levels of carbon emissions the truth is out
there but they have ignored these truths and are planning to go ahead
with the reduction of carbon emissions by up to 80% with notable
exceptions being excluded from the required reductions' like China
with emissions over 6,000 million metric tons. Mexico produced more
than 430m tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2006, making it the 13th largest
emitter in the world. The use of the per capita CO2 emissions as a
rule of measure is sort of lop sided when you consider that the
population density of the populace regions makes the statistical
reference unacceptable, it is like dividing a pie into shares the more
people the smaller the share, thus the per capita CO2 for five million
is less than that for one million, and thus statically the million
will have a burden a lot higher than the five million all be it that
the five million will produce more CO2.
Something very wrong is going on here, and it amounts to treasonable
behavior on many of those involved. And Still the lie is believed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Countries_by_population_density.svg
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/11/26/us/politics/26climate-graphic.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mopitt_first_year_carbon_monoxide.jpg
11/26/2009 8:40:46 PM
Recommend (4)
truthseeker1 wrote:
weidenhof: The United States is not an industrialized country.
Factories have closed, entire industries have moved to China and other
Asian Counries. Example Steel City, Pittsburgh's main industry is a
gambling casino. We are asked to reduce emissions, reduce electric and
water usage, however new sports arenas are constructed or old venues
expanded, a major waste of energy.
ts: You describe todays' POLITICS, not the SCIENCE.
Since when was our current political situation -- rational??
And I agree with you too that while we need to do provide some level
of healthcare for the poor, unless we cut out the costs from the
special interests (which the Dems in Congress have not) then the plan
is simply not financially sustainable for the future.
There is really a consensus on global warming -- by the scientists You
are right -- no one is taking it seriously as it is predicted to
accelerate into the future.
11/26/2009 8:33:59 PM
Recommend (0)
truthseeker1 wrote:
Egw: Obama needs to wake up. This global warming, climate change has
been proven to be junk science/
Ts: So what non-scientific Right Wing sources are YOU listening to0?
Tons of them out there. Exxon/Mobil is helping funding some Others are
just Libertarian/Hard Right Conservative in political outlook (all
regulation is evil)
Disagree?
CHALLENGE: Show me one world renown scientific agency that says
climate change is junk science please.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Egw: Besides that we cannot afford for millions of more people to
loose their jobs & all Americans electric bills to go up.
TS: You are living in the past, egw.
We can’t afford NOT to get off our oil habit.
I’ll let Boone Pickins explain it to you:
<<America is addicted to foreign oil.
It's an addiction that threatens our economy, our environment and our
national security. It touches every part of our daily lives and ties
our hands as a nation and a people.
The addiction has worsened for decades and now it's reached a point of
crisis.
In 1970, we imported 24% of our oil.
Today it's nearly 70% and growing.
Oil prices have come down from the staggering highs of last summer,
but lower prices have not reduced our dependence on foreign oil or
lessened the risks to either our economy or our security.
If we are depending on foreign sources for nearly 70% of our oil, we
are in a precarious position in an unpredictable world.
In additional to putting our security in the hands of potentially
unfriendly and unstable foreign nations, we spent $475 billion on
foreign oil in 2008 alone. That's money taken out of our economy and
sent to foreign nations, and it will continue to drain the life from
our economy for as long as we fail to stop the bleeding.
Projected over the next 10 years the cost will be $10 trillion - it
will be the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind.
Can't we just produce more oil?
America uses a lot of oil. Every day 85 million barrels of oil are
produced around the world. And 21 million of those are used here in
the United States.
That's 25% of the world's oil demand. Used by just 4% of the world's
population.
Can't we just produce more oil?
Consider this: America imports 12 million barrels a day, and Saudi
Arabia only produces 9 million a day. Is there really more
undiscovered oil here than in all of Saudi Arabia?
World oil production peaked in 2005. Despite growing demand and an
unprecedented increase in prices, oil production has fallen over the
last three years. Oil is getting more expensive to produce, harder to
find and there just isn't enough of it to keep up with demand.
The simple truth is that cheap and easy oil is gone.
http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/
11/26/2009 8:26:10 PM
Recommend (0)
truthseeker1 wrote:
khaley09 Going back to horse and buggy and grist mills along the river
would probably cut emissions even further.
TS: Nope, needs a high tech solution. too many people --
' Afraid we need to go FORWARD, not BACKWARDS in time.
11/26/2009 8:21:25 PM
Recommend (1)
khaley09 wrote:
Going back to horse and buggy and grist mills along the river would
probably cut emissions even further.
11/26/2009 8:15:05 PM
Recommend (0)
egw7777 wrote:
Obama needs to wake up. This global warming, climate change has been
proven to be junk science. Besides that we cannot afford for millions
of more people to loose their jobs & all Americans electric bills to
go up. Do they think they can keep putting more & more on the American
people along with taxes & this ridiculous healthcare bill that is
going to cost us more for less coverage. I think England knows now
since they would not let Gore's propaganda climate DVD be shown to
their students as they found 9 untruths in it. Kerry must be getting
some kind of kick back from it as he is pushing it so hard & I thought
Graham had told his constituents he would stop supporting it but then
went back on to supporting it again. He keeps flip flopping. That
enviorment bull is what helped California to almost go bankrupt.If
they do not wake up & realize they have got to cut taxes & stop all
this spending that 2010 they are gone.That is the only way we are
going to get jobs back. Let capitalism go back to work. They cannot
keep running our country down, the people down & giving out money like
for cash for clunkers, & tarp money & get out of the business of
trying to run corporations & tell them how much they can pay their
CEO's & charge the rich & the large corporations more taxes telling
people that they will pay for all these programs. Most people are not
so stupid to not know that they just raise the price of their products
& we the middle class pay for it anyway. They really think we are
stupid. I heard the other day that Kerry was going to have to have a
hip replacement. Good thing he has good insurance & is rich & isn't on
Obamacare. Otherwise they would tell him he is too old to spend that
much money on & send him home with pain pills.
11/26/2009 8:11:22 PM
Recommend (4)
truthseeker1 wrote:
to alance: actually there are multiple areas to reduce global warming
gases, when people switch to panic mode:
#1 technically Livestock (cows, sheep, chickens, pigs, and goats) are
responsible for 18 percent of the green house gases that cause global
warming. Cows are the biggest component of the livestock problem.
#2 The 18% is made up not only directly from the livestock ( belching
from cows, etc) , but also INdirectly from: Burning fuel to produce
fertilizer to grow feed, to produce meat and to transport it - and
clearing vegetation for grazing - produces 9 per cent of all emissions
of carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas. And their wind and
manure emit more than one third of emissions of another, methane,
which warms the world 20 times faster than carbon dioxide.
#3 CO2 is still responsible for two-thirds of the **additional**
warming caused by all the greenhouse gases emitted as a result of
human activity in the last few hundred years. (Note it is counted in
the livestock 18% where it deals with production and transportation of
cows)
But it is true, that SAVINGS in the agriculture area from going
vegetarian could offset some of the CO2 emitted from cars,
electricity, etc.
Not to mention that there are OTHER major environmental problems from
livestock (not related to global warming
-- ACID RAIN: Livestock also produces more than 100 other polluting
gases, including more than two-thirds of the world's emissions of
ammonia, a main cause of acid rain.
-- DEFORESTATION: Ranching, the report adds, is "the major driver of
deforestation" worldwide, and overgrazing is turning a fifth of all
pastures and ranges into desert
-- WATER USAGE. Cows also soak up vast amounts of water: it takes a
staggering 990 litres of water to produce one liter of milk.
-- POLLUTED WATER: And the pesticides, antibiotics and hormones used
to treat them get into drinking water and endanger human health.
-- The pollution washes down to the sea, killing coral reefs and
creating "dead zones" devoid of life. One is up to 21,000s sq km, in
the Gulf of Mexico, where much of the waste from US beef production is
carried down the Mississippi.
-- OTHER Wastes from feedlots and fertilizers used to grow their feed
over-nourish water, causing weeds to choke all other life.
11/26/2009 7:59:13 PM
Recommend (0)
alance wrote:
We need a wholesale change in our national building codes to maximize
energy savings for residential construction.
We should mandate building contractors install leak proof, energy
efficient windows, adequate insulation, reflective film for windows
and reflective coatings for roofs.
We should mandate solar hot water and heating. Half the energy we use
for heating and air conditioning is wasted. We need high tech, energy
efficient heat pumps.
National building codes for energy efficiency would do more for long
term savings and environmental health than taxing carbon.
11/26/2009 7:51:49 PM
Recommend (0)
jacquescustodian2 wrote:
Study: Arctic Sea Ice Melting Faster Than Expected
by Randolph E. Schmid
WASHINGTON - Arctic sea ice is melting so fast most of it could be
gone in 30 years. A new analysis of changing conditions in the region,
using complex computer models of weather and climate, says conditions
that had been forecast by the end of the century could occur much
sooner.
In this July 19, 2007 file photo, an iceberg melts off Ammassalik
Island in Eastern Greenland. (John McConnico / AP) A change in the
amount of ice is important because the white surface reflects sunlight
back into space. When ice is replaced by dark ocean water that
sunlight can be absorbed, warming the water and increasing the warming
of the planet.
The finding adds to concern about climate change caused by human
activities such as burning fossil fuels, a problem that has begun
receiving more attention in the Obama administration and is part of
the G20 discussions under way in London
__________________
Three leading scientists who on Tuesday released a report documenting
the accelerating pace of climate change said the scandal that erupted
last week over hacked emails from climate scientists is nothing more
than a "smear campaign" aimed at sabotaging December climate talks in
Copenhagen.
"We're facing an effort by special interests who are trying to confuse
the public," said Richard Somerville, Distinguished Professor Emeritus
at Scripps Institution of Oceanography and a lead author of the UN
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
Dissenters see action to slow global warming as "a threat," he said.
11/26/2009 7:50:43 PM
Recommend (0)
truthseeker1 wrote:
AtlasShrugged said: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6425269/The-real-climate-cha
“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early
21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a
globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree
and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly exaggerated
computer predictions combined into implausible chains of inference,
proceeded to contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.”
===================================
TS: I see you are an Ayn Rand Libertarian (ie essentially all
government regulations are evil) type.
TS says: Tsk Tsk Your source is Telegraph,UK a hard right wing paper,
known to cherry pick and distort the truth to the point of a lie (or
at least an urban legend)
Proof: January 2005 article by Telegraph (see accessible on the
internet)
<<'If you don't take a job as a prostitute, we can stop your benefits'
By Clare Chapman
Published: 12:01AM GMT 30 Jan 2005
A 25-year-old waitress who turned down a job providing "sexual
services'' at a brothel in Berlin [Germany] faces possible cuts to her
unemployment benefit under laws introduced this year. />>
The distortions were so egregious, even Snopes.com listed the article
as an URBAN LEGEND,
Snopes shows step by step below how this story was invented by
Telegraph for "ideological" reasons.
http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/brothel.asp
It providing an example of how Telegraph had manipulated a
hypothetical into a truth showing it was a case where
<<like a game of "telephone," a story was sensationalized for
political purposes and passed from one news source to the next, and
somewhere in the rewriting and translating process what was originally
discussed as a mere hypothetical possibility has now been reported as
a factual occurrence. />>
That is what I see ... again... cherry picked lines by Telegraph
without giving the context. i.e. TRASH.
11/26/2009 7:15:33 PM
Recommend (0)
truthseeker1 wrote:
For those interested in the SCIENCE of global warming -- pick up a
general SCIENCE magazine like Discover, Scientific American,
NewScientist, Science, etc.
There is a strong consensus by the 10,000 climatologists around the
world that global warming is a serious potential threat by the next
generation:
To see rebuttal to many of the common skeptical misinformation on
global warming, I would recommend
1) NewScientist's online
CLIMATE CHANGE -- A GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html
2) or SKEPTICAL SCIENCE
http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
or 3) Grist
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php
Cheers. Surely there are some people out there who look outside of
Rush Limbaugh-types and FOX for their science news sources????
11/26/2009 7:09:53 PM
Recommend (0)
weidenhof4 wrote:
The United States is not an industrialized country. Factories have
closed, entire industries have moved to China and other Asian
Counries. Example Steel City, Pittsburgh's main industry is a gambling
casino. We are asked to reduce emissions, reduce electric and water
usage, however new sports arenas are constructed or old venues
expanded, a major waste of energy. NASCAR, baseball, football,
professional. college, high school, middle school, night games use
huge amounts of energy. Transportation to the various arenas expends
tremendous amounts of energy, all contributing to Green House Gas
emissions. Obama and his political allies, like John Kerry apparently
didn't know these thousands of sports teams waste energy. No other
country has the vast sports economy like the United States, in fact
many of the teams in the U.S. has Green Card carrying players.
Sacrifice, if Global Warming is as threatening as reported in the
press, it is time we explore, Why colleges that proclaim Global
Warming is reaching catastrophic proportions, continue to build new
areans, expand buildings,and uproot communities. Th Obama
administration plans to nationalize health care, requiring massive
construction of buildings, offices and roads. I am asked to lower the
temperature in my home, while a football stadium has a heated playing
field to counteract inclement weather, reportedly caused by Global
Warming.
11/26/2009 7:05:31 PM
Recommend (4)
truthseeker1 wrote:
Gee -- where is the concern by the consensus of the top world renown
scientific organization that global warming is on a trend to be a
serious threat to the planet by the next generation?
FACTS:
"Since 2007 no scientific body of national or international standing
has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-
committal positions."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_consensus
Specifically, the "consensus" about anthropogenic climate change
entails the following:
1) the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the
range of natural variability;
2) the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of
the greenhouse gas CO2;
3) the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
4) if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will
continue; and
5) a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame
represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.
These conclusions have been explicitly endorsed by:
the following list of scientific organization with international
standing in the sciences (ie who have issued statements in support of
global warming):
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia Academy
Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
In addition to these national academies, the following institutions
specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have
endorsed these conclusions:
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
These organizations also agree with the consensus:
The Earth Institute at Columbia
University Northwestern University
University of Akureyri University of Iceland
Iceland GeoSurvey National Centre for Atmospheric Science
UK Climate Group Climate Institute Climate Trust
Wuppertal Institute for Climate Environment and Energy
Royal Meteorological Society Community
Research and Development Centre Nigeria
Geological Society of London
Geological Society of America
UK Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
American Association for the Advancement of Science
National Research Council
Juelich Research Centre
US White House US Council on Environmental Quality
US Office of Science Technology Policy
US National Climatic Data Center
US Department of Commerce
US National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service
The National Academy of Engineering
The Institute of Medicine
UK Natural Environment Research
Council Office of Science and Technology Policy
Council on Environmental Quality National Economic Council
The National Academy of Engineering
The Institute of Medicine
UK Natural Environment Research Council
Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology Engineers
Australia American Chemical Society
The Weather Channel
National Geographic
11/26/2009 7:02:38 PM
Recommend (0)
jmayfield68 wrote:
Has any loony liberal bothered to:
… calculate the impact of these reductions on the U.S. economy?
… told the American people what that impact will be?
… and explained why it’s okay for us to take it in the ear while China
and India continue their irresponsible, polluting ways?
11/26/2009 6:49:50 PM
Recommend (3)
alance wrote:
I have been an environmentalist my whole life, but as a climate
rationalist I can not buy scare tactics. They are totally
counterproductive. I reject fears of rising sea levels, melting
glaciers and demonizing the oil industry and climate skeptics.
Rampant deforestation is far more dangerous to the health of this
planet. We should be urging nations to plant more trees and use
substitutes for wood whenever possible.
We should utilize all low tech & low expense measures first before we
demand nations spend billions and trillions for high tech & high
expense measures.
11/26/2009 6:31:10 PM
Recommend (2)
yankee11 wrote:
The IPCC is nothing more than an appendage attached to the rear
crevice of the UN. Corruption is in their blood.
11/26/2009 6:28:25 PM
Recommend (4)
KABOOKEY wrote:
If Saint O wants to do something about global warming he could do it
right now without ever leaving the WH. Just instruct all government
agnecy's to purchase hybrid or electirc or alt power vehicles for non-
essential cars. He could push that right now and there by pushing a
change away from oil and to alt fuels. Al Gore could have done it. The
post office could be running on electric cars right now. Step up to
the plate Saint O and spare the speech and start the actions.
11/26/2009 11:47:07 AM
Recommend (1)
bmadden3 wrote:
Glen Beck said that if Al Gore cut his home enegy bills in half, he'd
still be using 10X a normal household.
11/26/2009 11:45:19 AM
Recommend (3)
alpeia wrote:
The former British police officer who wants to bring down Barack Obama
on birth guardian.co.uk - Obama as a child with his mother.
Photograph: AP Neil Sankey has spent his life investigating organised
crimes. As a former British police officer with almost 20 years
experience, he was seconded to elite units of Scotland Yard through
most of the ...
Another Prominent Scientist Calls CRU Scientists “Criminals” A
prominent scientist has called for criminal prosecutions to be brought
against the UN affiliated scientists involved in what has been termed
“ClimateGate”.
DRUDGEREPORT: Obama to attend beginning of UN climate meeting...
Climategate: 'Greatest scandal in modern science'...
Scientist in climate change 'cover-up' storm told to quit...
Call for Congressional investigation...
Paper: Junk science exposed among climate-change believers...
Obama Shatters Spending Record for First-Year Presidents...
GALLUP: Obama's Approval Slide Finds Whites Down to 39% and 45%
overall...
Go to following pages for above links:
http://www.albertpeia.com/currentopics2ndqtr10108.htm
http://www.albertpeia.com/wallstreetlunacy2ndqtr10108.htm
http://www.albertpeia.com
http://www.albertpeia.com/alresume65393.htm
11/26/2009 11:45:12 AM
Recommend (1)
bmadden3 wrote:
Rush Limbaugh says that eskimos have requested more fuel oil for a
colder than expected winter.
11/26/2009 11:41:00 AM
Recommend (3)
highwaybluesoccer wrote:
He will go anywhere to get out of D.C.
11/26/2009 11:40:23 AM
Recommend (3)
Independent109 wrote:
The Northwest Passage has been navigated before. 1903-05: Roald
Amundsen successfully completed the first navigation of the Northwest
Passage aboard GJØA.
The RCMP schooner St. Roch traveled the Northwest passage in both
directions in 1928.
It is shown on ancient maps as the Straits of Anian. The Roman warming
period and the Medieval Warming period were 2-6C hotter than today. A
path would have been open at that time.
Due to cooling in recent years, Arctic regained 28% of its ice over
the past year. The Passage is closing again.
11/26/2009 11:22:51 AM
Recommend (4)
segeny wrote:
Obummer could start to reduce hot air emissions by cutting back on his
teleprompter speeches - - and telling Joe to give his mouth a rest - -
and don't forget Piglosi.
11/26/2009 11:17:49 AM
Recommend (6)
jacquescustodian2 wrote:
From Today's ZAMAN: Nichole Pope, sept 18.
Mariners have been seeking a direct navigation passage between Asia
and Europe for centuries. Many adventurous sailors have died while
trying to negotiate their way through sheets of ice and icebergs in
the frozen waters of the Arctic.
Global warming has now caused the ice to retreat enough to open a
corridor, allowing the two German vessels to sail through escorted for
added safety by Russian nuclear icebreakers.
Although ice floes and the short summer season make it a limited
option, the advantages for shipping companies of using the Northeast
Passage are evident. By avoiding the long southern detour and the
crossing of the Suez Canal, this Arctic route shortens the distance
between Asia and Europe by some 4,500 miles. The head of the Beluga
group reported that it translates into a saving in fuel of over
$90,000 per ship.
11/26/2009 11:16:26 AM
Recommend (0)
jacquescustodian2 wrote:
By ABC Moscow correspondent Scott Bevan
Posted Wed Sep 16, 2009 3:31pm AEST
Updated Wed Sep 16, 2009 4:46pm AEST
The passage seemed out of bounds to commercial shipping because of its
former ice cover. For centuries a shipping passage across the top of
the Arctic has fired the imagination of explorers and been seen as
crucial by military strategists.
Yet this famous stretch of water seemed out of bounds to international
commercial shipping because of its ice cover.
But that ice has been melting, and two German merchant ships have just
negotiated the passage, sailing from Asia and bound for The
Netherlands, via northern Siberia.
11/26/2009 11:12:04 AM
Recommend (0)
Bender2 wrote:
Science does not know what is going to happen to the environment 100
years from now. They are mentally ill to believe they can predict
it . . . nuts in a nut house. We should not crash our economy for
them. Our politicians are only interested in wrestling more freedom
from We the People and we will begin reversing that in 2010.
Obama is going for an illicit encounter with European sex workers.
11/26/2009 11:07:51 AM
Recommend (4)
angie12106 wrote:
bflat wrote>>>There are a lot of really good scientists, who haven't
agreed with the global warming hysterics going on, who deserve an
apology.
Because of one excerpt from an email?? jeeeeez
Many of those scientists are PAID by the Oil & Gas industry to write
articles favorable to the industry.
Even Fox News' doctor is affiliated with lobbyists spending ZILLIONS
on anti-health care reform messages. Thankfully, Rachael Maddow outed
him!
Gee - wonder why the Fox News "doctor" is so against health care
reform.
11/26/2009 11:07:06 AM
Recommend (1)
jacquescustodian2 wrote:
dwpeters wrote:
Could someone please have a look at the actual temperature data,
instead of listening to the dire predictions? The raw data shows that
temperatures aren't rising. The models failed, but AGW advocates can't
back off because it's become personal for them. Time for a reality
check, folks.
11/26/2009 10:48:21 AM
__________________________________
This is the kind of comment that is perplexing, because it isn't
important to look at ANY data, when you can watch the ships cruising
through the Northwest Passage for the first time in history. You don't
need data to see OPEN WATER. For cripes sakes, google the Artic
shipping news. THE ICE IS GOING AWAY.
11/26/2009 11:04:48 AM
Recommend (3)
JerryVaughn wrote:
A couple of timely Claimategate parodies:
Scientists Caught with Pants Down on Special Climate Change Episode of
Cheaters TV Show http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/11/scientists-advocating-man-made-global.html
Police Round Up Notorious Gang "The Hockey Stick CRU" in International
Sting Operation http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/11/police-round-up-notorious-gang-hockey.html
11/26/2009 11:03:02 AM
Recommend (2)
angie12106 wrote:
dwpeters wrote>>>The raw data shows that temperatures aren't rising.
Wow - that completely explains why glaciers ARE MELTING!! - creating
droughts and WATER shortages.
But hey - Limbaugh and Hannity are experts in the field of climate
science - right??
btw - world leaders never gathered to discuss the data on "intelligent
design" that Republicans tried to push as "science" - because it
doesn't exist.
Why do Republicans HATE science??
11/26/2009 10:59:25 AM
Recommend (1)
bmadden3 wrote:
Why is it that progressives have adopted global warming as their
religion? It reminds me of primitive man paying homage to the god of
the sun. As evidence refuting manmade GW mounts, will government
healthcare pay for their therapy?
11/26/2009 10:58:22 AM
Recommend (5)
angie12106 wrote:
"Hide the decline" and "trick" do not mean what the deniers are
claiming!
But the gullible prefer to get their news from Faux News pundits -
rather than CREDIBLE science sites.
/>>>>The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998)
Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction,
and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with
reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear.
Scientists often use the term "trick" to refer to a "a good way to
deal with a problem", rather than something that is "secret", and so
there is nothing problematic in this at all.
As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum
latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records
after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the "divergence problem"–
see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed
in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391,
678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960
part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor
choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the
data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to
understand why this happens.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
It's all toooooo complicated for Limbaugh and Hannity!
lol
11/26/2009 10:51:31 AM
Recommend (2) Report Abuse Discussion Policy
dwpeters wrote:
Could someone please have a look at the actual temperature data,
instead of listening to the dire predictions? The raw data shows that
temperatures aren't rising. The models failed, but AGW advocates can't
back off because it's become personal for them. Time for a reality
check, folks.
11/26/2009 10:48:21 AM
Recommend (6) Repor
afikjames wrote:
This is treason!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40&fmt=18
global warming is a hoax
this is another plan for one world government!
11/26/2009 10:36:23 AM
Recommend (9) Report Abuse Discussion Policy
benglett wrote:
Well, if he reduces emissions like he ends wars, we'll be covered in
pollution equivalent to Mexico City by 2011.
11/26/2009 10:35:20 AM
Recommend (3)
Small_Town_Boredom wrote:
Activist Rips Up Al's Book in Front of His Face
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXHDkcy9Wdo
11/26/2009 10:33:00 AM
Recommend (3)
eatinglowonthefoodchain wrote:
Although the Republican citizens here commenting are rude and not too
bright, I must agree that Obama SHOULD stop smoking. Egads! And I also
agree that Al Gore should make difficult changes too, if he expects us
all to take him seriously. he needs to go vegan; TODAY. Don't worry
Al, there are tons of terrific recipes out there. Each of us,
individually, can do a lot to save the planet if we each give up meat,
and follow up by giving up dairy, as we are able, and planting a tree
annually. Once you get that far you'll find more things you can do
that make you feel like you are making a real change. You are, both
within your body and across the planet.
11/26/2009 10:32:33 AM
Recommend (2)
jacquescustodian2 wrote:
From the Christian Science Monitor, Oct 11, 2009:
Moscow - Mariners have dreamed for centuries of finding a commercially
viable shortcut between Europe and Asia across the top of the world.
Many have died trying, but none succeeded until late September, when
two German freighters slipped quietly into Rotterdam Harbor after
completing a historic month-long journey from Vladivostok, in Russia's
Pacific far east, through the once-impassable Arctic route.
The Bremen-based company that operates the two specially reinforced
cargo ships, the Beluga Fraternity and the Beluga Foresight, that made
the journey said that taking the new route saved 10 days and $300,000
per ship over the usual 11,000 nautical-mile voyage through the Indian
Ocean, the Suez Canal, and the Mediterranean in order to reach the
North Atlantic.
"We are all very proud and delighted to be the first Western shipping
company to... (make this a regular route.)"
_______________________________________
As anyone who actually cares for the truth can find out, actual ships
are steaming through the arguments against global warming. It isn't
arguable data- they are actual iron ships with people and cargo on
board that are sailing where there once was ice. That's not a liberal
myth, or a fake e-mail, it's an international struggle for resources
and shipping routes in a melting Artic environment. Canada today is
exploring scenarios for arming picket ships for fighting the Russians
over shipping, fishing, and mineral rights. That is not myth, that is
reality. That anyone can pretend that these ships, and the national
policies of Russia and Canada do not exist, is idiocy. The American
footprint in the Arctic is much smaller than that of canada and
Siberia; that area north of Alaska. Still, we need to recognize the
truth of the ice melting and face the ramifications of the climate
change in ANWR, the possibility of shipping oil in open water from the
North Slope, etc. Pretending Artic melting doesn't exist is just plain
stupid. You can't have competitive foreign policy based on dumba55
propaganda.
11/26/2009 10:28:02 AM
Recommend (1)
niwGALT wrote:
I hope he stays there and never comes back. Let him lead the dutch,
they're gaga for the marxist way of life.
11/26/2009 10:27:50 AM
Recommend (5)
nobama2012 wrote:
Obama should stop smoking and Gore should stop living his slothenly,
pompous, hypocritical life style. That should solve Global Warming.
11/26/2009 10:14:18 AM
Recommend (5)
jacquescustodian2 wrote:
John Roach
for National Geographic News
September 17, 2007
The famed Northwest Passage—a direct shipping route from Europe to
Asia across the Arctic Ocean—is ice free for the first time since
satellite records began in 1978, scientists reported Friday.
The passage is a shortcut between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans
through the Canadian Arctic. It would save valuable time and fuel for
ships that now travel through the Suez Canal in Egypt or the Panama
Canal in Central America.
Climate models had projected the passage would eventually open as
warming temperatures melted the Arctic sea ice—but no one had
predicted it would happen this soon.
"We're probably 30 years ahead of schedule in terms of the loss of the
Arctic sea ice," said Mark Serreze, a senior scientist at the National
Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado.
11/26/2009 10:13:43 AM
Recommend (0)
jacquescustodian2 wrote:
PKhenry wrote:
Actually, Arctic sea ice has increased by 25% over the last two years.
sea level has risen by 5 millimeters, (not centimeters) and is much
lower than IPCC projections.
_______________________________________
First of all, the IPCC report said the overall sea rise was .5, not 5
cm. Move the decimal point as you did, and it comes out in
millimeters. Duh.
Second, Artic ice certainly has not increased, it is melting, as seen
from all the data, collected by icebreakers and air surveys and
satellites. Here is the story from the crypto-communist publication,
The National Geopgraphic. A terrible magazine. Anti-American.
John Roach
National Geographic News
The melting Arctic ice is fueling a rush for the North Pole region's
resources.
Governments are jostling for political control over new passages for
ships between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. The disappearing sea
ice could also open the way to exploit a bounty of oil, gas, minerals,
and fish once protected by their inaccessibility, scientists and
environmentalists caution.
Freshwater Runoff Into Arctic on the Rise, Scientists Say
Warming to Cause Catastrophic Rise in Sea Level?
Greenland Melting? Satellites Help Find Answers
Arctic Melting Fast, May Swamp U.S. Coasts by 2099
Greenland Melt May Swamp LA, Other Cities, Study Says
Melting Arctic Bogs May Hasten Warming via Methane Emissions, Study
Says.
The Arctic sea ice has receded by about 40 percent since 1979. By the
end of this century the region could be ice free during the summer
months, according to Michael Oppenheimer, a geoscientist at Princeton
University in New Jersey.
Oppenheimer is an expert on the science and policy of global climate
change and its impacts. He said Arctic nations have noted the economic
potential presented by the melting ice and are jostling for control in
the region.
"Countries these days tend to work out economic competition
peacefully," he said. "On the other hand, that doesn't mean it will be
worked out in a way that's beneficial to the Arctic environment or the
people who live there."
But, I guess an anonymous blogger who hates Obama is probably more
credible than National Geographic.
11/26/2009 10:09:06 AM
Recommend (0)
orbarb wrote:
Why is he going to Copenhagen? This is all a big hoax to soak
Americans even more.
11/26/2009 10:07:23 AM
Recommend (6)
nelmsmn wrote:
Freakin glow-ball warming is a huge hoax. >Why, just yesterday, I went
out in my back yard and there was frost. I thought, where is the
warming they promised us? Futhermore, why should I care even if there
is warming? I will be dead by the time any of this becomes a real
problem and even if I am not, what is not to like about being able to
play golf more days out of the year?
I just don't want anyone to raise my taxes any more for any reason. We
have fought these wars on credit, just keep charging the charge card.
I will be dead by the time it has to be paid offt.
Lower taxes at all cost - vote republican.
11/26/2009 10:03:19 AM
Recommend (3)
JohnSkookum wrote:
;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5. 1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-
0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)
Someone needs to show this to Mr. Obama before he gets too hasty about
trading our tax dollars and liberty away for a handful of magical
global warming beans.
11/26/2009 9:55:17 AM
Recommend (2)
JohnSkookum wrote:
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-
0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
11/26/2009 9:46:52 AM
Recommend (2)
bmadden3 wrote:
If Al Gore continues to consume more than 22X the energy that GWB
uses, will Gore get another Nobel prize?
11/26/2009 9:38:20 AM
Recommend (6)
bflat879 wrote:
For Angie 12106 - That Daily Kos blog post is cute, Michael Mann's own
words. If you don't realize that Michael Mann is going to be in deep
trouble, once the source codes are put into the computer and the truth
comes out, you're living in a parallel universe.
Normally I'd recommend you go to Climate Audit dot org to find out
what's really happening but, sort of like Fox News, everyone is going
there to get the truth and they crashed the site to that Steve
McIntyre had to put up a mirror site. I wish it was all up, in its
glory, so everyone could see the real scholarship that went on
debunking Mann's hockey stick even though Mann wouldn't give up his
source codes.
Whether correct or not, what I've learned about the peer review
process, in the past week, should be enough to show these people for
what they are. You've heard the phrase one lies and the other swears
to it? Well, that's not nor has it even been peer review.
There are a lot of really good scientists, who haven't agreed with the
global warming hysterics going on, who deserve an apology. They also
deserve a hearing from the press in the United States and Great
Britain because of the questions they've had which haven't been
answered. Perhaps now we can get the necessary answers to the puzzle
that is our climate.
11/26/2009 9:30:32 AM
Recommend (3) Repo
yankee11 wrote:
Every single day this empty suit from Chicago does or says something
to show he is either a fool or hell bent on destroying the country as
we know it. This GW scam is simply another way to redistribute
America's wealth and hand it over to the criminal UN. This man needs
to be stopped. Even in the face of the fraud uncovered in the hacked
emails last week, this jack*ss continues down the path of destruction.
The end to his reign of terror begins in 2010 unless we're lucky
enough to see divine intervention before then! Before anyone thinks of
starting the black/racist bs, idiots come in all colors, this one just
happens to be black! In the era of Carter, back in 1974, it was the
same bs. Weatherizing homes, emissions caps and trade offs in the
utility industry, renewables and blah, blah, blah! In thirty five
years of bs from the environmental wackos, what has changed, not da*n
thing. It's still the same non ideas, and the same rambling bs. If
this stuff were the real agenda, instead of just stealing money,
wouldn't you think that by now some genius would have figured out
renewables and alternate fuels. If energy independence were truly the
goal, wouldn't our corrupt politicians and the energy wackos have been
demanding exploration on our own soil? Green jobs my *ss! It's all
about getting rich and getting taxpayer money to put in the pockets of
the most favored donors. We see the scam and we now know ALL the
scammers. Game, set, match! It's over!
11/26/2009 9:29:38 AM
Recommend (7)
dennispro wrote:
It amazes me how BHO will continue on this path even though there is
now proof that the UN cooked the books about Global Warming. Just
another example of how his narcissistic attitude will again put us in
financial turmoil for no valid reason.
11/26/2009 9:25:18 AM
Recommend (9)
pkhenry wrote:
Typical AGW BS .....
/>> Arctic sea ice has declined faster than projected by IPCC.
Actually, Arctic sea ice has increased by 25% over the last two years
/>>> Greenhouse gas concentrations have continued to track the upper
bounds of IPCC projections.
Which is why the climate community is baffled about the "lack of
warming."
/>>> Observed global temperature changes remain entirely in accord
with IPCC projections, i.e. an anthropogenic warming trend of about
0.2 ºC per decade with superimposed short-term natural variability.
Nonsense, The upper scenario for greenhouse gas emissions (i.e. the
appropriate one) predicts a much higher increase in temperature.
/>>> Sea level has risen more than 5 centimeters over the past 15
years, about 80% higher than IPCC projections from 2001.
No, sea level has risen by 5 millimeters, (not centimeters) and is
much lower than IPCC projections.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_global_sm.jpg
11/26/2009 9:20:33 AM
Recommend (3)
bflat879 wrote:
I'm going to write this, without looking at the other 696 comments (at
the time I'm looking at this) and ask a simple question: How can the
Post possibly write an article like this with absolutely no mention of
the events of the past week?
To view this trip with the same vision as y ou would have before last
week is disingenuous at least. For Obama to decide to go, after the
events of last week, is a waste of Air Force One Fuel.
Let's assume that the Western nations have a huge investment in the
global warming scaremongering, that's been going on for the past 20
years, what makes them think the Chinese and Indians are going to be
willing to jump up and make serious committments, when they know the
science fell apart last week?
These leaders would look much more like leaders if they were to say
that it's time to allow the science to catch up to the events of the
past week and agree to meet next year. If they're so concerned about
CO2, they could all not go to Copenhagen and leave a lot of carbon out
of the atmosphere by their wise decision.
Alas, we have no leadership, only a bunch of people trying to figure
out how they're going to bleed money from their societies if they
don't have carbon taxes, etc.
11/26/2009 9:16:55 AM
Recommend (5)
jacquescustodian2 wrote:
jward52 wrote:
The World's biggest poluters need an equal / fair universal agreement.
China, India etc.
_____________________________________
China has today announced they will cut greenhouse emissions 40% over
the next ten years, and Premier Wen will be at the Copenhagen
conference. Wen was clear to say they were doing it voluntarily,
because of their own internal issues.
(Like, they had to shut down coal plants during the Olympics) We have
enough of our own internal issues to want to cut oil and coal use,
too. Go nukes!
11/26/2009 9:00:41 AM
Recommend (1)
Jimbo77 wrote:
What a bunch of bull!!! Politicians set these stupid goals far enough
out in time knowing full well they'll never be met and they won't be
around!
11/26/2009 8:58:48 AM
Recommend (3)
jacquescustodian2 wrote:
Billyrockville wrote: Silly me, I thought science was the
dispassionate search for truth.
_______________________________________
Well, Billy, in what way does hysterical propaganda like yours advance
human knowlege? You don't know anything whatsover about any of it.
You're just parroting a few industry-driven lobbyists and right wing
dodos. Do a polar ice sudy and get back to me. What the real studies
reveal is driving all sorts of real-world reactions, despite your kind
of silly arguing. Shipping companies are beginning to map new routes
in newly open Actic water. Britain will soon be able to ship to Asia
by steaming North instead of East or West.
A few weeks ago, an icebreaker on a survey mission for Canada steamed
across the North Pole at 11 knots, through areas of no ice and areas
of "rotten ice", where there was formerly solid ice and wildlife
habitat. The ice is melting so rapidly, diplomatic stress is heating
up over the ownership of shipping lanes and oil-rich seabed in areas
that were formerly inaccessible.
Steven Chase
Ottawa — From Monday's Globe and Mail
Published on Sunday, May. 24, 2009 10:32PM EDT
Last updated on Wednesday, Jun. 10, 2009 10:09AM EDT
Canada's mapping of the Arctic is pushing into territory claimed by
Russia in the high-stakes drive by countries to establish clear title
to the polar region and its seabed riches.
Survey flights Ottawa conducted in late winter and early spring went
beyond the North Pole and into an area where Russia has staked claims,
a Department of Natural Resources official said Sunday.
Also in the news: Santa Claus has had to move his entire operation to
solid ground in Northern Quebec. He can no longer use a sleigh, so he
will be switching to to a magic helicopter.
11/26/2009 8:52:32 AM
Recommend (1)
angie12106 wrote:
peter1469 wrote:>>>Of course the science is settled. It isn’t like
lots of internal emails from global warming scientists show the
science was faked and manipulated. Right?
The science was NOT FAKED!
If Faux News viewers were allowed to think for themselves and research
issues - PERHAPS they'd have more understanding about the emails.
Here's an explanation from one of the senders - but it's from Daily
Kos {gasp!} that Faux News viewers aren't allowed to access.
But here it is for everyone else....
11/26/2009 8:51:44 AM
Recommend (1)
angie12106 wrote:
peter1469 wrote:>>>Of course the science is settled. It isn’t like
lots of internal emails from global warming scientists show the
science was faked and manipulated. Right?
The science was NOT FAKED!
If Faux News viewers were allowed to think for themselves and research
issues - PERHAPS they'd have more understanding about the emails.
Here's an explanation from one of the senders - but it's from Daily
Kos {gasp!} that Faux News viewers aren't allowed to access.
But here it is for everyone else....
11/26/2009 8:51:44 AM
Recommend (1)
angie12106 wrote:
schumann wrote>>>Our President realizes it and has the courage to face
facts. Question is, will the complacent electorate follow his lead?
Voting Republican would be like voting for those who believed the
earth was flat
--- long after SCIENTIFIC evidence revealed it wasn't.
But sadly, the voters who most assert they're for "freedom" are
enslaved to the deniers of global warming.
11/26/2009 8:40:45 AM
Recommend (1)
jacquescustodian2 wrote:
charko825 wrote:
Someone needs to tell the MORON at the White House that there is NO
ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING!!
Important Article for all to read:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_world
___________________________________________
Well, I went to your website noted above, and here is what it says:
"The selective publication of some stolen emails and other papers
taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine
attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way,"
Most climate scientists today argue that the earth's temperature is
rising, and nearly all of those agree that human activity is likely to
be a prime or at least significant cause. But a vocal minority dispute
one or both of those views.
11/26/2009 8:35:48 AM
Recommend (3)
billyrockville wrote:
To jacquescustodian2.
Thanks for illuminating the way real scientists work in the real
world. I gives me even less reason to regard science with any
confidence. Apparently science is about people advancing their own
agenda using selective information to buttress their arguments while
simultaneously attempting to squelch any countervailing views. Silly
me, I thought science was the dispassionate search for truth.
11/26/2009 8:31:30 AM
Recommend (7)
peter1469 wrote:
ChrisFord1 -
You are correct there are many other environmental issues that are
more important that "global warming" even if it is occurring. In
addition to your list over fishing is a serious problem.
11/26/2009 8:27:07 AM
Recommend (5)
schumann-bonn wrote:
One can only wish President Obama a skillful hand and luck to get
Congress to support his courageous initiative.
Reading the comments submitted so far, it is clear that global warming
skeptics are still a majority in the USA. Never mind the current slow
down in warming. The long-term trend is what matters. Some even claim
global warming would be good. How delusional! Global warming is
already causing millions to leave their homes because the land can no
longer support them. Even if some areas like Greenland, Canada and
Russia benefit, will they accommodate people from Bangladesh or
central Africa who have to look for a new home?
The USA, producing 25% of all pollutants in the world, is obliged to
take the lead. Our President realizes it and has the courage to face
facts. Question is, will the complacent electorate follow his lead?
11/26/2009 8:25:45 AM
Recommend (1)
jacquescustodian2 wrote:
jward52 wrote: Zeig heil! Zeig Heil!
Our "Founding-Fathers" would absolutely DEMAND the 'Firing-Squad'!!
______________________________________
No, dip5hit, our Founding Fathers would have demanded an ELECTION.
They had a revolution to get rid of a dictatorship of the royalty, and
started a DEMOCRACY, which is not a system where spoiled pu55ys cry
and demand a new deal every time they lose an election. We've had a
stable nation since 1864 because of DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS. Military
dictatorships overseas have firing squads. We have ELECTIONS. The is
the whole point of the USA, the entire thing we've been trying to
teach the world- that it is possible to let power change hands in
government through DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS instead of firing squads.
Founding Fathers = Democratic Process
If you don't like what's going on, WIN THE NEXT ELECTION. In the mean
time, stop being such a crybaby. The world's not ending.
Under Bush, we went to war in two countries, our economy collapsed,
the nazis eroded our Constitution to do away with essential freedoms
with the Homeland protection acts...did Democrats demand a revolution?
Firing squads? NO. WE ORGANIZED, AND WON AN ELECTION!
FOUNDING FATHERS = DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS
Shut up until the next election. You have a good chance of winning-
after all, Bush stole the last one he won.
11/26/2009 8:25:32 AM
Recommend (3)
ChrisFord1 wrote:
As a liberal, and an environmentalist - I put "Global Warming
Catastrophism" as a possibility - but have some skepticism - given
that much of the underlying data now looks cooked, and evidence of a
conspiracy of highly politically motivated scientists to then conceal
the data from peer review.
It's going a bit far to say that this Climategate scandal proves
global warming is a massive hoax.
But it does prove that scientists with a political agenda are
distorting their research, and that journalists with a political
agenda have allowed themselves to be too trusting of those
scientists.
The commenters here who are not troubled by this revelation do not
care about both science and the planet as much as they claim
As an environmentalist, I am exceptionally concerned that "GLobal
Warming!!" has sucked the oxygen out of more immediate and urgent
environmental issues.
We have a huge overpopulation problem and deforestation and los of
wildlife areas to cultivation threatens a mass species extermination
in the next 25 years. It is nice to be concerned that polar bears will
have a tougher time if AGW predictions come true, but we are talking
about less polar bears..not their extinction...as we are now about
30,000 other species.
We also have 200-300 million people, mostly in high breeding rate
nations existing on their last 10 years of mined, fossil water. And
around 11 regional ecosystems facing collapse from resource overuse.
Far more urgent than the AGW stuff, but no longer discussed.
As for AGW, you have ZPG developed nations obsessed with largely empty
symbolic gestures like Gore-bulbs and not eationg "GM corn". And the
biggest zealots on low carbon use per capita tend to be the biggest
advocates of the "Right" of any Muslim or African from an
overpopulated area to move to a ZPG country and thus increase NET
carbon use.
The obsession with Wondrous Wind and Blessed Solar ignores their
marginal impact on a world with 250 years of using fossil fuel
extensively and with 60 trillion sunk in infrastructure. And ignores
that both forms of energy are wickedly expensive without taxpayer
subsidy..and don't create more "green jobs" than they destroy. For
every "exciting green job" 2.4 better paying industrial jobs are lost
to 3rd world nations...and their cheaper coal powered infrastructure.
11/26/2009 8:20:02 AM
Recommend (2)
peter1469 wrote:
Of course the science is settled. It isn’t like lots of internal
emails from global warming scientists show the science was faked and
manipulated. Right?
11/26/2009 8:17:40 AM
Recommend (6)
jacquescustodian2 wrote:
A Response to the e-mail scandal from RealClimate, a website by and
for climate scientists.
As many of you will be aware, a large number of emails from the
Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia webmail
server were hacked recently (Despite some confusion generated by
Anthony Watts, this has absolutely nothing to do with the Hadley
Centre which is a completely separate institution). As people are also
no doubt aware the breaking into of computers and releasing private
information is illegal, and regardless of how they were obtained,
posting private correspondence without permission is unethical. We
therefore aren’t going to post any of the emails here. We were made
aware of the existence of this archive last Tuesday morning when the
hackers attempted to upload it to RealClimate, and we notified CRU of
their possible security breach later that day.
Nonetheless, these emails (a presumably careful selection of (possibly
edited?) correspondence dating back to 1996 and as recently as Nov 12)
are being widely circulated, and therefore require some comment. Some
of them involve people here (and the archive includes the first
RealClimate email we ever sent out to colleagues) and include
discussions we’ve had with the CRU folk on topics related to the
surface temperature record and some paleo-related issues, mainly to
ensure that posting were accurate.
Since emails are normally intended to be private, people writing them
are, shall we say, somewhat freer in expressing themselves than they
would in a public statement. For instance, we are sure it comes as no
shock to know that many scientists do not hold Steve McIntyre in high
regard. Nor that a large group of them thought that the Soon and
Baliunas (2003), Douglass et al (2008) or McClean et al (2009) papers
were not very good (to say the least) and should not have been
published. These sentiments have been made abundantly clear in the
literature (though possibly less bluntly).
More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no
evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros
nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the
MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the
falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/
communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down
to the hackers also being in on the plot though.
Instead, there is a peek into how scientists actually interact and the
conflicts show that the community is a far cry from the monolith that
is sometimes imagined. People working constructively to improve joint
publications; scientists who are friendly and agree on many of the big
picture issues, disagreeing at times about details and engaging in
‘robust’ discussions; Scientists expressing frustration at the
misrepresentation of their work in politicized arenas and complaining
when media reports get it wrong; Scientists resenting the time they
have to take out of their research to deal with over-hyped nonsense.
None of this should be shocking.
It’s obvious that the noise-generating components of the blogosphere
will generate a lot of noise about this. but it’s important to
remember that science doesn’t work because people are polite at all
times. Gravity isn’t a useful theory because Newton was a nice person.
QED isn’t powerful because Feynman was respectful of other people
around him. Science works because different groups go about trying to
find the best approximations of the truth, and are generally very
competitive about that. That the same scientists can still all agree
on the wording of an IPCC chapter for instance is thus even more
remarkable.
The ‘Copenhagen Diagnosis‘, a report by 26 scientists from around the
world was released today. The report is intended as an update to the
IPCC 2007 Working Group 1 report. Like the IPCC report, everything in
the Copenhagen Diagnosis is from the peer-reviewed literature, so
there is nothing really new. But the report summarizes and highlights
those studies, published since the (2006) close-off date for the IPCC
report, that the authors deemed most relevant to the negotiations in
Copenhagen (COP15) next month. This report was written for policy-
makers, stakeholders, the media and the broader public, and has been
sent to each and every one of the COP15 negotiating teams throughout
the world.
Among the points summarized in the report are that:
The ice sheets are both losing mass (and hence contributing to sea
level rise). This was not certain at the time of the IPCC report.
Arctic sea ice has declined faster than projected by IPCC.
Greenhouse gas concentrations have continued to track the upper bounds
of IPCC projections.
Observed global temperature changes remain entirely in accord with
IPCC projections, i.e. an anthropogenic warming trend of about 0.2 ºC
per decade with superimposed short-term natural variability.
Sea level has risen more than 5 centimeters over the past 15 years,
about 80% higher than IPCC projections from 2001.
11/26/2009 8:08:14 AM
Recommend (1)
KevinDunne wrote:
Ha Ha...I love reading all these right wing anti-environmental
comments from these ignorant racist republicans. First they dont want
to see health care costs reduced and want big insurance to continue to
deny for pre existing conditions. Then these same right wing rush
limbaugh fanatic tools would rather see our ice caps melt, our crops
dry out and disease run rampant then have a black president actually
help solve the worlds most pressing environmental problem. While The
Good Side runs candidates such as Obama, the Evil Side runs candidates
such as Sarah Palin...Looks like we'll have the White House for years
to come! Go Obama! Down with Right Wing anti environmental douce bag
republican jerk offs!
11/26/2009 8:08:13 AM
Recommend (1)
jimoglethorpe wrote:
The great majority of the so called "International Community" are
countries that share a dislike or hatred of the USA and a desire to
see us diminished as a country. In their minds it's always our fault,
always up to us to solve problems, mostly by our own unilateral
efforts. Then, no matter what we do, it is judged insufficient. We
need to forget about trying to lead the world; it's a sucker's role.
Let's get our own house in order.
11/26/2009 8:00:59 AM
Recommend (5)
billyrockville wrote:
The Obama insanity continues..... With newly released emails showing
Global Alarmists actively striving to squelch opposing views and the
with-holding of baseline information used in their sacred computer
models, with the globe continueing a 10 year cooling streak, with a
decrease in deadly tropical storms, with polar bear populations being
among all time highs and arctic ice packs approaching normal historic
levels, with the antarctic ice pack still continuing to accumulate
snow and ice, with the latest satellite evidence showing the
atmosphere is not warming, with bathometric readings showing the sea
is not warming, with unemployment racing above 10%, why of course it
make perfect sense to increase government involvement in our lives.
Tell me, you progressives, what are you going to do when your goal of
complete governmental control over all our personal liberties is
complete, and then the wrong person comes into power???
11/26/2009 8:00:00 AM
Recommend (3)
jollygreen wrote:
The Republicans want the USA to bury its head in the sand and pretend
that the world will never change. Sorry, but it is changing. One way
or the other the world will have to get its energy from non-oil
sources in 30 years. Too bad that rotten policy in the USA will turn
America into a 2nd class country, importing technology and scientists
from countries which spent those 30 years developing instead of
stagnating. GM's failure is a warning to the USA. Auto manufacturing
has not failed, only USA auto manufacturing failed. Be patriotic, buy
American. What a joke!
11/26/2009 7:58:34 AM
Recommend (1)
charko825 wrote:
Someone needs to tell the MORON at the White House that there is NO
ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING!!
Obama is no doubt the DUMBEST President we have ever had...
He is attacking our troops
He is attacking the Navy Seals
He is destroying our Health Care
He is destroying our Financial Markets
Obama is anti-American like the radical Islamic terrorists are...
Important Article for all to read:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_world
11/26/2009 7:53:41 AM
Recommend (6)
ProCounsel wrote:
the wash po
no longer permits comments on economic articles
particularly by neal irwin like in todays paper
but all other stories permit comments
this way the wash po does not have to take irate phone calls and e-
mails
about comments posted
about the economy........
from the white house
if you don't want something bad said.....don't allow comments
11/26/2009 7:49:26 AM
Recommend (3)
Acornisascam wrote:
Barry might want to read some newspapers and watch Fox News to find
out about the great Man Made Global Warming Scam cooked up by the
Progressive, Socialist, Marxist, Liberals trying to extort money from
the American Taxpayers!
Time to run these people out of town!
11/26/2009 7:42:28 AM
Recommend (7)
mguill1045 wrote:
Question for youi Haters of this country. Why WASN'T DICK CHENEY ON
YOUR TICKET FOR PRESIDENT LAST ELECTION???
Why worry what is going on remember,your next canadated feels the
world will end in 2012.
11/26/2009 7:37:46 AM
Recommend (0)
jward52 wrote:
The World's biggest poluters need an equal / fair universal agreement.
China, India, and the U.S.A. need to solve this together,- and have NO
special priviledges going to China or India, over the U.S.A.!! -
But,-- "NO - NO - NO" CAP & TAX CRAP- Period!! - NO so-called 'CAP &
TRADE' $Trillions to the Criminal Globalist BANKSTERS!!! - Repeal the
un-Constitutional FEDERAL RESERVE ACT!! - Abolish Criminal FRACTIONAL
RESERVE BANKING Practices Immediately!! -- Both of these have
Economically RAPED Our great REPUBLIC & the American People!!! Enough
of this Bankster 'CRAP'! Send these THUGS back to Europe where they
came from in 1913! - No fake reforming of the so-called 'FED'!! -
REPEAL, ABOLISH, & DESTROY these Terrorist TRAITORS!!! - And seek out
the TRAITORS in CONGRESS whom support & $Profit from the Globalist
Criminal FED-BANKSTERS!! - Our "Founding-Fathers" would absolutely
DEMAND the 'Firing-Squad'!!
11/26/2009 7:34:22 AM
Recommend (2)
springco1 wrote:
Here goes what economy that we have now!! "0" will pay the Swedes for
their Nobel Prize. By the way my best gift this year was last week
when the human hating "Earth Warmers were exposed by hackers.
11/26/2009 7:26:38 AM
Recommend (7)
springco1 wrote:
Here goes what economy that we have now!! "0" will pay the Swedes for
their Nobel Prize. By the way my best gift this year was last week
when the human hating "Earth Warmers were exposed by hackers.
11/26/2009 7:26:38 AM
Recommend (7)
jws2346 wrote:
Yeah, right. A bunch of World leaders, that seem to be credible
leaders are gonna' listen to and believe another World leader whose
country is in complete turmoil?
11/26/2009 7:13:41 AM
Recommend (7)
Neo1138 wrote:
Yummy, we are having roast turkey today. Our turkey will be roasted
over creosote embedded logs set ablaze with diesel fuel siphoned from
my F350 dually crew cab. We don't care about no recommendations from
those socialist scientists from the American College of Oncologists.
If you listen to them, heck, everything causes cancer. And, we don't
care if our neighbors complain about all the smoke; if they don't like
it, they can move to Africa or some other Socialist country. Just go
on back to Mozambique or whatever the capital of Africa is and tell
the king of Africa to go shove it for us.
11/26/2009 6:54:55 AM
Recommend (2)
gorams1 wrote:
The problem is that Obama knows absolutely nothing about the issue of
climate, much as he knows little or nothing about the economy. I
sincerely doubt that most Americans want to impoverish ourselves in
order to satisfy a bunch of climate "scientists" who, we now know,
happily sacrifice truth to political ideology and financial interest.
11/26/2009 6:50:42 AM
Recommend (10)
PaulRevere4 wrote:
http://www.infowars.com/more-on-those-climate-emails/
Kyle Wingfield
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
November 25, 2009
Complete with a new name: Climaquiddick.
To get up to speed if you haven’t been following this story closely,
here’s my post on it yesterday. Short version: A large batch of data
from one of the world’s leading climate science centers was released
on the Internet last week; this includes thousands of emails and other
documents that reveal scientists at the center — people who have been
intimately involved in the reports of the United Nations’
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — may have been manipulating
their data, and certainly intended to foil Freedom of Information
requests and keep contrarian researchers out of peer-review journals
if possible.
The focus on the story has turned from the emails the scientists
exchanged to the computer code their center was using to produce its
data sets, which have been an integral part of the IPCC’s reports.
Declan McCullagh at CBS News reports some of the findings so far:
Read entire article:http://blogs.ajc.com/kyle-wingfield/2009/11/25/
more-on-those-climate-emails/?cxntfid=blogs_kyle_wingfield
Whatever, is happening to my family's and my lifestyle without us
having our say? Find out go to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU
11/26/2009 6:28:50 AM
Recommend (5)
rteske wrote:
Political reality has nothing to do with science. Political science
has nothing to do with science.
Science is based upon facts that have been tested and proven
scientifically.
President Barack Obama and his radical liberal elites in Congress do
not rely on facts. This group relies upon feelings not proven facts.
Feelings guide there decisions because they are unable to understand
scientific facts.
Political power can not change natural science nor can it modify an
ever changing earth and the atmosphere surrounding it despite there
feelings.
Political Science is bunk!
11/26/2009 6:28:12 AM
Recommend (7)
Mindboggle wrote:
Before announcing these goals would it not be prudent to determine the
extent to which global warming data was cooked by the "Scientists" at
East Anglia. The emails suggest nefarious goals, corrupt data and an
intent to deceive, or at least to keep data from reaching other
scientests' hands.
11/26/2009 6:25:43 AM
Recommend (10)
jdonner2 wrote:
As I read this article this is nothing more than the usual gathering
of European left wing waccos plus Obama. Where is the other 90% of the
world? Oh! I forgot. They told Obama to go pound sand on this one. And
he thanked them.
11/26/2009 6:20:07 AM
Recommend (11)
HickoryElder wrote:
No mention of the climategate emails, in a story that has changed
overnight because of them? What drives the W.Post? Certainly not news.
No wonder they're closing offices and losing readers. They don't
report news.
11/26/2009 6:15:54 AM
Recommend (9)
bluetrk10 wrote:
If we want to save fuel keep Pelosi and Bo on the ground for a week.
Did you see Bo bow to the Burger King?
11/26/2009 5:52:24 AM
Recommend (9)
johne37179 wrote:
The President has taken an important first step in reducing noxious
emissions -- he has asked Joe Biden, Eric Holder and Tim Geitner to
keep their mouths shut and make no public statements for 90 days!
11/26/2009 5:40:21 AM
Recommend (8) Repo
ahashburn wrote:
"The White House announced Wednesday that President Obama will attend
U.N.-sponsored climate talks in Copenhagen next month and commit the
United States to specific targets for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions."
Careful Obama. That may mean you'll have to use your favorite toy, Air
Force One, less often to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
11/26/2009 5:34:00 AM
Recommend (10)
corco02az wrote:
We've had significant emissions reductions this year with 10%
unemployment.
Think what we could do with 20% unemployment!
What the so-called environmental movement really wants is a 90%
reduction in the human population, preferably starting in the United
States.
11/26/2009 5:33:59 AM
Recommend (12)
Georgetowner1 wrote:
I personally do believe that we need to be more responsible with our
resources and get off oil because as long as we get most of it from
foreign sources, it's a national security issue. And we do need to
watch air quality - if you think its bad some days in DC you should go
to Beijing and try to run a mile - even if you're in good condition
you will be gasping for air amongst the fumes from unregulated cars,
factories, etc. I also want clean drinking water. In other words, I
don't buy 'the ice caps are going to crash down on DC' bit but we do
have lots of garbage, trash, and emmissions that need to be controlled
just as quality of life issues. But this simply means unilateral
action by the US in cleaning up its own backyard instead of having to
sign treaties whereby other countries are telling us what to do. STOP
APOLOGIZING, OBAMA.
11/26/2009 5:27:46 AM
Recommend (5)
Bearbank wrote:
The climate "agenda" is world government and total socialism. Let's
hope that Climategate wakes up most Americans, but nothing will move
the ignorant, irrational, whacko greenies.
11/26/2009 5:16:29 AM
Recommend (7)
DiscerningCitizen wrote:
It is astounding that Obama is so eager to commit us to rigged, false
claims about climate change. Does he have full Congressional appproval
for his pronouncements as required? Obviously NO.
More POOR JUDGMENT by Obama ! ! !
11/26/2009 4:41:03 AM
Recommend (8)
littltlu wrote:
is it to early to start calling Obama the worst President ever.
11/26/2009 4:26:54 AM
Recommend (12)
A1965bigdog wrote:
Talk about giving a new meaning to the phrase, "There's something
rotten in Denmark!!!"
VOTE REPUBLICAN!!!
11/26/2009 4:26:02 AM
Recommend (9)
A1965bigdog wrote:
oracle2world wrote:
Dear Juliet Eilperin and Michael D. Shear:
How come no one at the Post is investigating climategate? The info was
leaked, is devastating to the scientific community, and destroys some
folks.
The quickest way to move up the food chain in journalism is to destroy
someone.
Now, I understand you don't want to, being sort of embarrassing to all
the folks that feverently BELIEVED ... but you have to eat.
(Drudge exists because Newsweek sat on the Monika Lewinsky story.)
So is the Post going to get off their a*** and start acting like a
real investigative rag and dish up some dirt here?
****************************
I can't speak for the dude, but Eilperin is completely brainwashed.
She's a true believer, and even if the truth hit her upside the head
like a cast iron skillet I don't think that she would admit that she
was wrong all this time.
I've been a harsh critic of her and the Post, and have even gone as
far as to submit oped pieces that scientifically just destroy the
Gorebal Whining nonsense. They've at least been nice enough to send me
a rejection notice, but no matter how I put it, I get shot down. I
suppose that since I don't walk the liberal path and deviate from the
liberal orthodoxy, I'll probably never get a fair shot, nor will
anyone else who can shoot down Albore's nonsense.
I think also it's that the WaPo and Eilperin have put so much of their
prestige on the line with this nonsense that to retreat would cause
them to lose face. What gets me is that NOW the debate really is over,
the Gorebal Whining nonsense is a croc, and everone knows it except
for these brainwashed libs. I guess they don't get the idea of when it
is time to cut your losses.
Take heart. They ARE going down!!!
VOTE REPUBLICAN!!!
11/26/2009 4:22:59 AM
Recommend (7)
A1965bigdog wrote:
It will be interesting to see how Obozo reacts when he realizes the
Albore nonsense will cost jobs.
TICK, TICK, TICK, TICK, TICK, TICK!!!
MENE MENE TEKEL UPHARSIN!!!
The clock IS ticking, the writing IS on the wall, and the Dumbocrats
time IS OVER!!! YOU GOIN' DOWN!!!
VOTE REPUBLICAN!!!
11/26/2009 4:15:21 AM
Recommend (9)
A1965bigdog wrote:
oracle2world wrote:
Dear Juliet Eilperin and Michael D. Shear:
How come no one at the Post is investigating climategate? The info was
leaked, is devastating to the scientific community, and destroys some
folks.
The quickest way to move up the food chain in journalism is to destroy
someone.
Now, I understand you don't want to, being sort of embarrassing to all
the folks that feverently BELIEVED ... but you have to eat.
(Drudge exists because Newsweek sat on the Monika Lewinsky story.)
So is the Post going to get off their a*** and start acting like a
real investigative rag and dish up some dirt here?
****************************
I can't speak for the dude, but Eilperin is completely brainwashed.
She's a true believer, and even if the truth hit her upside the head
like a cast iron skillet I don't think that she would admit that she
was wrong all this time.
I've been a harsh critic of her and the Post, and have even gone as
far as to submit oped pieces that scientifically just destroy the
Gorebal Whining nonsense. They've at least been nice enough to send me
a rejection notice, but no matter how I put it, I get shot down. I
suppose that since I don't walk the liberal path and deviate from the
liberal orthodoxy, I'll probably never get a fair shot, nor will
anyone else who can shoot down Albore's nonsense.
I think also it's that the WaPo and Eilperin have put so much of their
prestige on the line with this nonsense that to retreat would cause
them to lose face. What gets me is that NOW the debate really is over,
the Gorebal Whining nonsense is a croc, and everone knows it except
for these brainwashed libs. I guess they don't get the idea of when it
is time to cut your losses.
Take heart. They ARE going down!!!
VOTE REPUBLICAN!!!
11/26/2009 4:22:59 AM
Recommend (7)
A1965bigdog wrote:
It will be interesting to see how Obozo reacts when he realizes the
Albore nonsense will cost jobs.
TICK, TICK, TICK, TICK, TICK, TICK!!!
MENE MENE TEKEL UPHARSIN!!!
The clock IS ticking, the writing IS on the wall, and the Dumbocrats
time IS OVER!!! YOU GOIN' DOWN!!!
VOTE REPUBLICAN!!!
11/26/2009 4:15:21 AM
Recommend (9)
DwightCollins wrote:
poor obama,
he runs to europe or anywhere for that fact instead of working in the
oval office for the whitehouse...
where obama is the legislation that would help the unemployed...
where is the legislation that would help the starving and homeless...
where obama is all of what you promised...
so far all we have is misery for the poor and a feast for your
cronies...
11/26/2009 3:22:00 AM
Recommend (8)
37thand0street wrote:
OK OK I finally figured out something to say - because I have been
SPEECHLESS all day to describe Obama's new global warming commitment
to reduce our emissions by 17 %.
It has been quite unbelievable.
This policy is EXACTLY AS IF OBAMA CALLED BERNIE MADOFF TODAY AND
ASKED IF HE COULD SEND AN INVESTMENT TO MADOFF TODAY.
COMPLETELY OBLIVIOUS TO EVERYTHING GOING ON AROUND HIM.
That's what it is - Completely oblivious to EVERYTHING - Hey, Bernie,
I would like to send you a check RIGHT NOW.
11/26/2009 3:02:27 AM
Recommend (7)
37thand0street wrote:
I always believed it was better for the country to elect a person who
has at some point experienced disaster in their lives to be President.
Obama has just been pushed ahead by affirmative action, he has never
experienced disaster, nor has he ever experienced success.
The result is that the country now has to witness a train-wreck in
action - Obama has us go from embarassing bow to emabarrassing bow -
We are forced to watch this guy learn on the job and it is extremely
painful.
If he would only admit he was an illegal alien and spare us all......
The turkey news conference was telling.
.
11/26/2009 2:53:12 AM
Recommend (6)
tucanofulano wrote:
Now that the world knows the entire "global warming" so-called "data"
has been exposed as fake, made-up, phoney-baloney, politically
correct, utter nonsense, and that the pseudo-scientists who hid all
this for some 25 years have been exposed for the posers and scam
artists they are, WHAT IS THE POINT OF SENDING THE POTUS TO DENMARK?
Unless, of course, the politically correct PR nonsense being used to
gain CONTROL over Americans (and everybody else) is the one and the
only real goal . Anti-Americans like Boxer, Kerry, Feinstein, Reid,
and Obama among others are pushing to completely take over Healthcare,
Insurance, Banking, Autos, and everything that makes life worth
living, e.g. freedom ! All are ( expetives deleted).
11/26/2009 2:50:11 AM
Recommend (6)
Parker1227 wrote:
From the WaTimes:
It was announced Thursday afternoon that computer hackers had obtained
160 megabytes of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the
University of East Anglia (UEA) in England. Those e-mails involved
communication among many scientific researchers and policy advocates
with similar ideological positions all across the world. Those
purported authorities were brazenly discussing the destruction and
hiding of data that did not support global-warming claims.
Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, and
professor Michael E. Mann at Pennsylvania State University, who has
been an important scientist in the climate debate, have come under
particular scrutiny. Among his e-mails, Mr. Jones talked to Mr. Mann
about the "trick of adding in the real temps to each series ... to
hide the decline [in temperature]."
End quote.
So it comes to this. Scientists betraying science, and murdering
honesty and integrity for what? Green fanaticism? Financial security?
Pride? All of the above?
Its because everyone except for scientists are stupid (don't ya see?)-
which means that scientists are right - even when the aren't right.
And even now, blinkered "believers" make excuses of the inexcusable.
But thankfully, most of the people aren't stupid.
The global warming jig is up.
11/26/2009 2:12:06 AM
Recommend (9)
highkey11 wrote:
AL GORE perpetrates A MADEOFF Scam, to enrich himself by $100 Million
and collect his Senate pay ... he is not prosecuted, and we'll keep
playing along to be PC?
**Stages of Grief and Denial ...
- Count the Stages of the Lost Global Warming Protesters ... the
Ethanol 2.0 folks.
"dang back to video games and no more spouting contrived rhetoric to
pick up girls ... shoot"
- memorized all that tripe for nothing
The stages Kubler-Ross identified are:
* Denial (this isn't happening to me!)
* Anger (why is this happening to me?)
* Bargaining (I promise I'll be a better person if...)
* Depression (I don't care anymore)
* Acceptance (I'm ready for whatever comes)
-- See if you can count all their stages over the next few days ...
stages 1 through 5
11/26/2009 2:09:57 AM
Recommend (5)
Indpnt1 wrote:
On a related front, Dumbombo and his Marxist allies have come to an
agreement to change the rotation of the earth. As it turns out, the
present "rotational direction" is causing poverty in the Southern
hemisphere. It is believed that if the Northern hemisphere can change
this rotation, mainly by sending its wealth south, a crisis will be
averted. Film at eleven.
11/26/2009 1:47:29 AM
Recommend (8)
oracle2world wrote:
Dear Juliet Eilperin and Michael D. Shear:
How come no one at the Post is investigating climategate? The info was
leaked, is devastating to the scientific community, and destroys some
folks.
The quickest way to move up the food chain in journalism is to destroy
someone.
Now, I understand you don't want to, being sort of embarrassing to all
the folks that feverently BELIEVED ... but you have to eat.
(Drudge exists because Newsweek sat on the Monika Lewinsky story.)
So is the Post going to get off their a*** and start acting like a
real investigative rag and dish up some dirt here?
11/26/2009 1:17:06 AM
Recommend (13)
secjet1 wrote:
oracle2world wrote:
Bugs222 wrote:
All you climate change deniers have your heads so far up
LimbaughBeckPalin's butt that you can't even see your own noses.
-----------------------------------
I do believe climate changes,yes yes, but man doesn't do it.
It just does it.
Bugs222 you have your head so far up your butt, you can't even see
your shoes.
11/26/2009 1:12:33 AM
Recommend (6)
gkam wrote:
jsbar wrote: "Another one that fell asleep in Science class."
-------------------------------------------------------
I have a Master of Science in the field. How about you?
11/26/2009 1:10:53 AM
Recommend (1)
Ombudsman1 wrote:
He'll go to Oslo in one day then go to Copenhagen to look foolish
twice in the same week.
I've never seen a fluffier president.
11/26/2009 1:04:38 AM
Recommend (9) Report Abuse Discussion Policy
EnoughISEnough wrote:
Global Warming is a hoax. Didn't this moron notice the climate-clowns
were blown up last week after being hung with their own rope?
11/26/2009 1:00:20 AM
Recommend (12)
secjet1 wrote:
You know what?
It's crazy but damb, Bush is starting to look pretty good for a third
term.
My God what have the citizens elected to run this country?
The lunactics are running the insane asylum!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Read the papers Obozo, before you going opening your mouth about AGW
and look like a biigger fool than you are.
Talk about an embarassment to the country.
11/26/2009 12:40:11 AM
Recommend (12)
secjet1 wrote:
One more year and we can vote all the Dumbocrats out, and not too soon
either.
End the healthcare disaster
End this idiotic castrate and tax crap
and castrate this crazy dumbf'k of a president.
11/26/2009 12:35:33 AM
Recommend (9)
wmpowellfan wrote:
Obumble could cut greenhouse gas emissions just by giving the
teleprompter a rest.
Oh, and giving Air Force One a rest, too.
11/26/2009 12:32:17 AM
Recommend (9)
jsbar wrote:
Why don't all of you Global Warming wackos figure out a way to cap off
or install scrubbers on all of those tens of thousands of active
volcano's that emit millions of cubic tons of greenhouse gasses 24/7.
Just think how much carbon and other nasty emissions like sulfur
dioxide are being released in Yellowstone Park. Why Old Faithful and
all the other geysers powered by geothermal action should be outlawed.
I understand that forests give off excessive levels of Oxides of
Nitrogen,
a known polluter and main ingredient of photochemical smog. I'm
positive NoX is a green house gas. Also forests contribute to acid
rain by requiring acidic soils that leach down into streams and lakes.
We should outlaw forests.
I think trying to reduce emissions from the volcanoes should keep you
wacko global climate change types busy for awhile.
11/26/2009 12:21:53 AM
Recommend (8)
secjet1 wrote:
Obama, please, just tell Al Bore to shut up and dangerous gases and
hot air will decrease, without any crap and tax.
11/26/2009 12:20:20 AM
Recommend (10) Rep
Logic3 wrote:
Why is Prez. Obama going to Copenhagen?
On who's authority is he committing the United States to specific
targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions?
11/26/2009 12:14:28 AM
Recommend (10)
Logic3 wrote:
Why is Prez. Obama going to Copenhagen?
On who's authority is he committing the United States to specific
targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions?
11/26/2009 12:14:28 AM
Recommend (10)
sophic wrote:
The climate is like an 800lb gorilla in your living room. It does
whatever it wants...
Was Obama out of the country when even more first hand information was
revealed that AGW is the biggest HOAX of the decade?
11/26/2009 12:00:02 AM
Recommend (12)
jsbar wrote:
gkam wrote:
Oops, . . I was hoping for an education for our climate change
deniers, not diners.
But jabar's stuff is hilarious. Even the part where all green things
exhale oxygen, . . wait until I tell my frog! Or, that our CO2
reduction plans will scrub all carbon dioxide from Earth and the
plants will die!!! It's Biblical Science, folks.
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
Another one that fell asleep in Science class. Oh! but I forgot you
believe in Global Warming. That would explain it.
11/25/2009 11:54:19 PM
Recommend (5)
sophic wrote:
gkam wrote:
bertielou, you don't get it. Those email notes taken out of context
prove nothing
_______________________________________
ROFL, it's hard to take out of context the discussion of HIDING data
evidence for peer review... who do you work for...
11/25/2009 11:51:50 PM
Recommend (7)
James10 wrote:
When I write airline entrails instead of contrails it's time for
bed. ... Geez.
11/25/2009 11:48:53 PM
Recommend (1)
Tupac_Goldstein wrote:
Too bad the Obama failed to cover Hot Air and Foul Gasses from the
political classes.
11/25/2009 11:42:58 PM
Recommend (7)
James10 wrote:
bertielou wrote:
People have repeatedly noticed that THIS article does not mention the
big news on "climate change" the email scandal.
So James10 responds:
"As far as the hackers, e-mails at the University of East Anglia. The
Washington Post has had multiple stories on that."
Which makes it even more curious why this article does not mention big
news that has been reported in this very paper.
Some people have seen the other articles but for anyone who hasn't,
they just think WaPo has missed the story. Either way, it looks bad.
Of course, the bigger question is still, does Obama not know?
===========
I'm not sure they missed the story. It's possible they saw the stories
but choose to claim the Washpost didn't publish them. They've been on
the front page, there's an editorial today on the subject. If someone
is going to claim that the WashPost didn't print the story don't they
have at least an ethical obligation to do a search?
How many times in how many stories does the Post have to mention it?
I find the story to be immaterial to the larger issue of climate
change. The story is about people and how petty they can be when
attacked. It has no more significance than that.
If someone wants to believe there is a huge global conspiracy of
thousands of scientists and governments around the world there is no
data in the world you can show them to change their minds. And every
piece of data to the contrary will be exaggerated to the fullest.
11/25/2009 11:42:03 PM
Recommend (0)
gkam wrote:
bertielou, you don't get it. Those email notes taken out of context
prove nothing but your vulnerability to political prejudice. I'll bet
you also believed the silly lies of WMD, didn't you?
Did you fall for the adolescent posturings of Draft-dodging Dubya and
his corporate crook sidekick, Five-deferment Dick?
Check into what's happening to the glaciers of the world right now.
Then think of what will happen in Asia when the great rivers, now fed
by those glaciers, dry up. The same goes for the civilizations along
the Western Coast of South America. What are you going to blame it on,
then, . . Bill Clinton?
11/25/2009 11:39:34 PM
Recommend (0)
bertielou wrote:
tomtildrum wrote:
"Maybe some foreign reporter will ask Obama about the CRU emails. No
American journalist will."
11/25/2009 10:27:56 AM
Recommended (23)
11/25/2009 11:35:42 PM
Recommend (4)
James10 wrote:
gkam wrote:
Oops, . . I was hoping for an education for our climate change
deniers, not diners.
But jabar's stuff is hilarious. Even the part where all green things
exhale oxygen, . . wait until I tell my frog! Or, that our CO2
reduction plans will scrub all carbon dioxide from Earth and the
plants will die!!! It's Biblical Science, folks.
==========
We've all done our fair share of typos.
I have an idea on your frog. People who need to travel around with
oxygen. They could just carry around a container of green frogs with a
tube connected to the container. When they need oxygen ... inhale.
You need to file a patent for it before the health insurance companies
do.
11/25/2009 11:33:27 PM
Recommend (0)
bertielou wrote:
People have repeatedly noticed that THIS article does not mention the
big news on "climate change" the email scandal.
So James10 responds:
"As far as the hackers, e-mails at the University of East Anglia. The
Washington Post has had multiple stories on that."
Which makes it even more curious why this article does not mention big
news that has been reported in this very paper.
Some people have seen the other articles but for anyone who hasn't,
they just think WaPo has missed the story. Either way, it looks bad.
Of course, the bigger question is still, does Obama not know?
11/25/2009 11:31:57 PM
Recommend (5)
sophic wrote:
When you have the KEY so called scientists discussing hiding
information from peer review, you have corruption at the highest
levels and major crap.
When you have an editorial staff that shows NO concern, you have a
crappy WP editorial staff. And when you have an administration that
ignors this MAJOR blockbuster issue and proceeds without batting an
eye you have a crappy administration...
Obama dithers when he should be acting and he acts when he should be
dithering.
11/25/2009 11:27:58 PM
Recommend (6)
bertielou wrote:
Smith5205 wrote:
"Is he even aware of the controversy at the Hadley Climate Research
Unit....the place which furnished the majority of the data for the
IPCC and all governmental decisions on climate. Evidently all that
data has been manipulated to a preconceived conclusion. No further
actions should be taken or supported by our president until it can be
proven that intimidation,collusion,and conspiracy have not been
employed by these supposed ethical climate modelers."
11/25/2009 10:32:28 AM
Recommended (20)
11/25/2009 11:25:45 PM
Recommend (4)
James10 wrote:
jsbar wrote:
James10 wrote:
jsbar wrote:
....However advocates of Global/Climate Change can take solace in the
fact that man cannot alter the oxygen level of the planet sufficiently
to endanger living things and they are not capable of altering the Co2
level to cause global/climate change....
------------
Why not?
___________________________________________________________________________________
jsbar says:
You must have been one those guys that were sleeping during science
class.
===============
Clearly you can't. The basic concept of greenhouse gases says you man
can and does. You clearly missed that in science class. You presume
incorrectly that there is perfect balance with CO2 production and CO2
consumption. We know from measurements that's not true. As soon as one
changes greenhouse gases climate must change. It's physics.
There were global climatic changes noted during the few days when air
traffic was suspended in the few days after 9-11. It was global and it
was measurable. Airliner entrails affect global climate. Other types
of pollution affect the climate. Pollution that reflects heat back
into the solar system. Now if you don't think that solar heat affects
weather ... what else do you have to contribute?
11/25/2009 11:24:49 PM
Recommend (0) Report Abuse Discussion Policy
gkam wrote:
Oops, . . I was hoping for an education for our climate change
deniers, not diners.
But jabar's stuff is hilarious. Even the part where all green things
exhale oxygen, . . wait until I tell my frog! Or, that our CO2
reduction plans will scrub all carbon dioxide from Earth and the
plants will die!!! It's Biblical Science, folks.
11/25/2009 11:21:34 PM
Recommend (0)
bertielou wrote:
This thread has been fun. Always fun to point and laugh at people who
have called you stupid when you're the one who didn't fall for a scam
but:
On a serious note:
joinnow wrote:
"NASA’s James Hansen has called for trials of climate skeptics in 2008
for “high crimes against humanity.” Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy
Jr. lashed out at skeptics of 2007 declaring “This is treason. And we
need to start treating them as traitors” In 2009, RFK, Jr. also called
coal companies “criminal enterprises” and declared CEO’s ’should be in
jail… for all of eternity.”
"They" always accuse us of misdeeds and crimes we would never have
thought about committing but thing is, they think of it because they
do it. Like lying/falsifying data.
But while they wanted "skeptics" prosecuted, wanted "doubt"
"dissension" in other words, disagreeing with them to be a crime, so
far it still isn't.
But when you follow things through, this is the way it goes. What they
have done should be investigated and at least some people will check
to see if they lied on grant applications, which is a crime. Fraud is
a crime.
They say, we'll lie, cheat, and steal to get what we want but the
reality is they will lie, cheat, and steal. All we have to do is
realize they will, catch them, and then be unwilling to accept their
excuses.
11/25/2009 11:20:26 PM
Recommend (4)
rolcan wrote:
Oh boy, another chance to get out of town and tell someone else what
they need to do.... the guy does love to travel!
11/25/2009 11:16:34 PM
Recommend (3)
gkam wrote:
jsbar wrote: "You guys that believe this rubbish of global warming/
climate change should get a hobby or possibly a new religion."
--------------------------------------------------------
Or, perhaps you diners could get an education? Those of you who oppose
action on this crisis are those who got their opinion from political
prejudice. Those of us who are genuinely worried have had the
thermodynamics, ecoscience, and other relevant topics in college and
graduate school. We took the hard subjects and worked hard at our
education. What did you do, . . drink with Dubya?
11/25/2009 11:12:55 PM
Recommend (1)
James10 wrote:
LAWNMAN209 wrote:
Hello, Washington Post? Still not a peep about those cover up e-mails,
huh? Please report some news that doesn't completely align with your
hard core left wing agenda. Thank you-
===============
Gerson, Parker, Krauthammer, Krystol, Ponnuru and Will are now the
hard core left wing? I'm not really that surprised but there are some
that will be a little confused and think those folks are
conservatives.
As far as the hackers, e-mails at the University of East Anglia. The
Washington Post has had multiple stories on that. You were busy
fantasizing how to get rid of those hard core left wing fanatics
Gerson, Parker, Krauthammer, Krystol, Ponnuru and Will.
Try "hackers" in the search bar that should pull up most if not all of
them. Can you handle that without further assistance?
11/25/2009 11:11:37 PM
Recommend (0)
jsbar wrote:
James10 wrote:
jsbar wrote:
....However advocates of Global/Climate Change can take solace in the
fact that man cannot alter the oxygen level of the planet sufficiently
to endanger living things and they are not capable of altering the Co2
level to cause global/climate change....
------------
Why not?
___________________________________________________________________________________
jsbar says:
You must have been one those guys that were sleeping during science
class.
11/25/2009 11:10:17 PM
Recommend (1)
HemiHead66 wrote:
Obama can't cut emissions because he has to please the oil companies.
So the next best thing is to start charging Americans. They're already
talking about only allowing a certain amount of electric cars to be
sold. And instead of putting all of our technology to work, they're
going to give us these garbage hybrids. They do everything backwards.
Bio-fuel costs more to make than you get out of it, but they keep
doing it anyway.
11/25/2009 11:01:04 PM
Recommend (0)
Emmetrope wrote:
If advocating Global Warming made people rich, yopu couldn't keep the
right wing nuts off the band wagon!
11/25/2009 10:58:07 PM
Recommend (2)
iamredwolf wrote:
I wish some one could
reduce El Bobo's tele
prompter emissions at
this upcoming meeting.
11/25/2009 10:57:37 PM
Recommend (2)
James10 wrote:
WestTexan2008 wrote:
James10:
If you can make a cogent argument, please do so. If your goal is
simply be rude and hide behind the internet, you have succeeded. If
you have something to add to the discussion on president's trip to
Denmark that rises above whoopie cushion humor, please add it. If not,
don't bother posting me back, I won't respond to cretinous remarks.
============
You're being a bit disingenuous at a minimum. There are plenty of
cretinous remarks on this blog including those made by you. You're not
bothered by any of those.
11/25/2009 10:57:25 PM
Recommend (0)
Emmetrope wrote:
jsbar wrote:
These morons in the general public that support the Global Warming/
Climate Change bulls#it are the enablers of the global commies to
extract even more from us so they can live large while the rest of
starve.
------------------------------------
Now that is hillarious. -James bring the Rolls around and drive me to
the university for a half hour of work then well drive around and
watch people starve...
11/25/2009 10:54:36 PM
Recommend (0)
James10 wrote:
jsbar wrote:
....However advocates of Global/Climate Change can take solace in the
fact that man cannot alter the oxygen level of the planet sufficiently
to endanger living things and they are not capable of altering the Co2
level to cause global/climate change....
------------
Why not?
11/25/2009 10:54:07 PM
Recommend (0)
DD163 wrote:
Very interesting
Debunking The Myths on Climate Change:
A Response to “The Great Global Warming Swindle”
Duke University 2007
http://www.duke.edu/web/nicholas/bio217/tls14/
11/25/2009 10:52:29 PM
Recommend (1)
MrBoggle wrote:
Does this guy get anything right. Global warming is a HOAX.
Man can set any kind of limits that he wants -- but a HOAX, is a HOAX,
is a HOAX.
Hey Obama-man, spend a little more time here at home and work on
unemployment.
Repeat after me: IT'S A HOAX!!!
11/25/2009 10:48:38 PM
Recommend (4)
LAWNMAN209 wrote:
Hello, Washington Post? Still not a peep about those cover up e-mails,
huh? Please report some news that doesn't completely align with your
hard core left wing agenda. Thank you-
11/25/2009 10:48:27 PM
Recommend (2)
Emmetrope wrote:
Lewis acids/bases, factoring polynomials, heat transfer, calculus,
differential equations, DNA, the immune system, dendrites axons,
dopamine,light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation Who
needs this crap? just sign up with the GOP and you automatically know
all the science stuff you'll ever need!
11/25/2009 10:43:12 PM
Recommend (1)
WestTexan2008 wrote:
Folks,
Have a good and safe Thanksgiving.
11/25/2009 10:42:40 PM
Recommend (1)
jahoby wrote:
Emmetrobe: Still out there with your scholar husband (all proud, are
we?0
11/25/2009 10:41:38 PM
Recommend (0)
jahoby wrote:
Were this in the American citizen's best interests, (perchance - the
President's?) OBAMA would simply not attend this Peace o'Grab. If you
are unsure of American's best interests, than ...
11/25/2009 10:38:17 PM
Recommend (2)
jsbar wrote:
These morons in the general public that support the Global Warming/
Climate Change bulls#it are the enablers of the global commies to
extract even more from us so they can live large while the rest of
starve.
Welcome to the world of unintended consequences.
Here's the funny part. Every green living organism on this planet
inhales carbon dioxide and exhales Oxygen. Its called photosynthesis
and all non-green forms of life require this process in order to live.
Fairly simple concept.
The morons that support the complete reduction of carbon dioxide will
cause (1) killing off forests that are needed for all manner of other
life on the planet(2)causing global food shortages by limiting the
amounts of food crops that can be grown (3) hampering the growth of
all manner of wild grasses and flora that keep the fertile topsoil
from drying up and blowing away (does the Term Dust bowl mean anything
to our deluded whacked out global warming advocates) or washing into
streams and causing the most God awful mud slides you've ever seen.
Factor in Gore and all cronies are going to make billions trading
carbon credits and you enablers should be right proud of yourselves.
Ridiculous you say. Humans could never remove that much carbon dioxide
from the atmosphere to cause crop shortages and famines; a global dust
bowl or deforestation that could possibly even jeopardize the human
race's existence.
This theory is believable because it is based on fact. Unlike the
Global Warming moron's theories based on lies and conjecture.
However advocates of Global/Climate Change can take solace in the fact
that man cannot alter the oxygen level of the planet sufficiently to
endanger living things and they are not capable of altering the Co2
level to cause global/climate change.
You guys that believe this rubbish of global warming/climate change
should get a hobby or possibly a new religion.
11/25/2009 10:37:24 PM
Recommend (2)
WestTexan2008 wrote:
James10:
If you can make a cogent argument, please do so. If your goal is
simply be rude and hide behind the internet, you have succeeded. If
you have something to add to the discussion on president's trip to
Denmark that rises above whoopie cushion humor, please add it. If not,
don't bother posting me back, I won't respond to cretinous remarks.
11/25/2009 10:37:01 PM
Recommend (1)
Emmetrope wrote:
Hey boys and girls, why go to college or even graduate high school? If
you really want to know about science you don't have to hit the books
all night long or study every waking moment-just sign up with the
Republican party and you automatically know all the science you'll
ever need to know!
So sign up with the GOP and start BS 'in science!
11/25/2009 10:35:41 PM
Recommend (1)
James10 wrote:
WestTexan2008 wrote:
James10 wrote:
WestTexan2008 wrote:
James10 wrote:
WestTexan2008 wrote:
The email Climategate scandal simply confirms what many, if not most,
of us suspected.
===============
And Larry Craig confirmed what we knew all along. Republicans all have
a wide stance.
Odd. Mark Sanford plays around with a woman and they want him out.
Mark Foley fools around with minors and Hastert begs him to get re-
elected.
--------
What does any of that have to do with this forum - it's about the
president's trip to Denmark and man-made climate change?
==============
Sorry. I didn't notice you're a Texan. Of course you wouldn't
understand, it's way too subtle. Do you know anyone with an education
higher than 4th grade that can explain it to you?
===========
So rudeness qualifies as a cogent argument in your mind? Next you'll
devastate me with a "Yo mama" or a ego-crushing "sez you!"
=================
See what I mean. I merely asked whether you knew anyone that might
explain the subtleties to you and you get all huffy. Here I'm trying
to guide you in a positive direction and you reject the assistance.
11/25/2009 10:30:42 PM
Recommend (0)
jahoby wrote:
Oracle: There's good reason, on tha' Hill, for the populus to obide in
your wisdom. Starting with Democracy.
11/25/2009 10:25:54 PM
Recommend (1)
James10 wrote:
dickiesnhogheaven wrote:
You know,I am more proud to be a REPULICAN now than I've ever been ...
==============
Sounds like we have a win-win situation here. Democrats are happier
than ever that you're a REPULICAN. ... I guess that's why GOP is used
as often as it is. Three letters is a lot easier for the base to
grasp. You just stay right there in the REPULICAN party. Don't go
anywhere, just stay right there.
11/25/2009 10:25:50 PM
Recommend (0)
Jeffner wrote:
Global Warming is a Hoax.
11/25/2009 10:24:53 PM
Recommend (3)
WestTexan2008 wrote:
James10 wrote:
WestTexan2008 wrote:
James10 wrote:
WestTexan2008 wrote:
The email Climategate scandal simply confirms what many, if not most,
of us suspected.
===============
And Larry Craig confirmed what we knew all along. Republicans all have
a wide stance.
Odd. Mark Sanford plays around with a woman and they want him out.
Mark Foley fools around with minors and Hastert begs him to get re-
elected.
--------
What does any of that have to do with this forum - it's about the
president's trip to Denmark and man-made climate change?
==============
Sorry. I didn't notice you're a Texan. Of course you wouldn't
understand, it's way too subtle. Do you know anyone with an education
higher than 4th grade that can explain it to you?
===========
So rudeness qualifies as a cogent argument in your mind? Next you'll
devastate me with a "Yo mama" or a ego-crushing "sez you!"
Or you could make a logical sequential argument. You know, like an
adult.
11/25/2009 10:24:53 PM
Recommend (1)
Emmetrope wrote:
dandyhuffman wrote:
The "change" Obama promised us if he got elected is coming true. When
his years in the WH are over, most Americans will only have left the
change in their pockets.
-------------------------------------
Will people who participate in capitalism have a hellava lot more
money now. The markets closed at year high levels today!
11/25/2009 10:22:56 PM
Recommend (0)
revbookburn wrote:
The President knows that climate deniers are full of manure and that
this issue is urgent. He needs to either stay longer in Copenhagen or
return a week later when most leaders are there. A basic agreement
needs to happen this year. Rev. Bookburn - Radio Volta
11/25/2009 10:21:48 PM
Recommend (2)
bandmom22 wrote:
Does this guy just not follow the news? Or is he just that clueless?
Hey Obama - the climate change issue is a big scam. Some real
leadership on your part would be insisting the world acknowledge that
instead of "leading" the economy off a cliff.
11/25/2009 10:21:27 PM
Recommend (3)
James10 wrote:
WestTexan2008 wrote:
James10 wrote:
WestTexan2008 wrote:
The email Climategate scandal simply confirms what many, if not most,
of us suspected.
===============
And Larry Craig confirmed what we knew all along. Republicans all have
a wide stance.
Odd. Mark Sanford plays around with a woman and they want him out.
Mark Foley fools around with minors and Hastert begs him to get re-
elected.
--------
What does any of that have to do with this forum - it's about the
president's trip to Denmark and man-made climate change?
==============
Sorry. I didn't notice you're a Texan. Of course you wouldn't
understand, it's way too subtle. Do you know anyone with an education
higher than 4th grade that can explain it to you?
11/25/2009 10:20:37 PM
Recommend (0)
oracle2world wrote:
Q: How many climate scientists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None. There’s a consensus that it’s going to change, so they’ve
decided to keep us in the dark.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!!!
11/25/2009 10:12:23 PM
Recommend (6)
B2O2 wrote:
No doubt even this modest goal will be described as "treasonous" by
the Grand Head-in-sand Party. I sure hope they can grow up in a
hurray, because America needs them to start helping our future
generations.
11/25/2009 10:05:41 PM
Recommend (0)
dickiesnhogheaven wrote:
You know,I am more proud to be a REPULICAN now than I've ever
been,Looking how,The demoncrats,Are always looking for a hand
out,Believe any skam,They are told,Just like chicken little,The way
they have lied about everything they have done,Lieing on great
American Patriot's,Like Shara Palin,Joe Wilson,Pres.Bush,How they call
American People nazi's,Stupid,& Anti-American's,These people are so
plastic it is unreal,They can't or don't want to see what the demon's
have done to Calif.,MV.,The demoncrats have always lied to the
senor's,That the Rep's,Would take their S.S.,Medicade,Medicare,But the
demoncrats & their MESSIA,Has just stole over $5.Billon Dollars from
Medicare,The money payed by the working class American's,For years,The
DEMONCRATS DID THIS!,NOT the REPULICAN'S!,I just wonder how the
Demoncrats,Are going to lie on Pres. Bush, Or the Repulicans,The sad
part is you have week brained & looser's that will believe what they
are told,Why has'nt the White House,Or that communist Antina,Has'nt
called Glen Beck,And {PROVE},He is lieing,WHY?,Because they are
liers,Nothing has been done to help the American people finds
jobs,Even the cash for kunkers,Have closed car dealers doors,Because
the goverment has NOT PAID THEM,All it done was caused stupid people
to go into debt,With no jobs,A car payment,New tax'es,Higher Ins.Reel
good people,That was smart,It does not matter weather you are a Demon
or Rep,& lib,Just STOP & look some where else,And {SEE} what is really
going on!,You will not like what you see,Don't liston to the corrupt
lies,On the goverment media,If you do love America at all,You should
atleast look,Please don't be arrogant,Just give it a try,Freedom is
slipping away,And don't be stupid & say it will never happen,Look at
other countrys,They did not believe hilter could be so evil,But you
see what he did,Just look at pelosi,& reid,On what they are doing.
11/25/2009 10:03:58 PM
Recommend (3)
WestTexan2008 wrote:
James10 wrote:
WestTexan2008 wrote:
The email Climategate scandal simply confirms what many, if not most,
of us suspected.
===============
And Larry Craig confirmed what we knew all along. Republicans all have
a wide stance.
Odd. Mark Sanford plays around with a woman and they want him out.
Mark Foley fools around with minors and Hastert begs him to get re-
elected.
--------
What does any of that have to do with this forum - it's about the
president's trip to Denmark and man-made climate change?
11/25/2009 10:03:13 PM
Recommend (1)
James10 wrote:
Thanks mucho grande
gsms69 wrote:
dd163 wrote:
Hide the decline ... this is a must see
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhEJ8gm8aL4
**************************************
This is the post of the day. Very funny and true.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhEJ8gm8aL4
11/25/2009 10:02:02 PM
Recommend (2)
Independent109 wrote:
Let me know if any hotels in the Miami golden strand report any sea
level rises. You would think with all this alarming rise of
temperatures that they would have had to take some action instead of
just going on with business as usual.
I forgot to mention earlier that some BBC reporters, Nature and
RealClimate have no credibility either since they were mentioned in
the hacked emails as part of the cover up of declining temperatures.
11/25/2009 10:01:19 PM
Recommend (2)
James10 wrote:
WestTexan2008 wrote:
The email Climategate scandal simply confirms what many, if not most,
of us suspected.
===============
And Larry Craig confirmed what we knew all along. Republicans all have
a wide stance.
Odd. Mark Sanford plays around with a woman and they want him out.
Mark Foley fools around with minors and Hastert begs him to get re-
elected.
11/25/2009 9:58:37 PM
Recommend (0)
gsms69 wrote:
dd163 wrote:
Hide the decline ... this is a must see
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk
**************************************
This is the post of the day. Very funny and true.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk
11/25/2009 9:57:54 PM
Recommend (2)
jahoby wrote:
Our President doesn't quite understand the importance of cutting down
his own BO2 omissions (sorry, CO2 emissions).
11/25/2009 9:57:45 PM
Recommend (5)
James10 wrote:
Honest_Abe wrote:
James10 wrote:
This year 'in top five warmest'
By Roger Harrabin
Environment analyst, BBC News
This year will be one of the top five warmest years globally since
records began 150 years ago, according to figures compiled by the Met
Office.
=============
Yeah, but its cold in Bumf'ck, Oklahoma, so Global Warming must be a
hoax.
-------------
:o)
Everyone have a great Thanksgiving. If you're flying be careful,
Republicans will be all over those airport restroom stalls.
11/25/2009 9:53:40 PM
Recommend (1)
dfc102 wrote:
James10 wrote:
27081 wrote:
It's time for the people to take the country back from the do good
elite in power.
I don't want Obama to commit me or my family to anything.
Friday, I am going out to buy the largest, diesel SUV that they make.
============
Excellent. Buy two while you're at it.
While you and your family are driving around wearing your tin foil
hats you could write a sing-a-long about the global conspiracy to take
all the peanut butter off the planet.
On Friday the markets will be open to double up on your short
positions.
11/25/2009 9:49:28 PM
LOL...well done.
These idiots are standing in the path of progress they cannot
understand, will not delay, and ultimately won't affect.
11/25/2009 9:53:07 PM
Recommend (0) Report Abuse Discussion Policy
jahoby wrote:
This Prez omits more 'see i too' than any prior in history. It's all
abutt him.
11/25/2009 9:50:11 PM
Recommend (4)
James10 wrote:
27081 wrote:
It's time for the people to take the country back from the do good
elite in power.
I don't want Obama to commit me or my family to anything.
Friday, I am going out to buy the largest, diesel SUV that they make.
============
Excellent. Buy two while you're at it.
While you and your family are driving around wearing your tin foil
hats you could write a sing-a-long about the global conspiracy to take
all the peanut butter off the planet.
On Friday the markets will be open to double up on your short
positions.
11/25/2009 9:49:28 PM
Recommend (0)
Accuracy wrote:
This is an O'Bama attempt to FORCE the Climate Agenda down the throats
of all Americans.
How?
This proclamation puts the pressure on Congressional Dems as well as
Republicans to pass Cap and Trade.
Cap and Trade is one of the biggest farces and failures in derivative
market history ever created in Europe.
With the recent interception and hacking of emails from authors of the
''Climate Agenda'', one has to wonder where this is going and what
validity there is in any scientific fact supplied to support the
theories of Global warming in the first place.
O'Bama Copenhagen Declaration to ramming through Cap and Trade
legislation in the US.
That's right. All planned.
11/25/2009 9:48:38 PM
Recommend (5)
theidahokid wrote:
If the Messiah would quit with all the hot air, maybe we wouldn't have
global warming, But then he is a democrat
11/25/2009 9:48:27 PM
Recommend (4)
WestTexan2008 wrote:
The email Climategate scandal simply confirms what many, if not most,
of us suspected.
If Al Gore, the patron saint of Man-made Global Warming and Climate
Change, really believed that personal carbon emissions mattered, don't
you think he'd have stopped flying on private jets, given up his fleet
of SUV's and moved out of his 12,000 sq ft Belle Meade mansion (the
one that uses 19 times the energy of the average American home)?
Strangely, rather than pausing and taking a look at the scandal, our
president is rushing head-long into making commitments for our country
that have not been voted in both houses of Congress and may be
entirely based on junk science.
On the other hand, we've been waiting since May for him to make a
decision on troop levels in Afghanistan - a place where actual
Americans are dying.
11/25/2009 9:47:43 PM
Recommend (2)
Honest_Abe wrote:
James10 wrote:
This year 'in top five warmest'
By Roger Harrabin
Environment analyst, BBC News
This year will be one of the top five warmest years globally since
records began 150 years ago, according to figures compiled by the Met
Office.
=============
Yeah, but its cold in Bumf'ck, Oklahoma, so Global Warming must be a
hoax.
11/25/2009 9:46:26 PM
Recommend (0)
ItsOver2 wrote:
obama to commit???
obama is teabags other county leaders.
obama is a teabagger
11/25/2009 9:44:01 PM
Recommend (4)
whirlwind81 wrote:
Given the comments on this threat, there is no hope. Let's let Europe
and China innovate because we have a bunch of mouth breathing, SUV
driving, no-nothings. I hope you don't have children, because they
will inherit the results of your ignorance.
11/25/2009 9:43:48 PM
Recommend (1)
bob59 wrote:
Global Warming is Gore-bage.
11/25/2009 9:43:23 PM
Recommend (5)
James10 wrote:
This year 'in top five warmest'
By Roger Harrabin
Environment analyst, BBC News
This year will be one of the top five warmest years globally since
records began 150 years ago, according to figures compiled by the Met
Office.
The UK's weather service projects that, unless there is an
exceptionally cold spell before the end of the year, temperatures will
be up on last year.
Climate sceptics had pointed out that the temperature rise appeared to
have stalled in the last decade or so.
That was caused in part by the Pacific La Nina current, which cools
the Earth.
But the influence of La Nina declined in the spring and the Met Office
project that, barring a very cold December, this year will be the
fifth warmest on record.
Other sources say it could even be the third warmest.
The last ten years have been in the top 15 warmest on record. And this
summer the UK enjoyed temperatures higher than the long-term average.
Although the Met Office was pilloried after forecasting a "barbecue
summer", it was their rainfall forecast, not the projected
temperatures, that was wrong.
Next year we will see the influence of the warming El Nino current,
and the Met Office says there is a 50% chance that global temperatures
will hit an all-time high.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8377128.stm
11/25/2009 9:42:24 PM
Recommend (1)
Honest_Abe wrote:
Thank God the Republicans are not in charge. They would turn this
planet into a wasteland to help put a few more dollars in their
pockets. Greedy fools.
11/25/2009 9:41:48 PM
Recommend (2)
deadmanwalking wrote:
China is the world's leading (by far) greenhouse gas emitter. The are
demanding that WE cut ours while they don't because they are a
"developing" county...
...one might note they are devoloped enough for a very modern
military.
Obama will transfer more of our wealth to China, their ecomomy will
boom, ours will bust and then as their populations pollution riots
worsen, they will demand that We help them fix their air quality.
They will have, by then, the power to enforce the demand.
11/25/2009 9:37:46 PM
Recommend (3)
dfc102 wrote:
27081 wrote:
It's time for the people to take the country back from the do good
elite in power.
I don't want Obama to commit me or my family to anything.
Friday, I am going out to buy the largest, diesel SUV that they make.
11/25/2009 8:02:00 PM
LOL...brilliant investment.
As a gesture of defiance against Obama I'm going to buy an expensive,
bloated aircraft carrier on wheels that will be a massive financial
liability the second gas prices go up.
Good luck selling it in a year.
11/25/2009 9:34:27 PM
Recommend (0)
GordonShumway wrote:
Just another excuse and method for Obama to redistribute our wealth.
11/25/2009 9:30:29 PM
Recommend (8)
DD163 wrote:
Hide the decline ... this is a must see
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk
11/25/2009 9:30:29 PM
Recommend (3)
jmsmaxwell wrote:
Obama and his minions are in a great hurry to pass the Castrate and
Tax policis of his syndicate before he is thrown out of office. If you
follow the money trail and actuall have the brain power to do the
reseaerch you will find that he has absoulute no knowledge of climate
or the history of climate change in the world. If he and his groupies
fromt he rock mentality Kool Aid drinkers think that they can change
any thing they better get more Kool Aid. The changes have been going
on for centuries long before man walked on the face of the planet. And
it will continue long after we are gone from here. This is nothing
more, nothing less than a massive goverment grab for power to control
the lives of people world wide by a dedicated group bent on world
dominination by a select few. They have fed this garbage to people
over the years and in the schools to dumb down society and allows this
to pass with absoulute not truth in the matter. To say obama is a liar
is a mild statement.
11/25/2009 9:30:15 PM
Recommend (5)
chhotemianinshallah
In reversal, Canada's prime minister to attend UN climate-change
meeting in Copenhagen
Associated Press Writer
7:51 a.m. EST, November 27, 2009
TORONTO (AP) — Canada's prime minister is reversing his position and
will attend a United Nations climate change conference in Copenhagen
next month, Stephen Harper's spokesman said.
Dimitri Soudas announced Thursday that Harper decided to attend one
day after U.S. President Barack Obama and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao
announced their attendance at the U.N. talks. Soudas said Harper's
decision was based on the fact that now "a critical mass of world
leaders will be attending."
Soudas did not indicate on what day or days Harper would be there.
Harper's participation at the conference is a change of course for
Canada's Conservative government, which has consistently downplayed
expectations for the conference, where it was hoped the global
community would agree on a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol.
Only a week ago at an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in
Singapore, Harper told reporters that the assembled leaders shared "a
pretty strong consensus . . . that the countries of the world remain a
long way from a binding, legal treaty on climate change."
But with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Danish Prime Minister
Lars Lokke Rasmussen both attending a Commonwealth summit this weekend
to push the climate issue, Harper may have felt pressure to
participate in a global strategy to curb global warming.
The Conservative leader pulled Canada out of the Kyoto Protocol, a
1997 accord to fight global warming by reducing greenhouse gas
pollution, after he was elected in 2006. Since then Canada has come
under strong criticism internationally for reneging on the treaty and
for refusing to sign on to a new deal limiting greenhouse gases unless
developing nations are included.
Harper has called on Obama to agree to a new North American climate
change pact, saying it's difficult for one country in a shared
economic space to set policies independent of its neighbor, but no
formal agreement has been put in place.
The United States agreed to emission reductions in the Kyoto pact but
never implemented them because of strong political opposition at home.
The U.S. never ratified the Kyoto agreement.
Under the original Kyoto accord, signed by the previous Liberal
government, Canada committed to cutting emissions by 6 percent from
1990 levels by 2012. Output of greenhouse gases is now around 35
percent higher than 1990 levels.
The Conservative government says it plans to cut greenhouse gases by
20 percent by 2020 from 2006 levels, which are actually slightly
tougher than Obama's vow to reduce emissions by roughly 17 percent
below 2005 levels by 2020.
...and I am Sid Harth
chhotemianinshallah
Obama to Take 17% U.S. Emission Cut Vow to Copenhagen (Update1)
By Kim Chipman
Nov. 26 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama will travel to
Copenhagen for climate-change talks, where he’ll offer to cut U.S.
emissions about 17 percent by 2020 in an effort to help break a
deadlock between rich and poor nations.
Obama will visit the Danish capital on Dec. 9 during negotiations on a
global climate treaty. The U.S. will propose cutting its emissions “in
the range of 17 percent” from 2005 levels by 2020, Carol Browner,
Obama’s top adviser on energy and the environment, told reporters
yesterday. It will be the first time the U.S. has offered such a
target.
U.S. legislation backed by Obama to cut greenhouse gases and establish
a market for the trading of pollution allowances passed the House in
June and then stalled in the Senate. Administration officials said
they aren’t going to Denmark empty-handed and Obama’s attendance will
send a strong signal.
“The president going to Copenhagen will give positive momentum to the
negotiations,” Michael Froman, Obama’s deputy national security
adviser for international economics, told reporters yesterday. “We
think it will enhance the prospects for success.”
Negotiations for a new global climate treaty have been stymied as
industrialized nations and developing countries disagreed on issues
such as emissions-reduction targets and how much financial help rich
nations should provide to poor ones.
‘Shoulder Responsibilities’
“The United States is the biggest developed country in the world, so
it should shoulder its historic responsibilities and obligations
suitable to its national development level,” Chinese Foreign Ministry
Spokesman Qin Gang told reporters in Beijing today. Premier Wen Jiabao
would travel to Copenhagen, he said, without giving any additional
details.
China and India have said industrialized countries must be willing to
cut their carbon output 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2020 if they
expect poorer nations to agree to long-term reduction goals.
The Obama administration hopes other major economies will “put forth
ambitious actions of their own,” Browner said.
Obama, who campaigned on a pledge to tackle climate change, has been
under pressure to attend the meeting and offer a 2020 reduction
target. The U.S., the biggest greenhouse-gas producer among developed
nations, has faced criticism for failing to enact legislation.
Obama’s attendance is “critical,” Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of
the UN Framework Convention of Climate Change, which runs the talks,
said yesterday in a Webcast from Bonn.
“The world is very much looking to the U.S. to come up with an
emissions reduction target” as well as financial aid to help
developing countries cut emissions and adapt to global warming, de
Boer said.
Pending Legislation
The proposed U.S. emissions reduction is in line with the pending
legislation in Congress. The House-passed measure calls for a 17
percent reduction while a version in the Senate calls for a cut of 20
percent.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said last week
that his chamber won’t take up legislation until “sometime in the
spring.”
Obama’s decision to go to Copenhagen could prod Congress, Senator John
Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat who has sought a bipartisan compromise
on the Senate climate bill, said in a statement.
It “could be one hell of a global game-changer with big reverberations
here at home,” he said.
The president’s plans were also welcomed by companies such as DuPont
Co. that are pushing for a cap on U.S. carbon-dioxide pollution that
scientists blame for climate change.
It “sends a message that addressing climate and energy challenges are
priorities for the U.S.,” Michael Parr, manager of government affairs
for Wilmington, Delaware-based DuPont, the third-biggest U.S. chemical
maker, said in a statement.
“Obama has a great story to tell,” James Roger, chief executive
officer of Duke Energy Corp., said in an interview last week, citing
House passage of climate legislation and the adoption of greenhouse-
gas standards for vehicles. Duke owns electric utilities in the U.S.
Southeast and Midwest.
Dissenting from the praise, Friends of the Earth said Obama’s
administration has “pushed for a weak and unfair” climate accord.
“The president needs to do more than just show up,” Erich Pica,
president of the Washington-based environmental group, said in a
statement. “He must ensure that the U.S. promotes real solutions.”
Danish Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen has invited the heads of
almost 200 countries to the Danish capital for the last two days of
the Dec. 7-18 meeting. So far, at least 66 leaders have said they will
attend. In addition to Premier Wen, they include German Chancellor
Angela Merkel, U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Japanese Prime
Minister Yukio Hatoyama.
Political Agreement
Leaders including Obama have said that a binding accord for reducing
greenhouse gases isn’t expected in Copenhagen. The UN had previously
said the meeting would mark the deadline for completing a treaty.
Instead, leaders are now calling for a “meaningful” political
agreement as a framework for a final accord to replace to replace the
1997 Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. Negotiations are expected
to continue next year.
Obama’s visit to Copenhagen, during the first of two weeks of climate
talks, will be followed the next day by a stop in Oslo to accept the
Nobel Peace Prize.
To contact the reporter on this story: Kim Chipman in Washington at
kchi...@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: November 26, 2009 02:30 EST
chhotemianinshallah
China sets target for emission cuts
PREMIER TO GO TO COPENHAGEN
Moves could signal progress in climate talks
PHOTOS Previous Next
(AP)
FILE -- In a Nov. 18, 2009 file photo President Barack Obama, left,
and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, right, gesture to each other during
the arrival at Diaoyutai State Guest House before their bilateral
meeting in Beijing, China. China announced Thursday Nov. 26, 2009 that
Premier Wen Jiabao will take part in the Copenhagen meeting on the
global effort to reduce greenhouse emissions. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez
Monsivais/file) (Pablo Martinez Monsivais - AP)
Interactive Graphic
By Juliet Eilperin
Friday, November 27, 2009
China announced Thursday that it will lower its carbon emissions
relative to the size of its economy by as much as 45 percent by 2020,
the official New China News Agency reported, and that Premier Wen
Jiabao will participate in international climate negotiations in
Copenhagen next month.
The move by the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter to announce a
near-term target of a 40 to 45 percent reduction, coming a day after
President Obama set U.S. climate goals for the talks, suggests a
possible breakthrough in Denmark next month in the long-stalled
climate negotiations. But the State Council's announcement that China
will cut its carbon output relative to economic growth, using 2005 as
a baseline, fell short of the 50 or 55 percent cut many world leaders
had hoped Beijing would make.
Michael Levi, a senior fellow for energy and the environment at the
Council on Foreign Relations, called the announcement "disappointing,"
because the Energy Information Administration estimates that existing
Chinese policies will already cut the nation's carbon intensity by 45
to 46 percent. Carbon intensity is a measure that captures the amount
of carbon dioxide emitted per unit of gross domestic product.
"It does not move them beyond business as usual," Levi said. "The
United States has put an ambitious path for emissions cuts through
2050 on the table. China needs to raise its level of ambition if it is
going to match that. One can only hope that, now that China has made a
proposal, negotiators are able to work out something better."
The European Commission, the executive body of the European Union,
welcomed "the leadership China is bringing to this negotiation," while
noting that it will be "disappointing to some" that the cuts did not
go further.
Others, however, hailed China's commitment as a step the country had
not been willing to take before.
China is not obligated to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions under
the current framework for the U.N.-sponsored negotiations. But it is
expected to account for 50 percent of the growth in global emissions
over the next 20 years, making its output nearly 60 percent higher
than U.S. output by 2020.
Any future climate treaty will be ineffective unless China agrees to
make deep cuts.
Given China's projected growth rates, its emission levels are expected
to rise even under the plan the New China News Agency outlined on
Thursday. Still, any effort China makes to curb its carbon footprint
will have an enormous impact.
According to the D.C.-based Center for Clean Air Policy, China's goal
to cut its carbon intensity by 20 percent by 2010 would result in a
1.6 billion ton cut in emissions.
Levi, using data from the Energy Information Administration, said that
under this plan, China's overall emission levels would still grow 72
to 88 percent by 2020, about the same amount they would have increased
anyway, given efficiencies expected as the country's economy becomes
more advanced.
"The big unknown is how fast China's going to grow," said Joe Romm,
who edits the blog ClimateProgress.org for the liberal Center for
American Progress Action Fund. He noted, however, that the government
may make deeper cuts because it tends to ratchet up its energy goals.
Just recently, he said, China tripled its target for wind energy
production. "China has a history of strengthening these targets," he
said.
Yvo de Boer, who will run the Copenhagen talks as executive secretary
of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, welcomed both the
recent U.S. and Chinese policy proposals. The White House said the
United States will cut its emissions "in the range of 17 percent" by
2020, relative to 2005 levels.
"The U.S. commitment to specific midterm emission cut targets and
China's commitment to specific action on energy efficiency can unlock
two of the last doors to a comprehensive agreement," de Boer said.
At the same time, he said, "we need continued strong ambition and
leadership. In particular, we still await clarity from industrialized
nations on the provision of large-scale finance to developing
countries for immediate and long-term climate action."
The European Commission voiced a mixed reaction to the U.S. climate
targets, which would reduce the nation's greenhouse gas emissions by
83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. The commission said the targets
have "positive elements" but are "lower than we would like." European
leaders have called on industrialized nations to collectively cut
their emissions by 25 to 40 percent by 2020, using 1990 emission
levels as a reference point.
In an interview Wednesday, Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John F.
Kerry (D-Mass.) said he had urged Obama to attend the Copenhagen talks
and set international climate goals to get "China and India and others
to step up" and set emission targets. "It seemed to me fairly
straightforward the president ought to lead on this," Kerry said.
Obama will spend one day at the talks, which run Dec. 7 to 18.
Connie Hedegaard, Danish minister for the climate conference, said
Thursday that while "we must analyze more carefully" the Chinese
proposal and that the U.S. target for 2020 "might not be what the
world has been hoping for," both initiatives prove that "the
Copenhagen deadline works."
"One by one, governments from all over the world are delivering before
the climate conference next month. Last week, we saw concrete targets
from Brazil and South Korea, and Russia improved its bid," Hedegaard
said. "All across the globe, things are moving."
Staff writer Steven Mufson contributed to this report.
Sid Harth
Environmentalists Fume Over China Emissions Pledge
More By Max Fisher on November 27, 2009 11:01am
Frederic J Brown / AFP China, the world's leading emitter of
greenhouse gasses, announced Thursday that will set specific targets
for reducing emissions at next month's climate change conference in
Copenhagen. China will pledge to reduce "carbon intensity," the amount
of carbon dioxide emitted per unit of economic growth, by 40 to 45
percent by 2020. The plan is an unusual one compared to most other
countries, which pledge to reduce the specific tonnage of greenhouse
gas emissions rather than pegging it to economic growth.
•Could Actually Increase Carbon The Guardian's Bryony Worthington
explains. "[B]ecause economic forecasts already predict that China's
economy will become less carbon intensive in the next decade, the
country's pledge actually only amounts to a cut of between zero and
12% off business as usual emissions in 2020 (depending on what version
of the future you choose to compare it with). That is roughly a 40%
increase in CO2 emissions on current levels," she writes. "The US's
number, as environmentalists, frustrated by the lost decade under
President Bush, are keen to point out, amounts to only a 4% cut in
emissions compared with 1990 levels."
•Tactical Win for Obama The Daily Beast's Richard Wolffe credits
President Obama with securing the agreement during his recent visit to
China. "Beyond the photo ops and press statements, Obama was pushing
President Hu Jintao and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for the kind of
climate deals that eluded him at the G8 summit in Italy in the summer
– and have eluded international negotiators for the last decade. China
and India have played central roles in blocking past agreements,
alongside the US, in a seemingly intractable dispute between fast-
developing economies and the older, wealthier polluters."
•Silver Lining? The Guardian's Jonathan Watts reports that this may
just be an opening bid. "But Xie Zhenhua, the country's most senior
climate negotiator, hinted at the possibility of faster steps if the
developed nations provided more assistance. 'It will be difficult
because it is already tough for us to achieve our target," he said.
"If we receive technical and financial support, we might be able to
reach our target at an earlier date.'"
•Just Not Enough Treehugger's Daniel Kessler laments the odd
strategy. "[I]ts emissions will actually increase over time because
its economy is expanding so rapidly. As the world's Number 1 Polluter
(but far down when it comes to per capita emissions), China's goal is
not enough," he writes. "It should be noted, however, that China is
making massive investments in renewable energy and increasing its
standards for efficiency."
•U.S. Should Do More The Guardian's Isabel Hilton weighs the Chinese
commitment. "It certainly counts: according to a recent calculation
from the International Energy Agency, if China reaches all of its 2020
targets more than 1bn tons of carbon dioxide emissions would be
avoided – 25% of what the world needs," she writes, but blasts the
U.S. pledge as too weak. "From the scientific perspective, the total
of all these offers falls far short of what is required to keep the
temperature rise below 2C and the catastrophic changes that could
trigger. There is little doubt that, had the US acted, China would
have felt obliged to raise its own game."
Sid Harth
What do the US and China's emissions targets actually mean?
The momentum towards Copenhagen is gaining but how do emissions
reduction offers from the EU, US and China compare?
Bryony Worthington guardian.co.uk,
Thursday 26 November 2009 15.57 GMT
The coal fueled Fiddlers Ferry power station emits vapour into the
night sky on November 16, 2009 in Warrington. Photograph: Christopher
Furlong/Getty Images
So we finally have the long-awaited emissions reduction offers from
the US and China: a 17% reduction from 2005 levels from the US and a
40-45% reduction in "the carbon intensity of the economy" by 2020 from
China. The momentum towards the UN climate talks in Copenhagen seems
to be gaining by the hour and these developments must be welcomed.
The EU's initial offer of a 20% cut on 1990 levels over the same time
period – finalised last month – is the third important part of the
jigsaw. These three country blocks account for around 60% of global
emissions so what they do is incredibly important. But what do these
targets really mean?
China's impressive-sounding target to reduce its carbon intensity
refers to cutting the CO2 that is emitted per yuan of economic
activity. But because economic forecasts already predict that China's
economy will become less carbon intensive in the next decade, the
country's pledge actually only amounts to a cut of between zero and
12% off business as usual emissions in 2020 (depending on what version
of the future you choose to compare it with). That is roughly a 40%
increase in CO2 emissions on current levels.
The US's number, as environmentalists, frustrated by the lost decade
under President Bush, are keen to point out, amounts to only a 4% cut
in emissions compared with 1990 levels.
But Europe is also playing the same game. The 1990 baseline for its
targets flatters the EU massively because it allows it to count the
emissions reductions that occurred in the 1990s due to the collapse of
Soviet economies that are now part of the club. The combination of
this unearned reduction, with a handful of one-off reductions in
industrial gases in a few countries, delivered Europe its Kyoto target
ahead of schedule. And it is now set to achieve more than a 10%
reduction by the end of this decade – helped along by the current
recession. Compared with 2005 emissions the current 20% target is only
a 13% reduction by 2020.
So what is the best basis to judge whether countries are committing to
a comparable effort? The main obstacle to reaching global agreement is
countries' concerns about their economic competitiveness. And clearly
what impacts this most is the level of effort that needs to be
expended to reduce emissions between now and the target deadline. So
arguably the most sensible metric is to compare targets against most
recent levels.
Recast against a 2007 baseline the US and EU numbers look like this:
Europe – minus 11.7%; US – minus 17.3%.
Over a number of years, the EU has claimed to be leading the world in
reducing emissions. It has introduced a range of policies to try to
curb emissions but these have been slow to start and dedicated climate
and energy policies have delivered few savings to date. This is
evident not only in the emissions record so far but also from the
continued unbroken link between emissions and economic growth or
decline. Investment in energy infrastructure also appears not to have
deviated significantly from "business as usual", with many more coal-
fired power stations being proposed in Europe. Cap and trade
regulation has been implemented on 50% of emissions, however, they
have been set too leniently leading too surpluses in emissions permits
and low prices.
More investment is now being made into renewable electricity but this
is still too insignificant on its own to achieve a significant
reduction in all energy-related emissions. The harder tasks of
reducing emissions from coal-fired power stations and industrial plant
and decarbonising our transport and heating systems has yet to begin
in earnest. As a result, emissions in recent years, the effect of the
recent recession aside, have been more or less static.
But the good news is that Europe does at least have some momentum and
a policy head start over countries like the US. But only tougher
targets will provide the impetus for serious policy change and
investment on the ground. That is why the targets announced over the
last two days by the US and China are welcome because the EU should
now be forced to move to its higher conditional target of at least a
30% cut on 1990 levels (meaning a 22% cut on 2007).
Even if Europe does this, the collective effort now on the table still
falls well short of the latest scientific recommendations that global
emissions should peak and decline by 2015 to avoid a less than 50/50
chance of going above 2C warming. Negotiators in Copenhagen must
therefore try to ratchet up all the numbers currently on the table.
Failing that it is imperative that these numbers for 2020 are reviewed
following the publication of the next scientific assessment due in
2014. By then, the world will be well on the way to developing clean
energy technologies, and it should be possible for much more ambitious
targets to be agreed.
Capturing countries' current ambitions now in a legally binding
framework, even if they are low, is politically important but we
should not see this as the final word. A decade is a long time and we
must plan to increase our efforts as soon as possible.
• Bryony Worthington is director of Sandbag. To help make sense of the
numbers Sandbag has developed a quick and easy online target
convertor.
Comments in chronological order (Total 18 comments)
26 Nov 2009, 4:34PM
Looks like the short answer is do coal, do nukes, or do without.
Apparently all CO2 reductions so far came with significant economic
decline. There is also the "stuff" problem. Resource and size
requirements for "renewable energy" are apparently in the range of 1
kg-Fe/W averaged over time. Coal, nuclear, oil, and natual gas seem to
come in at about 0.1 kg-Fe/W for everything, averaged over time. To
avoid "do without" might need 50 TW by 2100. 1 kg-Fe/W would represent
50 years world iron production. Otherwise somebody has to decide who
will do without. Requiring 9 billion to "do without" might be very
unpleasant if the existing 1 billion that are presently "doing with"
are not also required to "do without."
Recommend? (2)
winterofdiscontent
26 Nov 2009, 4:51PM
The correct link to the Snadbag Target Converter is:
http://www.sandbagclimategame.org/tc
NoSurrenderMonkey
26 Nov 2009, 4:54PM
Recurring recessions due to inadequate oil supply will greatly reduce
carbon emissions. We won't need to do a damn thing to negate the
distant threat posed by global warming.
Bilanski
26 Nov 2009, 5:06PM
Meaning? Not much.
Simple-minded bandwagoneers out there want to hear something they want
to hear. Politicians throw out some fictitious numbers to appease
them. That's all. Who will remember and follow up in 2020? Bite me if
they aren't achieved.
The real solution is population and consumption control! Of course,
the religious, corporate types and government tax revenue agencies
won't allow this to happen.
Recommend? (1)
ludumdiaboli
26 Nov 2009, 6:26PM
No SurrenderMonkey is surely right. As an oiless world falls into
permanant slump, we will be stuck with continuing warming due to the
time lag for a while but then it'll plateau off
But at that point warming will be the least of our problems
Are we fighting the wrong war?
ludumdiaboli
26 Nov 2009, 6:26PM
No SurrenderMonkey is surely right. As an oiless world falls into
permanant slump, we will be stuck with continuing warming due to the
time lag for a while but then it'll plateau off
But at that point warming will be the least of our problems
Are we fighting the wrong war?
janeinalberta
26 Nov 2009, 7:22PM
Unfortunately, it is just wishful thinking that the emissions problem
will be solved by the world running out of oil. The world is nowhere
near running out of coal which actually has higher emissions than oil,
and remains a cheap fossil fuel.
There are two challenges. One is to replace coal fired power stations
with either nuclear, or renewables or still use coal but have CCS
(carbon capture and storage). The second is to find substitutes for
oil, partly because we are running out of the stuff, and partly
because we need to avoid using non-conventional sources of oil such as
the Canadian tar sands, for the reason that they produce much higher
emissions because of the energy needed for extraction.
And of course we also need to reduce consumption and conserve as much
energy as possible, but that is much easier for the developed world
since we already have so much waste; it is far more difficult for
developing countries.
Population growth may be a problem for other environmental and
resource reasons, but it is almost irrelevant to climate change. The
countries where population is expanding are the ones with the tiniest
per capita emissions. If population were the problem then you'd expect
to see sub-Saharan Africa top of the emission tables.
Global warming is no longer a distant threat. Recent predictions are
for 6 to 7 degrees warming by the end of the century. That's the death
of billions, mass extinctions and end of civilisation scenario. I'm in
my 50s and only expecting to live for another 40 years at most, but
even someone of my age can expect to see a major deterioration in
living conditions caused by climate change. Anyone younger than me
should expect the last years of their lives to be very unpleasant, and
to die with the certain knowledge that the lives of their descendants
(if any survive) will be nasty brutish and short.
Recommend? (1)
pnc7
26 Nov 2009, 7:54PM
"What do the US and China's emissions targets actually mean?"
Let's apply a bit of primary school arithmetic.
The US 17% cut on 2005 levels would also mean about 17% cut on 2009,
since they went up 05 to 07 and down 07 to 09. It may well be
achievable with a bit of luck and a compliant Senate.
For China we need to make a few assumptions. Growth of GDP has
averaged 11-12% in each of the past 10 years. Let's assume 10% /A in
each of the next 11 years, ie 280% by 2020. However, a determined
China may reduce emissions per unit of GDP by 40% giving an increase
in emissions of only 168% on 2009 levels.
Marvellous!
NoSurrenderMonkey
26 Nov 2009, 9:19PM
@janeinalberta
The fall in economic activity due to peak oil will more than offset
increased emissions from desperate, endgame ploys such as coal to
liquids and tar sands.
Yes, there is some coal (peak from 2025 by some estimates) and tar
sands, but coal to liquids, gas to liquids, tar sands and other
substitutes for conventional oil won't scale up enough to offset
natural depletion. Although there is a huge resource in Canada, it
will never be fully exploited. The capital will not be forthcoming
because it will not exist; general economic collapse due to a general
shortfall in oil supply will see to that. Even a slight shortfall in
supply will cause prices for oil to rise to the point where the
economy slips back into recession. In recession, with tight credit and
a collapsed oil price, there will be inadequate investment in future
supply, setting up another shortfall upon the economy's recovery. Each
cycle will bring greater economic deterioration than the last as
energy prices trend upwards across the cyclical fluctuation due to a
deteriorating EROEI with the remaining resource. This is happening
because we will have to drill deeper, or in more inhospitable places
like the Arctic, or have to extract ever smaller pools of oil, spread
over a much wider area requiring ever more expensive rigs.
Alternatives like coal and gas to liquids require a lot of capital to
set up and waste energy, as does CCS. It's not going to happen to the
extent we need to avoid eventual economic collapse.
This scenario will continue to unfold over the coming decade. We're
already in it. Since oil plays such a critical part in the process by
which we feed ourselves, it's safe to anticipate some major problems
for human civilisation now. But, you want us to focus on a problem you
say is of a similar magnitude - at the end of the century...
I certainly don't wish that peak oil solves the global warming
problem. The latter is low on my list of priorities, right now.
janeinalberta
26 Nov 2009, 9:59PM
NoSurrenderMonkey.
You might be right, although personally I'm not confident we can be so
certain about when oil will peak or what the effect will be; but
surely the solutions are the same? Developing alternative sources of
energy is a priority for both peak oil and climate change?
Bluecloud
26 Nov 2009, 10:44PM
Great article and required reading for anyone going to Copenhagen.
Check it out:
NoSurrenderMonkey
26 Nov 2009, 10:54PM
Yes, we're basically on the same side, except you're anti coal-fired
power stations and the rest while I regard them as a vital bridge
providing the energy we need to scale up nuclear, onshore wind, and
solar CSP and so on so that we can get off oil as far as we can.
As to when; the IEA, the official experts, predict a serious shortfall
in just a few years time. Even a shallow ascent past 2020 will be
insufficient and will give what I described above. The effect? Well,
the role of oil in our food chain is indisputable. Nuts and berries
from eco-farms won't be enough to feed us.
You really are fighting the wrong war.
janeinalberta
27 Nov 2009, 2:40AM
One reason I have some scepticism about your position is that I live
in Alberta. Here, we're told that tar-sands oil is profitable at over
$80 a barrel. And, it is being developed very rapidly. Frankly, I
think that your belief that the tarsands oil will not be fully
exploited because the capital won't exist to do so would not stand up
to scrutiny.
The global warming crisis is too advanced to use coal fired power
stations as a stop-gap measure.
MoveAnyMountain
27 Nov 2009, 5:38AM
janeinalberta
The second is to find substitutes for oil, partly because we are
running out of the stuff, and partly because we need to avoid using
non-conventional sources of oil such as the Canadian tar sands, for
the reason that they produce much higher emissions because of the
energy needed for extraction.
Well perhaps but you ignore the other option which is to improve the
extraction technology for tar sands so that they are not so carbon
intensive.
And of course we also need to reduce consumption and conserve as much
energy as possible, but that is much easier for the developed world
since we already have so much waste; it is far more difficult for
developing countries.
There is no "of course" about it. And of course conservation is a
waste of time and money. Most everything that can be saved has been
saved. Even if we saved more, we would just buy other carbon-intensive
things with the money left over. Whatever else you can say, we will
use more energy in the future.
Global warming is no longer a distant threat. Recent predictions are
for 6 to 7 degrees warming by the end of the century. That's the death
of billions, mass extinctions and end of civilisation scenario.
You assume the predictions are right or even within a billion light
years of being right. Why?
Anyone younger than me should expect the last years of their lives to
be very unpleasant, and to die with the certain knowledge that the
lives of their descendants (if any survive) will be nasty brutish and
short.
In reality, life is going to go on getting better, science is going to
progress, we are going to live longer, the Third World will catch up
with our levels of wealth and freedom and generally everything will be
fine. As much as everyone else here might wish for us all to die
horribly.
NoSurrenderMonkey
Yes, there is some coal (peak from 2025 by some estimates) and tar
sands, but coal to liquids, gas to liquids, tar sands and other
substitutes for conventional oil won't scale up enough to offset
natural depletion. Although there is a huge resource in Canada, it
will never be fully exploited. The capital will not be forthcoming
because it will not exist; general economic collapse due to a general
shortfall in oil supply will see to that.
I am sorry but what magical feature of unconventional sources means
that they cannot scale up? You mean just a shortage of capital? Well,
which is more likely, do you think, we all go back to the Dark Ages or
the capital is produced and the tar sands are exploited?
Besides, tar sands break even at about $40 a barrel. Lower if you
believe the Oil companies, higher if you believe the Greens. They are
profitable at a higher price. If oil hits $120, much less $400, and
stays there, the capital will be forthcoming.
Even a slight shortfall in supply will cause prices for oil to rise to
the point where the economy slips back into recession. In recession,
with tight credit and a collapsed oil price, there will be inadequate
investment in future supply, setting up another shortfall upon the
economy's recovery.
Yeah. Sure.
janeinalberta
27 Nov 2009, 6:51AM
MoveanyMountain
I'm not aware of any technology on the horizon that would reduce
emissions from tar-sands oil to anything like the level of
conventional oil. It's not just the energy needed to extract the oil
from the tar, but the fact that first boreal forest and top soil are
removed, which in itself has a huge carbon price.
I believe the predictions basically, because I'm not an idiot. A
consensus of the world's scientists is good enough for me. I can
understand the basic science of global warming. I know what a peer
reviewed publication is. I can't construct a computer climate model,
but I trust the scientists who do.
Believing everything will be all right means believing people such as
failed Tory politician Lord Monckton (boy do yanks love a lord), or an
anthropology professor with an unimpressive publishing record, or one
of the other professional climate change sceptics, who have no more
qualifications for commenting on the science than I do. Anybody who
takes them seriously, such as Weirdo Harper and his cronies is either
wacko, profoundly dumb or dishonest and self-serving.
easteregg
27 Nov 2009, 9:55AM
Are the AGW-Warmists playing their number-games again?
No they are not because the numbers are clear, and should cause the EU
to hang their head in shame.
China, one of the lowest per capita CO2 emitters of 3 t/a, is
willingness to reduce it down to 1.9 t/a.
When will Europe commitment and act rather than behave like
propagandists and bullies? We need to try to match China by lowering
emission from the current 10 t/a down to the level of 2 t/a!
Hot air rhetoric and cheating schemes to look good will no longer cut
it! By the way, what makes the EU so special to allow them to emit
three times more CO2 than the Chinese? Either there is not much
concern about the predicted imminent doom or it?s not the right time
yet to put the money where the mouth is.
The other option is to send the CO2 reduction plans to the AGW-
specialty-department. Very recently the department secured the
exclusive right to a proprietary date enhancement process that was
approved by the IPCC.
Recommend? (1)
NoSurrenderMonkey
27 Nov 2009, 2:38PM
@Moveanymountain
You're talking nonsense
First, tar sands break even at $40 a barrel? Then why is the
development of tar sands proceeding at a snail's pace? Oil is at $70
to $80 and has been for some time. Actually, $70 to $85 was estimated
as the break-even price for tar sands at the end of last year. $80 was
recently calculated to be the price beyond which the US economy would
be put into recession. Oil can't remain at a substantially higher
price due to ensuing demand destruction.
There's lots of information on tar sands available at The Oil Drum or
www.energybulletin.net
Here's a link to something that should help -
In short, tar sand development is constrained in turn by constraints
on water, natural gas, and capital, among other things. Tar sands
require a big up-front investment with very long development times and
low energy gain.
The capital to develop this resource - and other low EROEI resources
and processes - will not be produced because it simply won't exist.
Too much energy will be taken from the rest of the economy to get our
energy in the first place, causing recurrent recession and the
destruction of capital. Making more electronic money won't do the
trick in the long term, it will just create hyper-inflation, or
stagflation. You can't borrow from the future if everyone knows you
don't have one. There's no use pointing to some waifer thin net energy
gain from tar sands, the rest of the animal will be dead.
Your `yeah sure' remark at the end of your post does not constitute
much of an argument. We are already in this scenario. Projects have
been delayed and postponed indefinitely.
NoSurrenderMonkey
27 Nov 2009, 2:55PM
@janeinalberta
You say the global warming crisis is too advanced for coal-fired power
stations. If our civilisation doesn't make it past peak fossil fuels
(google `Olduvai theory'), then it doesn't really matter much what
happens with global warming, does it? Empty subsistence for the
survivors isn't a mode of life worth preserving.
You need to show why my belief does not stand up to scrutiny - not
just say it doesn't.
Sid Harth
Obama's Secret Climate Pact
by Richard Wolffe
It's no coincidence that one day after the White House announced new
emissions targets, China followed suit with its own target. The Daily
Beast's Richard Wolffe on the behind-the-scenes negotiations during
Obama's Asia trip that could help break the climate stalemate in
Copenhagen.
After the Olympic-sized disappointment of his last trip to Copenhagen,
why on earth would President Obama want to travel once again to the
Danish capital for next month’s UN climate talks?
The answer, according to White House officials, lies in several weeks
of intensive behind-the-scenes diplomacy that the press corps entirely
overlooked during Obama’s recent trip to China, and during the recent
state visit by India’s prime minister.
"Obama is at the point where he feels on the verge of a breakthrough,
based on the kind of talks that don’t get covered by reporters
obsessing about state dinners."
Beyond the photo ops and press statements, Obama was pushing President
Hu Jintao and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for the kind of climate
deals that eluded him at the G8 summit in Italy in the summer – and
have eluded international negotiators for the last decade. China and
India have played central roles in blocking past agreements, alongside
the US, in a seemingly intractable dispute between fast-developing
economies and the older, wealthier polluters.
Now Obama is at the point where he feels on the verge of a
breakthrough, based on the kind of talks that don’t get covered by
reporters obsessing about state dinners. “He had extensive
conversations with President Hu specifically on climate and
conversations with the prime minister of India,” said one senior White
House aide. “So he has been building momentum for a political
agreement to be brokered at Copenhagen.”
That was the backdrop for Wednesday’s White House announcement of
specific targets to reduce emissions “in the range of 17% below 2005
levels in 2020.” The next day, on Thanksgiving, China announced its
own bargaining position to slow the growth of carbon emissions by
2020. Using a different standard from the US – measuring carbon
intensity (relative to its own economic growth), China is offering a
40 to 45% cut below 2005 levels.
Environmental groups have criticized both the American and Chinese
targets as too low. But the criticism was much sharper when it looked
like President Obama might not attend Copenhagen. Now the White House
says Obama believes he can be a decisive factor in turning the talks
into a success. “He feels he can be a catalyst for getting a political
agreement in place,” says one senior aide.
Obama’s decision to attend Copenhagen only crystallized over the last
two weeks as the Chinese and Indian talks progressed, out of public
view. However Obama will not stay for the conclusion of the week-long
talks, and he arrives at the start of the conference before traveling
on to Oslo, Norway, to accept his Nobel peace prize the following day.
Instead, he will leave behind several White House and Cabinet
officials, including Energy Secretary Steven Chu, EPA Administrator
Lisa Jackson and White House climate change czar Carol Browner.
By leaving early, Obama has drawn some European criticism since he
will not be present for the later-stage arm-twisting that could be
decisive in reaching an international agreement. Yet that scheduling
decision also avoids any potential embarrassment in case Copenhagen
ends up with no agreement whatsoever – a possible repeat of the
Olympics fiasco. Speculation has already surfaced that the President
might jet back to Copenhagen if a deal is within reach a week later.
“Let’s hope there’s good karma in Copenhagen this time,” says one
White House official.
The main difference between the Olympic trip and the climate talks:
The White House has been doing its own prep work instead of relying on
others. Obama’s personal investment in climate talks – from the G8 to
his recent Asian travel – appears to have delivered some concrete, if
modest, agreements. His prep has also delivered other benefits,
including this week’s support from China for a strongly-worded, but
limited, statement condemning Iran’s nuclear program at the IAEA. Both
were overlooked during the Asia trip that was widely criticized for
its lack of so-called deliverables.
However the climate negotiators may be more interested to hear about
the kind of prep work the President has engaged in back home with his
own Congress. Without a clear promise of binding US legislation, the
Copenhagen talks may struggle to move ahead amid skepticism about
America’s commitment to slowing climate change.
This week the White House was eager to point out that the President’s
Copenhagen targets were in line with legislation currently before
Congress. It also quoted favorably from a range of unlikely
supporters, including Senator Joe Lieberman and several energy company
CEOs, such as Jim Rogers of Duke Energy and Lew Hay of Florida Power &
Light.
Whether those statements will satisfy the international negotiators,
or add to any momentum inside Congress, is unclear. At least Obama
will return from Europe with something golden and tangible in his
hands: the medal dedicated to his Nobel prize.
Richard Wolffe is Daily Beast columnist and an award-winning
journalist, and senior strategist at Public Strategies. He covered the
entire length of Barack Obama's presidential campaign for Newsweek
magazine. His book, Renegade: The Making of a President, was published
by Crown in June.
November 26, 2009 | 6:51pm
(17) Show Replies Collapse Replies
The emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit
that a whistle blower leaked out into the media, now known as
"climategate," prove what a fraud Algore, Copenhagen and the so-called
"Global Warming" really is. Now this nimcompoop of a president is
going to go across the globe and commit to spending trillions more of
the US taxpayers money that we don't have on a HOAX. America will
never be able to recover from the debt that this administration is
forcing upon us.
If anyone at the Daily Beast had any balls or gave a crap about the
solvency of the United States they would cover the University of East
Anglia's Climate Research Unit memos truthfully and honestly. What do
you say DB, do you have the integrity to call this hoax for what it is
or will you sit back and let jouranlistic ethics fall further into the
abyss? C'mon get some balls DB.
10:49 pm, Nov 26, 2009
hkjonus
Jump back under your rock loser. Are you the original creator of this
crap or just some 5th grade educated moron fed by BeckLimbaugh?
Because you look at the horizon and see a straight flat line, does not
mean the earth is flat. You go one ranting and being used as a tool by
whoever the fcuk had taken control of your little brain, while the
other 99% of the planet moves forward.
11:28 pm, Nov 26, 2009
OldCrow
The 'flat earthers' in this case are the fools who fell for the
climate change scam. Read the East Anglia emails, there are many, many
examples of scientists intentionally rigging data to protect their
lucrative grants and programs.
We need to be good stewards of the earth and continue research, but
shouldn't be Bernie Madoff suckers and fall for the Al Gore fraud.
6:47 am, Nov 27, 2009
Baddchild
Look a the polls you asswipe, the rest of the country has awaken to
all the crap you and the other global warming hoax douchebags are
trying to pull. Thats why 0bama is going to run over to Copenhagen to
appease you liberal loonies while he still has a job, creating a
carbon footprint the size of Rhode Island. That is all he has left is
you whack jobs, he's lost the right, the Independents and the moderate
lefties.
Funny, you don't debate anything about the global warming hoax, just
call names and accuse me of having my mind controlled. Yet, there sits
all those emails, all the evidence you need to see that the global
warming hoax has been exposed for all its bullshit and all you can do
is spout Algore 3:16 like a good little mind-numbed robot. Think for
yourself man, set yourself free and get off the doom and gloom crowd
and join the rest of the World. I guess we'll just have to wait for
the Penn and Teller episode.....
3:57 am, Nov 27, 2009
suzannewynn
Baddchild--I don't see a link to these emails, I am interested to read
them, I am fascinated to read how thousands of scientists have
commited fraud to keep there grant money. I tried finding these
emails, please post a link that would make your arguement more legit.
8:56 am, Nov 27, 2009
OldCrow
suzannewynn
Google is your friend.
There are several organized catalogs online showing the email trails
between scientists looking for ways to hide and distort data.
Perhaps even criminal activity - we need a full investigation since
billions of dollars are being spent on these fraudulent grants and
studies.
9:59 am, Nov 27, 2009
MataHari
Is here ...
This is a test. Wait for instructions.
7:16 am, Nov 27, 2009
theonetruman
First of all, Richard Wolffe is a huge douche. Secondly, the Chinese
and Indians will cheat, period. This treaty is a waste of time, money.
What the Chinese (and us for that matter) care about is energy
security and pollution... not eco-fundamentalist dogma.
8:11 am, Nov 27, 2009
suzannewynn
baddchild, and I had to comment on your comment about the debt our
Prez has put us in, how funny people like you forget it was brought on
by the last admin and 8 years of fighting a war that is unwinnable.
Amazing... if our Prez had not passed a huge stimulus you same people
would have castrated him for doing nothing... hindsight is 20/20...
the lame duck who was in office passed the first stimulus due to his
lack of braincells to protect the American people from a downward
spiral and now he regrets his actions... what an idiot... no one is
happy about the debt this country is in but at least he had the balls
to do something... what would be better is to arrest all the wall
street types that steal from the Average American worker...
9:01 am, Nov 27, 2009
sonofloud
Oh give me a break !!!!
It is time for the Obama apologists to come up with new excuses.
We are all bored with the Obama is so brillarnt he is playing 10
dimensional chess and we mere mortals cannot understand it.
"in the range of 17% below 2005 levels in 2020." lol why bother? that
is such an insignificant change a decade from now it will be useless.
I guess all of those icebergs on their way to New Zealand are just a
figment of our imaginations???
9:14 am, Nov 27, 2009
sonofloud
We have Obama's "secret" Afghanistan troop plan and now Obama's
"secret" climate plan......when exactly will the great Obama include
the American public in his secret plans?
9:16 am, Nov 27, 2009
melissamsouza
..."intense...behind the scenes diplomacy that THE PRESS COMPLETELY
OVERLOOKED during Obama's Asia trip.." Yes., including yourself, Mr.
Wolff, who was one of the first who jumped on the Bash Obama in Asia
bandwagon on this very blog--what was it? "Obama's Bad Asia Trip"--and
you played right into the hand of the Tea-Party-Birther freaks who
seem to be taking over the comments section of this blog. I myself
stated in my comments to both your article and Leslie Gelb's (with the
same "bash-Obama" gist) that most foreign policy negotiations TAKE
PLACE BEHIND THE SCENES. You and your fellow punditry are not in on
it, that's all. But since rushing to conclusions and creating dramatic
(albeit false, and hurtful) headlines are your metier in this 24/7
news cycle fed by the nanosecond, then let's have fun bashing Obama!
Just as you and your ilk jump to baseless conslusions to bash Obama,
you did so in jumping on the gung-ho Iraq WMD-Saddam-Al Quaida mega-
lie, bogus bogus bandwagon to get us into that tragic, historical
screw-up we're in now. This is why the media has been completely
discredited and is losing ground to other forms of communication; you
people are not doing your homework, pure and simple. Either you're
muzzled by corporate interests and don't do the investigative
reporting necessary to act as a balance on the shameless propaganda of
governments (case in point, the Cheney-Bush McCarthyites), or you are
simply too greedy for rushed, catchy and incorrect headlines to make
hasty, unfounded cases (Obama's Asia Trip bashing). Either way, you
media folks are profoundly disappointing.
9:20 am, Nov 27, 2009
ndspinelli
Relax, Melissa. the errand boy is back in the fold. He won't be
contrary again...he's learned his lesson. Give the poor man a break!
10:42 am, Nov 27, 2009
ndspinelli
When this syncophant author posted his last piece it has a bit of a
hissy fit. Instead of the usual glowing, adoring Obama piece, it was a
little nasty. You know, like when a little girl gets shut out from the
"in crowd." I predicted @ that time that the prez would give him a
smile and a cookie and all would be better. The cookie can be read
today!
What Mr. Wolffe fails to mention in SPECIFIC terms is the Chinese will
be INCREASING their CARBON output. There is no controversey on this
point. "Using carbon intensity" are the Orwellian words used when Mr.
Wolffe describes what the Chinese promised. In English, the Chinese
will be building many new POLLUTING COAL plants in the next 20-25
years. They made NO PROMISE TO CHANGE THEIR SOURCE OF ENERGY. They
will reduce the emmisions from these HIGHLY TOXIC plants a bit. Their
net carbon footprint will be increasing by at least 5 fold. This is
the great Chinese deal our prez got. Whenever you read this author,
remember what he represents. He is a PR man, not a journalist. Now, if
he gets slighted by Obama he can get nasty. He showed the prez that w/
his last piece. So the prez learned his lesson[don't slight Mr.
Wolffe], and the author is back in PR mode. All is right again in
Wonderland
9:57 am, Nov 27, 2009
BillSanford
Mr. Wolfe writes...
"However the climate negotiators may be more interested to hear about
the kind of prep work the President has engaged in back home with his
own Congress.".
I think everyone in Washington, especially Obama, should check in with
the voters back home... in case no one is in Washington is looking,
here's a newsflash: the vast majority of Americans want nothing to do
with any "cap and trade" taxes or other "gouge the Middle Class"
liberal ideas.
The rich liberals in Congress can afford to pay these extra taxes; the
American Middle Class, being hammered on all fronts by new Big
Government fees, laws, and taxes, simply cannot.
10:34 am, Nov 27, 2009
Aslanleon
AGW isn't good science. It doesn't have models that can be
demonstrated to predict the past any better than a randomly generated
set of numbers. It speaks of higher average global temperatures for a
period when one third of the monitoring stations were closed-- and
nearly all of these in Siberia. The East Anglia documents prove that
data was ignored or altered and the situation was exaggerated to
produce more interest in their ideas. The list goes on and on. Worst
of all, they refuse to accept the doubts and scientific data of those
scientists who disagree with them, using strictly ad hominem arguments
to demonize them. It's not science versus ignorance-- it's simply bad
science. The major advocates of it aren't even climatologists-- Hansen
has a degree in astronomy and chemistry. Al Gore has two science
courses to his credit, with a D and a C .
If the pro AGW forces find it necessary to virtually criminalize
scientists who disagree with them, they do not have a strong argument.
If they did, they wouldn't need to do so. Also, they would be open for
a purely scientific debate on the subject. They are not.
In the last century, scientists have predicted global warming twice
and global cooling twice. They have predicted widespread famine by the
eighties. They have predicted world wide plagues that would kill
billions. They have predicted that the oil would be all gone by 1955,
1970, 1990, 2010, and whenever they are predicting it now. They said
all our forests were dying of acid rain when they weren't. They said
the ocean would die by 2000 of several different causes at different
times. Perhaps one of the times they predict disaster it will be true.
I doubt very much that the AGW claim is that one that is true.
11:08 am, Nov 27, 2009
danceswithtrees
Now that "Climate gate" has been exposed Obama would be an idiot to
commit the US to any commitments on this. We need full Congressional
hearings and a full fledged "serious debate" on this issue. It is
obviously no longer a "settled issue" when the leading scientists on
this issue feel they need to "trick the data to hide the decline" as
well as conspire to hide their work from their peers and conspire to
keep all dissenting articles from being published. The lid has been
blown off this scam. The odd quiet out of the WORLDS MEDIA speaks to
perhaps a larger conspiracy. I'm tired of the environmentalists owning
the debate, and ruining our economy as their junk science and saving
Salamanders and spootted owls have ruined our farming and logging
communities. ENOUGH. Write your Congressman today. Let them know. We
want full Congressional hearings on CLIMATE GATE!!!
Sid Harth
China sets first targets to curb world's largest carbon footprint
• China plans to slow emissions growth by up to 45%
• PM Wen Jiabao to attend Copenhagen climate talks
Jonathan Watts, Asia environment correspondent guardian.co.uk,
Thursday 26 November 2009 09.20 GMT Article history
Highrise buildings seen above the fog in Wenling, Zhejiang province.
China says it will cut the intensity of carbon emissions by up to 45%
by 2020. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images
The Chinese prime minister, Wen Jiabao, will attend the Copenhagen
climate talks next month, the government said today, as it unveiled
firm targets for curbing the world's biggest carbon footprint for the
first time.
A day after the US president, Barack Obama, confirmed he would attend
the early stages of the conference, the Chinese foreign ministry
spokesman, Qin Gang, said Wen would join the gathering, which aims to
set a global strategy for reducing emissions.
China announced that it would cut emissions of carbon relative to
economic growth by 40% to 45% by 2020 compared with 2005 levels.
"This is a voluntary action taken by the Chinese government based on
its own national conditions and is a major contribution to the global
effort in tackling climate change," the state council was quoted as
saying by the Xinhua news agency.
Because of its high economic growth rate, China's emissions will
continue to rise rapidly for at least a decade. But this target
commits China to slowing the speed of emissions growth through the
adoption of renewable energy, replacing old power stations with more
efficient plants, and possibly capturing and storing more carbon. It
is also likely to galvanise moves to introduce a carbon trading scheme
and a carbon tax.
Kim Carstensen, leader of WWF International's global climate
initiative, told Reuters: "It is extremely welcome news that China is
now putting specific figures on its reductions of carbon intensity
towards 2020."
John Hay, spokesman for the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat called
news of Obama's visit and China's announcement of firm targets as "a
huge morale booster".
By setting its first carbon target, China moves its policies more
closely into line with international efforts to reduce greenhouse
gases.
But the figure is unlikely to be high enough to satisfy European and
US negotiators, who have indicated that anything below 50% would
represent a less ambitious target than its current efforts to improve
energy efficiency. The UK government said China's first ever carbon
target was an "important opening contribution", but it reminded
Beijing that it, and other major developing nations, had made a
commitment to make a meaningful deviation from business as usual in
order to hold back warming.
"It is essential that for the right ambitious deal to be made in
Copenhagen, China and other nations will need to take action
consistent with this 2 degree objective," the UK government said in a
statement.
China's negotiators counter that it is doing far more than wealthy
nations at a similar stage of development, particularly given the
greater historical and per capita responsibility of the US and Europe.
But Xie Zhenhua, the country's most senior climate negotiator, hinted
at the possibility of faster steps if the developed nations provided
more assistance. "It will be difficult because it is already tough for
us to achieve our target," he said. "If we receive technical and
financial support, we might be able to reach our target at an earlier
date."
European diplomats expressed disappointment that China would not be
represented in Copenhagen by President Hu Jintao, which may weaken the
negotiating team's ability to set an emissions reduction strategy.
Wen ranks considerably lower than Hu in the Communist party hierarchy.
However, Qin said: "Wen Jiabao's attendance at the meeting shows the
importance that the Chinese government places on this issue, and shows
that the Chinese government is willing to co-operate with the
international community."
Other observers said Wen was the best choice because he headed the
climate leading group in the state council, China's cabinet, and may
be better versed on the issues than the president.
"Wen is the one really driving the action," said Wu Changhua, China
director for the Climate Group. "There is not a major difference in
terms of decision-making at Copenhagen. They all speak with one
voice."
Other environmental groups said China's representation may have been
partly determined by the US announcement that Obama would attend only
the first part of the meeting.
"We would have liked Hu Jintao to go because he has more power and is
in a better position to make decisions in the final stages of the
meeting," said Yang Ailun of Greenpeace.
"But if Obama is not going to be there at the end, then China may have
decided that the prime minister should go instead."
The announcement comes ahead of two hastily scheduled press
conferences by senior officials in the national development and reform
commission, which heads China's climate policies.
Brazil, Indonesia and South Korea have recently released their carbon
goals. The US has said it will bring a numerical commitment to the
negotiating table.
Sid Harth
November 27, 2009, 8:59 am
Obama’s Climate Goals vs. the Senate’s
By THE EDITORS
Ayesha Rascoe/Reuters
The White House said on Wednesday that the United States was aiming to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions “in the range of” 17 percent below
2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050.
The House of Representatives is on board: those specific emissions
targets were set in a bill it passed last summer. But the Senate is
another story. The legislation is stalled there, and members from
rural, manufacturing and coal states — including a number of Democrats
— are raising objections to the terms of the emissions caps, and are
seeking changes, including exemptions and subsidies for energy
producers and agriculture.
At the heart of the debate is the expansion of the “cap and trade”
program for trading pollution credits. Critics thought the House bill
gave away too much to coal, oil, manufacturing and farm interests. An
eventual Senate measure is likely to raise even more objections along
these lines.
Will this process derail President Obama’s effort to set greenhouse-
gas emissions targets? Or is the overriding goal more important than
the opposition to the legislative horse-trading used to achieve it?
Kate Sheppard, Mother Jones correspondent
Nathaniel Keohane, Environmental Defense Fund
Jeffrey A. Miron, economist
A Giant Piñata for Polluters
Kate Sheppard covers energy and environmental politics from Washington
for Mother Jones.
With the Senate debate on climate legislation on hold until early
2010, the question is not whether the delay means there won’t be a
bill at all. It’s whether the additional time will allow leadership to
gather enough votes for legislation that adequately addresses the
problem, rather than copping to the same interests that got humanity
in this mess.
A giveaway to fossil fuel industries, all without a stringent enough
cap on carbon.
There was a time when it seemed a bill that actually forced polluters
to pay for their emissions was a possibility, encouraged in large part
by the election of Barack Obama, who as a candidate called for an
auction-based cap-and-trade system. Instead, the proposals before
Congress would give away the vast majority of permits free of charge
and provide numerous other incentives to fossil fuel industries – all
without a cap on carbon stringent enough to address the problem.
Instead, cap-and-trade legislation has become a giant piñata for
polluting industries.
The bills lock in coal, the biggest generator of planet-warming
emissions, for the next decades and hand the industry more than $60
billion to figure out the technology to make it cleaner – an idea
that, despite the industry’s $47 million PR spending spree to promote
it, many are now casting doubt upon. A coal-industry favorite,
Representative Rick Boucher (D-Va.) bragged that the House bill
“strengthens the case for utilities to continue to use coal.”
As John Kerry (D-Mass.) works with Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe
Lieberman (I-Conn.) to build a tri-partisan coalition in support of
legislation, it looks likely that the process will only yield
additional concessions to dirty energy and the senators hoping to
protect it. Fourteen Midwestern Democrats last week wrote to
leadership seeking more free pollution credits for the highest-
emitting utilities. Agricultural, nuclear, oil and gas interests are
also looking enviously at the deal that coal got in the House and
lining up to get a bigger piece of the pie in the Senate. Only through
a renewed focus on the original intent of a climate bill — to cut
emissions and move to new energy sources — can the Senate process be
salvaged.
Goal: A Climate Treaty in 2010
Nathaniel Keohane is director of economic policy and analysis at the
Environmental Defense Fund.
The most important task for the Obama administration in Copenhagen is
to demonstrate its resolve to work with Congress to pass comprehensive
climate legislation that puts a cap on global warming pollution. The
international community knows that in our system, it’s Congress that
decides the cap. This is why there has been so much talk lately about
a two-step process that will extend talks so we can sign a solid
global climate treaty in 2010.
The House bill shows America is serious about capping global warming
pollution.
The bill that passed in the House in June goes a long way toward
showing America is serious about capping its global warming pollution.
It bridged regional and economic divides and won support from a broad
range of members — without compromising environmental goals. That’s a
huge achievement and one that has to be repeated in the Senate.
Of course the Senate will have its own concerns and its own issues.
But as the political process moves forward, we have to keep our focus
on what matters most: the cap. We need cap-and-trade legislation that
puts a declining cap on carbon emissions, while giving companies the
flexibility to figure out the best way to comply and rewarding
innovation.
There’s no doubt that a cap on U.S. emissions is the key to getting
other big nations like China on board with a global climate deal. The
U.S accounts for 20 percent of the global economy and 20 percent of
global emissions. The world looks to us for leadership.
Here at home, a cap will transform the economic incentives around the
generation and consumption of energy, helping to get us off our
dependence on fossil fuels and creating a powerful driver for
innovation and investment in low-carbon technologies. The day the
president signs comprehensive climate legislation will be the day we
start building the clean energy economy — the foundation for American
prosperity in the 21st century.
The most important thing — really the only thing — the U.S. can and
should bring to Copenhagen is a credible pledge that that day is
coming soon.
A Carbon Tax — Plus Corporate Welfare
Jeffrey A. Miron is a senior lecturer on economics at Harvard
University. He writes a blog about public policy issues.
An ideal cap-and-trade system is one that auctions the emissions
permits rather than giving them away. Cap and trade is then equivalent
to a carbon tax. A system that does not auction the permits – which is
what the bills before Congress propose – is a carbon tax plus welfare
for those who get the free permits (e.g., coal-burning power plants
and farmers in Midwestern states).
Any policy to reduce emissions — with its handouts to special
interests — may be more costly than the emissions themselves.
A carbon tax is superior to cap-and-trade with free permits, both
because it avoids handouts to politically favored groups and because
it allows lower tax rates on income, thereby reducing the distortions
from taxation.
A carbon tax is itself subject to political meddling; indeed, any
policy that raises carbon prices creates incentives to evade and
manipulate that policy. Thus any policy to reduce emissions may be
more costly than the emissions themselves, given the unintended
consequences of such policies (e.g., pushing carbon-emitting activity
to countries with lower carbon prices).
Those who fear higher carbon prices under CAT can take comfort in the
fact that CAT will inevitably contain expansive “offset” provisions.
These provide extra carbon permits to emitters who adopt carbon-
reducing activities such as planting trees. Offsets are easy to
manipulate and hard to monitor, so CAT will limit emissions far less
than implied by its notional caps.
chhotemianinshallah
Why China can't make bold carbon pledges: Rogue provinces
Alex Salkever
Nov 27th 2009 at 2:30PM
During his recent visit to China, U.S. President Barack Obama pushed
hard for a firm target for cutting carbon emissions from the Chinese
government. He had hoped to secure a concrete, detailed proposal from
the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases ahead of the pending
Copenhagen Climate Summit in December. But China has delivered a
watered-down guarantee that the Obama team publicly praised but
privately trashed.
According to The New York Times, the Chinese proposed to reduce the
amount of carbon dioxide emitted per unit of economic output by 40% to
45% by 2020. That would slow the growth rate of carbon emissions for
China, for sure. But due to the country's rapid economic growth rate,
aggregate carbon emissions would continue to increase.
The Times argues that China has made such a conservative pledge in
part because it was well on its way to achieving the state's goals.
However, another factor may be at play. Namely, China is loath to make
such a pledge because the central government has less control over the
Chinese economy than the West may like to think.
The Obama team must negotiate with China's central government, of
course, because it's the only sovereign Chinese entity. But the
Chinese government itself has often struggled to control behavior of
provincial and local officials and, by extension, the behavior of
commercial entities in distant provinces. Why is this important?
Because a significant portion of China's carbon-emitting economy
remains more or less beyond Beijing's control. In a country this big,
poorly designed coal-fired power plants that belch carbon can be built
at the behest of local officials before Beijing can step in to stop
construction. Many such plants already operate in China and will be
particularly difficult to shutter due to fears closures could hamper
regional growth. The local leaders are too often hellbent on growth at
any cost. Carbon emissions are the least of their worries as they
strive to meet aggressive growth targets and keep their population
employed and happy.
Walking a Complicated Tightrope
Likewise, other carbon-intensive operations in sectors such as illegal
aluminum smelters and illegal steel mills exist or are built with
Beijing getting little or no notification. Of course, the central
government would like nothing more than to bring some of these rogue
operations to heel. The mandarins in Beijing now recognize that
environmental health issues associated with low-grade power generation
and lightly regulated smokestack sectors cause hundreds of thousands
of premature deaths per year in China. They also make executing a
coherent economic and industrial policy far more difficult.
Plus, China is walking a tightrope with job growth. Its economy must
grow at rates north of 5% for the country to absorb the millions of
peasants moving from rural to urban regions. Enacting carbon emissions
mandates could force China, in the government's mind, to choose
between meeting laudable environmental goals and expanding the economy
fast enough to head off serious social unrest. While the validity of
this perception can be debated, it's clearly a concern in China, which
has suffered from weak central governments throughout its history.
China is already moving quickly to get a better read on where its
carbon emissions are coming from. The Chinese government is the
largest customer of Picarro, a Sunnyvale, Calif., company that makes
compact laser instruments that can be used to measure carbon emissions
across large swaths of territory. But a sufficiently detailed map of
China's emissions zones remains too far away to act as an effective
environmental policy tool. So the West should be realistic in its
expectations about what Beijing will be willing to deliver in
Copenhagen.
In China, government control isn't as total as outsiders might
perceive.This makes concrete goals of emissions reductions a tricky
matter that understandably gives Beijing the jitters.
Alex Salkever is Senior Writer at AOL Daily Finance covering
technology and greentech. Follow him on twitter @alexsalkever, read
his articles, or email him at al...@dailyfinance.com.
bademiyansubhanallah
CHOGM 2009 - Nicholas Sarkozy Requests Manmohan Singh To Attend
Copenhagen Summit
Last Updated: 2009-11-28T11:32:53+05:30
French President Nicholas Sarkozy, who met the Indian Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh on the margins of the ongoing 39-nation CHOGM meeting,
has urged the Indian Prime Minister to participate in the Climate
Change Summit, which is slated to take place in Copenhagen.
Nicolas Sarkozy, while addressing a media conference on the margins of
the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, said that he has urged
Manmohan Singh to be a part of the Climate Change, which will take
place at Copenhagen between Dec 7 and Dec 18, so that he can be part
of vital decisions adopted during the event.
He also mentioned that Indian Prime Minister will be discussing with
his cabinet if he should be a part of the Copenhagen meeting.
The French president stated that he plans to visit India by March or
April 2010 to finalise the transfer of nuclear technology agreements
between India and France.
"We want India's voice to be heard at this international meeting,"
Sarkozy said, expressing the hope that the Copenhagen talks would be
"productive, intense and progressive".
He said that at the Copenhagen meeting "decisions would need to be
made, and failure is not an option". Sarkozy said that he was
confident that India would not stand in the way of a successful
conference.
Citing that Copenhagen meeting is a historical one, he said "If we
fail in Copenhagen, all will fail."
chhotemianinshallah
Now, a project to nail global air polluters
Swati Shinde & Prasad Kulkarni, TNN 12 March 2009, 03:46am IST
PUNE: It will soon be easier to call the bluff of countries that point
a finger at us for the deterioration in the quality of the air we
breathe.
India has long been blamed for air pollution when scientists here have
maintained that developed countries are bigger culprits on this
front.
A three-year project by Indian and Italian scientists, which will
commence in April at the city-based Indian Institute of Tropical
Meteorology (IITM), will help determine the amount of air pollutants
that are being transported to India from different parts of the world
and vice-versa. The major contributors to the deterioration of air
quality are pollution from vehicles and the burning of fossil fuels.
Titled 'Regional atmospheric environment and intercontinental
transport of pollutants', the project has been selected in the
framework of the Indo-Italian programme of scientific and
technological co-operation for 2008-2010 by the Department of Science
and Technology (DST). IITM is the only institute in Asia which has the
mandate for tropical meteorology research.
"A large amount of pollutants get transported to India from various
parts of the world, including Asian and European countries," Gufran
Beig, project manager and scientist at IITM, told TOI. He said
resources available with the IITM will be used for the study of the
Asian continent, while resources of institutes in Italy will be used
to study pollutant transportation from Europe.
Along with Beig, three more scientists from IITM are working on the
project — Suvarna Fadnavis, Sarojkumar Sahu and Sompriti Roy. The
Italian team is being headed by Giovanna Finzie, a professor at the
University of Bresia.
The scientists feel that the study will help nations share the
responsibility for air pollution. It will also help give a better
direction towards reducing pollution in various parts of the world.
"A number of times, India is termed as a highly polluted country.
However, in comparison with other leading countries, our levels of
pollution are not high. The results of this project will give a
concrete picture of what is the exact amount of pollution as well the
transportation of pollutants," Fadnavis said.
chhotemianinshallah
Unclean air, water may be causing 8 lakh deaths a year: Report
PTI 20 November 2009, 07:04pm IST
NEW DELHI: Unclean air and water could be responsible for the death of
eight lakh people every year in the country, according to a report
released.
The report 'Green India 2047' prepared by The Energy and Resources
Institute, said that quality of environmental services like access to
clean drinking water and sanitation, control of air and water
pollution and management of industrial and household waste has a
direct bearing on the health of people.
"Our limited analysis suggests that unclean air and water may be
taking a toll in terms of over eight lakh deaths in the country each
year and morbidity costs amounting to 3.6 per cent of the GDP," said
the overview of the report, which was released by environment and
forest minister Jairam Ramesh.
The report has dealt with issues of depletion of resources like water,
forests, land and soil as well as biodiversity and sought to find out
the major impact and economic costs of degradation.
The report also seeks to find out whether environment degradation
impede the translation of the population into demographic dividend.
TERI chief R K Pachauri said about 45 per cent of the population do
not have access to safe drinking water. The air quality is poor in
most of the cities in the country.
Sid Harth
Emerging powers join hands
Reshma Patil, Hindustan Times
Beijing, November 29, 2009
First Published: 00:58 IST(29/11/2009)
Last Updated: 01:40 IST(29/11/2009)
China, India, South Africa and Brazil have united to draw the battle-
lines for the Copenhagen climate summit, after their own surprise
seven-hour summit skillfully staged by the Chinese leadership in
Beijing on Saturday.
In a pre-Copenhagen coup quietly planned by China, as it grappled with
global pressure to curb emissions as the world’s biggest polluter, the
four nations have clinched their own deal to counter targets from the
developed world.
For India and this new combine, it will be ‘non-negotiable’ under any
circumstances to accept legally binding emission cuts.
“We’ll not exit in isolation. We will coordinate our exit if any of
the non-negotiables is violated,” said India’s environment minister
Jairam Ramesh in Beijing. “ This is going to be a collective
decision.”
This is the first attempt by developing nations to present a plan for
the Copenhagen summit when the world will negotiate a global deal to
curb man-made emissions that cause global warming.
“We hope that this draft will serve as a basis for negotiation,” said
Ramesh, who called it a compromise draft but one that met India’s
goals and several Indian suggestions in the final version.
On Friday night, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao stunned the delegates,
including Ramesh, with news that the Chinese had a 10-page negotiation
strategy.
Overnight, the delegates studied the draft conveniently scripted in
simple English. On Saturday, the draft was reworked and the four
nations, supported by Sudan representing the G-77 chair, united for a
‘positive, ambitious and equitable’ outcome in Copenhagen.
On December 1, China’s top climate negotiator Xie Zhenhua will present
the draft in Copenhagen, when a Denmark draft is up for discussion
with nations including India and China. The Denmark draft may have
features that go against the non-negotiables in the Chinese draft.
Ramesh emphasised the non-negotiables for India include rejecting the
concept of a peak year before emissions decline. Actions to mitigate
climate change impact that are not supported by global finance and
technology will not be subject to global measurement, reporting and
verification. They also agreed to reject an agreement that does not
reject using climate change as a trade barrier.
The draft is reportedly anchored in the existing Kyoto Protocol and
calls on developed nations to take on legally binding emission cuts
while developing nations will take responsibility for nationally
appropriate mitigation actions.
“We are in agreement on major issues including those relating to the
establishment of a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol
and a shared vision for long-term cooperative action on climate
change,’’ said a statement issued after the meeting. “This work
represents a good starting point and we will continue to work together
over the next few days and weeks as our contribution toward a
consensus in Copenhagen.”
The media statement focussed on ‘mitigation’ of emissions,
‘adaptation’ to climate change impact and the provision of finance and
technology to enable these actions, and the special needs of the least
developed nations, island states and Africa, where China has major
investment stakes.
Sid Harth
China's ruling party OK cut in carbon emissions by 45 per cent
Press Trust Of India
Beijing, November 27, 2009
First Published: 22:04 IST(27/11/2009)
Last Updated: 22:06 IST(27/11/2009)
China's ruling Communist Party on Friday endorsed the government's
decision to cut carbon emissions by up to 45 per cent and improve
energy efficiency.
Pledging to "actively" deal with climate change next year by
implementing measures to cut its carbon intensity and improve energy
efficiency, a meeting of the Politburo decided to step up construction
of major projects related to energy conservation and environmental
protection in 2010.
More support in terms of investment should be given to promote energy
saving and emissions reduction, the meeting, chaired by chaired by
President Hu Jintao, also General Secretary of the Communist Party of
China, decided, the official Xinhua news agency reported.
The meeting came a day after China's State Council, the Cabinet,
announced the country aimed to cut the amount of carbon dioxide it
emitted per unit of gross domestic product by 40 to 45 per cent from
2005 levels by 2020.
The decision of China, the world's top emitter of greehouse gases from
human activity, comes ahead of December's Copenhagen climate summit.
Despite pressures and difficulties, China would adhere to the targets,
Xie Zhenhua, Vice Minister in Charge of the National Development and
Reform Commission, said.
China overtook the United States as the world's biggest producer of
carbon dioxide due to its soaring demand for coal to generate
electricity and a surge in cement production, to push its recorded
emissions for 2006 beyond those of the US.
chhotemianinshallah
Irregular weather is becoming routine in many parts of Europe. Average
temperatures, precipitation and wind patterns are changing faster than
any time in the past.
Mohan Murti
In Europe, the weather had been so pleasingly placid that many plants
and trees in my garden thought it was still spring. Summer seems to
have waited all summer to get here, in autumn. The leaves of the big
oak and chestnut trees in my garden have already turned colour and
begun to drop their leaves. Not because it's autumn. Perhaps, because
it's their natural biological clock that tells them to ‘shed'.
For the first time in my two decades in Europe, we discovered fruit
flies ( Drosophilia) inside the house. This, I am told, is an
evolutionary response to rapid climate change.
Ground realities
Next week, around 75 heads of state and other VIPs are to fly into
Copenhagen when the high-level segment of COP15 opens on December 15.
World leaders are expected to discuss a legally-binding international
climate treaty to succeed the Kyoto Protocol. High time this happened.
Against this backdrop, here's a glimpse of the ground realities in
Europe.
Irregular weather is becoming routine in many parts of Europe. Average
temperatures, precipitation and wind patterns are changing rapidly.
The average temperature in summer is hotter than it has been (I think)
at any time in the past. The vedic tradition is that ‘water is
life' (‘ Aapo vaa idagam sarvam'). Elsewhere, in the Vedas, it is said
“fire, indeed, is the foundation and support for water”. The
relationship between water and fire is intimate. One begets the other.
Between 2000 and 2009, some 50,000 fires occurred each year in the
Mediterranean region, compared with 30,000 a year in the 1980s. More
than 5 per cent of the forest area in Greece, Spain and Portugal has
been burned, four times the annual average, resulting in economic
damages exceeding €3 billion. In 2003, the heat wave in Europe killed
over 50,000 people.
In Srimad Bhagavatam, Vyasa catalogues four forms of life — yonijam
(born from the womb), andajam (born of the egg), bhoomijam (born from
the earth) and swetajam (born of sweat or function of body). Keeping
Vyasa's description of life conception, Europe is fighting a new war.
Let's take a look.
Wild Boars
Wild boar — Varaha Avatar — numbers have been surging as a result of
global warming and the large-scale cultivation of maize and rapeseed
for biofuel. Germany has vast areas in which boars can flourish.
‘Heater winters' in recent years have reduced the death rate of older
boars and of young ones born late in the year. And, the rise in carbon
dioxide levels has intensified the sunlight and led trees to produce
more acorns and chestnuts, a weakness for boars, whose reproduction
naturally increases with the amount of accessible food.
Ladybugs
The northern German port city of Hamburg has seen in summer this year,
an influx of the Asian ladybug ( Harmonia axyridis), thanks to mild
weather and humid summer days. The beetles have spread quickly
throughout Europe.
The influx in the ladybug population is cause to cheer for gardeners.
They serve as a natural, biological pest control. While the average
beetle eats between 50 and 250 aphids a day, the Asian species is
known to eat five times as many. Their voracious appetite has
threatened the European species. Also, the Asian ladybug lays eggs
twice in a season, compared to once by the European species.
Migratory Patterns
The Europe-wide warm spell in the past few years has disrupted the
migratory patterns of thousands of birds.
We have a few European red squirrels in our garden that mostly feed on
chestnuts, seeds, berries, hazelnuts, and beech flowers. Normally, in
autumn, these squirrels bury seeds and nuts. This autumn, they are
still running around the garden, delightfully feasting on them. I
wonder what will happen to them when the weather suddenly gets to icy
sub-zero temperatures.
Corals of Eifel Straits
A short 45-minutes drive from Cologne is the picturesque and charming
Eifel region — bordered by the Mosel River in the south and the Rhine
in the east. In the north it is bordered by the hills of the High Fens
(Hohes Venn), and in the west by the Ardennes. The Ardennes is a
region of extensive forests, rolling hills and old mountains formed on
the Givetian Ardennes mountains, primarily in Belgium and Luxembourg,
but stretching into France.
An enriching experience is the visit to the Geological and Nature
Museum in a small town in the Nettersheim region. The museum showcases
the ‘Eifel Straits' and the shallow warm sea that Nettersheim and the
region were in the middle Devonian period, 380 to 400 million years
ago. The sea extended hundreds of kilometres and the cities of Cologne
and Düsseldorf were beach resorts at that time.
The sea was inhabited by reef-building organisms and their fossilised
remains, including corals, can be found by any visitor to Nettersheim
in the open fields, quarries and construction sites.
Proactive action
This shows that climate change is a natural occurrence and has been
happening for millions of years. Whether it is part influenced by man
is important, more so today than ever before. The earth will change
and we will need to adapt. But that does not prevent us from taking
proactive action by doing our bit.
For India, climate change must not become a distraction from dealing
with high growth or removing poverty. Rather, it is the essential step
in avoiding a decline into deeper devastation and ruin. India should
not be the hesitant, unwilling bride of climate change. It should be
an innovator and a leader in the struggle. Now is the moment to take
guard and get on with the action.
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2009/11/30/stories/2009113050490900.htm
chhotemianinshallah
The West will not have its way at Copenhagen
Business Standard / New Delhi November 30, 2009, 0:37 IST
It has not been clear in recent weeks as to where exactly the
government stood on the climate change negotiations, with different
spokesmen pushing different lines of argument. The prime minister has
now put all speculation to rest with his statement at the Commonwealth
summit, asserting that India wants the Kyoto framework (which places
differential responsibilities on rich and poor countries) to be made
to work, and linking India’s domestic emissions control plan to the
promised transfer of technology and resources from the rich countries.
He has also opposed the western move to downgrade the agenda for the
forthcoming Copenhagen summit, and made it clear that India has a
vital stake in serious emission cuts being achieved internationally.
Meanwhile, in Beijing, four leading developing countries have
announced that they will act together at Copenhagen, thus making it
clear that the rich countries will not be allowed to steamroller the
rest. This could well mean that nothing worthwhile will emerge at
Copenhagen, but it should be clear to all that the responsibility for
this will rest with the rich countries, which have not met the
emission reduction targets that they committed to at Kyoto 12 years
ago.
What is not clear, however, is what exactly Jairam Ramesh, the
environment minister, announced in Beijing with regard to a 20-25 per
cent cut in India’s emissions per unit of GDP, though with the caveat
that this is a domestic, non-binding goal. Perhaps he felt obliged to
respond to the Chinese and American emission reduction targets
announced last week. These offers should be understood properly before
India responds. The Chinese offer is to cut emissions by 40-45 per
cent per unit of GDP, with 2005 as base. Since China’s GDP is likely
to grow at 9-10 per cent a year through this period, what this
translates into is a doubling of actual emissions by 2020. It is not
clear why Mr Ramesh should feel obliged to respond to this, since
India’s GDP-intensity of emissions is less than a half of China’s, so
India is already ahead of where China promises to be a decade from
now. All that Mr Ramesh needed to do was to point this out.
As for the US offer, it is part of the effort by the rich countries to
dump the Kyoto Protocol, which is a binding international agreement.
Admittedly, the US did not ratify Kyoto, but all other rich countries
(barring Australia) did. So, if the US offer of a 17 per cent cut
based on 2005 emission levels (and not the 1990 levels stipulated in
the Kyoto Protocol) is accepted as a basis for negotiations, it
creates room for other rich countries also to shift the goal posts
from 1990 to 2005. That would be the end of Kyoto. There is everything
to be said for being flexible in negotiations, and for sugar-coating
whatever stance the country takes at the Copenhagen meeting next
month. But it is important to understand that the Chinese are doing
only sugar-coating, and the US is simply changing the goal posts.
http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/carbon-lines-insand/378029/
chhotemianinshallah
Environment Minister Jim Prentice speaks with CTV's Question Period,
from Calgary, on Sunday, Nov. 23, 2009.
Selected Comment
I agree that the PM has been and is correct to trod carefully on
environmental ground... let's make sure that what happens at
Copenhagen or in any other environmental agreement is right for all
Canadians, not just for the Dippers and the Libs...that's leadership!
duane sharp talking about
Harper 'always' said he'd go to Copenhagen: Prentice
Date: Sun. Nov. 29 2009 2:45 PM ET
Environment Minister Jim Prentice says the prime minister "always"
planned to go to Copenhagen if a critical mass of world leaders
attended, answering criticism that Stephen Harper was just following
U.S. President Barack Obama.
"The prime minister always said that he would go to Copenhagen if
there was critical mass of world leaders who were going there for the
leaders' session, which is at the end of the Copenhagen conference,"
Prentice told CTV's Question Period on Sunday.
Prentice also made a point of saying that Obama -- unlike Harper --
had yet to announce whether he would be attending the leaders'
meeting.
"That's the session where the leaders will be there, that's the
critical session, and the prime minister is in fact saying he's going
there and the president hasn't," Prentice said.
Obama will attend Day 3 of the Dec. 7-18 conference, while the
leaders' segment is slated for the final two days.
Opposition critics had hammered away at the Conservatives for taking a
passive wait-and-see approach to Copenhagen, rather than a more active
role.
As recently as Wednesday, Ottawa had indicated the prime minister
would not be travelling to the Danish capital for the international
climate conference. Harper said in the House of Commons that he would
only attend "if there is a meeting of all major leaders."
Obama then announced he would attend, along with China's Premier Wen
Jaibo. Harper then followed suit.
Politicians from at least 65 countries are set to meet in Denmark to
come up with a new climate change agreement that would replace the
Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.
"These are tough negotiations and we're going to make sure that we're
there, that we're well positioned, and that we have good people at the
table, and Canada will be well represented at Copenhagen," said
Prentice.
Prentice said the government has no plans to change its goals, which
he explained includes a 20 per cent reduction in emissions by 2020
compared to 2006 levels. That roughly matches the U.S. targets --
reducing emissions 17 per cent below 2005 levels.
"That is what we believe is a realistic and very ambitious target for
our country," Prentice said.
He was responding to criticism from United Nations Secretary General
Ban Ki-Moon, who criticized Canada's climate change goals and said it
should be setting an example for the world because it will host the G8
and G20 summits in Ontario next year.
"There's many areas of this where Canada has been in front for several
years," said Prentice. "We're working together with the Americans on a
continental basis to make sure that this works, that we have a cap-and-
trade system."
He also confirmed Canada would contribute to the $10 billion fund
created Saturday by the Commonwealth countries to help fund nations at
low sea level who are most threatened by climate change, which could
lead to them becoming completely submerged.
He said there is not yet a firm amount as to how much Canada will
contribute.
"In general terms, if you consider Canada is responsible for two per
cent of the world's emissions you can quantify (the amount) in that
range of several hundred million dollars," he said.
John Bennett, senior policy advisor to the Sierra Club of Canada, said
that even with this investment, Canada has still made little
progress.
"Unless Canada is actually prepared to make some domestic action
that's real, it's pretty well meaningless," Bennett told CTV News
Channel.
Canada has thrown away an opportunity to take the lead and show the
U.S. what it should do, Bennett said.
"The U.S. is talking about a hard cap on industry, which is an
absolute limit on the number of emissions that can come from an
industry," he said. "In Canada you have a soft cap on intensity
targets, which allow emissions to continue to grow."
He said Canada is postponing the inevitable, and will eventually have
to do something to fight climate change.
A new poll released Sunday found that 62 per cent of 1,000 Canadians
surveyed felt that a climate change deal should be one of the top
priorities at the Copenhagen summit.
The Canadian Press Harris-Decima poll found that three quarters of
Europeans and just 53 per cent of Americans felt the same way.
Comments( 9 )
simon
said
54 38
Environment Minister Jim Prentice says the prime minister "always"
planned to go to Copenhagen if a critical mass of world leaders
attended, answering criticism that Stephen Harper was just following
U.S. President Barack Obama. UNQUOTE. The PM "always" planned NOT to
GO if there was No critical Mass. Since the US and China made up that
critical mass, Harper decided to follow Obama. Harper is a Follower,
Not a Leader!!!
Portes
said
27 51
I still have my doubts whether Mr. Harper should go or not as I am not
infavour with the climate change nonsense, however having said that
may be he can make some deals with other nations for our goods and
services, then I would say the trip is worthwhile, other wise it is a
waste of taxpayers money and I am a Conservative, so Liberals you see
we Conservatives do take our own to task and are not afraid to do so.
Democracy at work
Red X
said
50 34
Mr. Prentice is telling a lie on behalf of Harpy. The reality is the
Cons are not going to do anything and spend their time pointing to the
Liberals OR U$ Prez. The truth is that they will do little as they
have under Rona Ambrose: another Environment Minister from Alberta...
duane sharp
said
30 43
I agree that the PM has been and is correct to trod carefully on
environmental ground... let's make sure that what happens at
Copenhagen or in any other environmental agreement is right for all
Canadians, not just for the Dippers and the Libs...that's leadership!
HotAir
said
19 31
Please learn about Climategate.
Adel Hay
said
20 29
I learned most Global Warming statistics have proven to be exaggerated
and manipulated the numbers I so strongly believed in so I have quit
the Liberal party and consider myself an independent.
Doug @ BC
said
14 24
I'm' actually glad he went there,in spite of the fact that I have yet
to be impressed by ANY of the plans to deal with the climate change
that MAY be coming. Though I'm still a bit of a skeptic, I am leaving
myself room to be open to the idea that clean energy is a good thing,
climate change or not. I will say though, that I hope Mr.Harper does
NOT allow himself to be pushed around the way Dion and his bunch of
wimps were in Kyoto. If they had negotiated a sensble deal then,this
would not be an issue now. Even the most left wing, bleeding heart
social engineers in the crowd surely must realize Canada got screwed
at Kyoto. I do not see that as an excuse not to do something on this
file, but it's only right to acknowledge that the Liberals made things
a lot tougher for Harper. They signed a bad deal to make themselves
look good,did nothing for several years,then,after hearing from the
voters,expected Harper to do their dirty work. Is he doing
nothing.Well,now China and India are at least talking about
participating.The USA is talking about targets very similar to those
proposed by Harper,provinces are moving on clean energy projects that
work in each of their jurisdictions,rather than waiting for a national
concensus that will likely never come.Those are modest steps that
certainly match the tepid response we have from the really big
emitters. Sending truck loads of money to foreign nations will do
nothing for the environment.Especially in the absence of real emission
cuts by the worlds biggest polluters.Mr.Harper IS leading,by standing
firm,and demanding a sensible deal and refusing to commit to one that
will impoversih Canadians even further,and do nothing to improve the
environment. Obama will do the same thing in the USA.
George
said
6 20
Prove it! Can't, eh? Just like the Hillier-MacKay-Colvin 'disagreement
of FACT'. Spin it everyway to your advantage as you see it at the time
is the Conservative Harper Mantra! End result is that Canadians will
never really know the TRUTH if he was or wasn't unless the lies,
deceit, self-serving processes, illusion and secrecy is ended and
total gov't openness and transparency becomes the RULE OF THE DAY! I
dearly do hope to see that in my lifetime but not with Harper,
Ignatieff or Layton.....they're all into it for their own power-play
instead of HUMBLY REPRESENTING CANADIAN CITIZEN'S WISHES !
geo
said
14 16
Harper is doing far more for a country that creates only 2% of the CO2
problem in the world. What would be the point of going if the U.S. and
China's leaders don't go?These two countries along with India make up
the majority of the climate change problem.Without their leaders
showing some concern with their CO2 levels Canada's less than 2% would
do nothing to solving this global issue. Obama and Jaibo may actually
do something to reduce their levels of CO2 and Harper may have
influence in what they do.Those concern should applaud this move by
the leaders instead of continually nitpicking at small points, and
think of the results this move can make to the conference.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091129/prentice_qp_091129/20091129?hub=
chhotemianinshallah
climate change
The town of Squamish, B.C., is pictured from a mountain cliff
overlooking the centre of town. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Darryl Dyck
Published on November 29th, 2009
OTTAWA- The survey, conducted by Harris-Decima on behalf of the Munk
Debates, suggests Canadians don't feel as strongly about the
environment as Europeans, but sentiment is stronger here than in the
United States.
The poll is part of a larger study on climate change that gathered
data from Canada, the United States, and Europe's five largest
countries: Britain, France, Italy, Spain and Germany.
It suggests that Europeans feel most strongly about signing a new
global pact to control greenhouse gases.
The findings come ahead of a pivotal United Nations conference in
Copenhagen, where countries had hoped to hammer out a new climate-
change deal to replace the expiring Kyoto Protocol
Three quarters of Europeans surveyed agreed that reaching a deal
should be the top, or one of the top, priorities at next month's
Copenhagen summit.
Sixty-two per cent of Canadian and 53 per cent of American respondents
felt the same way.
Most Canadians (53 per cent) and Europeans (62 per cent) who responded
to the survey said they felt the world will be worse off dealing with
climate change if a deal isn't reached in Copenhagen. Fewer than half
of the Americans surveyed - 45 per cent - agreed with that statement.
Canadian and American respondents tended to disagree with the
Europeans about funding developing countries' efforts to lower
greenhouse gases.
One thing that Canadians, Americans and Europeans could all agree on
in the survey is that they don't want to pay more taxes to reduce
greenhouse gases.
"Canadians aren't as skeptical about climate change as Americans.
They're a little more active in terms of wanting to address the
climate-change challenge," said Rudyard Griffiths, co-organizer of the
Munk Debates.
"But we're not where the Europeans are. We don't have that sense of
urgency. And we don't have, I think, the feeling of a planet in peril
that seems to be influencing a lot very ambitious policy-making coming
out of Europe on the eve of the Copenhagen summit."
The Copenhagen conference was, until a few months ago, seen as a make-
or-break summit. But that was before leaders at the recent Asia-
Pacific summit in Singapore acknowledged there will be no final deal
in the Danish capital.
The rift between developed and emerging countries has been laid bare
during recent negotiations leading up to Copenhagen.
Canada, the United States, Europe, Australia and others want a new
agreement to also bind big developing nations such as China and India
to cut greenhouse gases. Canada has spent much of the past year
harnessing its environmental policy to that of the Obama
administration in the United States.
But the industrial countries argue the battle to cut greenhouse gases
is for naught unless all major polluters curb their emissions.
Developing countries argue that binding targets would stunt their
fledgling economies.
Developing countries also oppose having similar targets to
industrialized nations, who they say are responsible for most of the
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. They want rich countries to pour
billions of dollars into a special fund to help them pay for measures
to mitigate the effects of climate change.
It now seems the likeliest outcome of the two-week talks is a so-
called "political agreement" that sets a timeline and general terms
for an eventual deal.
The online poll of 1,001 Canadians was conducted Oct. 28 to Nov. 8.
Its margin of error was not immediately available.
©
chhotemianinshallah
international reputation
(27 Nov. 2009) - NUPGE president James Clancy says Harper is changing
Canada so radically that we could lose more than our good name –
already badly damaged on the world stage. "We just might lose Canada
altogether," he writes.
By James Clancy
National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE)
Ottawa - The biggest meeting on climate change since Kyoto is coming
up in early December in Copenhagen. Canada will definitely stand out
at this high-profile global gathering – but for all the wrong reasons.
Our lack of leadership in combating climate change is embarrassing.
The Harper government is viewed as a leading voice for the
obstructionist camp. Our greenhouse gas emissions continue to
skyrocket. We’re the home of the monstrous eco-nightmare known as the
Oil Sands.
Our reputation will take a well earned hit in Copenhagen. But what
else is new? The past four years under the Harper government have seen
a steady and marked diminishment of our reputation on the world stage.
We were one of the world’s biggest supporters of the Geneva Convention
and the UN Convention Against Torture. But when our foreign service
officers (and other public employees) aren’t being ignored or muzzled
by the Harper government, they’re being publicly smeared as senior
diplomat Richard Colvin was last week – all because he had the courage
to speak out about the possibility that Canadian officials turned a
blind eye to the risk that Afghan detainees faced torture.
We were one of the world’s great mediators of international conflict.
But the Harper government severely weakened our moral and diplomatic
influence in the Middle East with its unqualified support of Israel
during its brutally disproportionate war with Hezbollah in Lebanon and
Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
Farewell to peacekeeping and foreign aid
We were a pioneer of peacekeeping but under the Harper government
Canada is no longer the world’s leading peacekeeper – we’re not even
in the top 30 anymore. We used to be a leading dispenser of foreign
aid to poor countries but today we’re no longer among the top 10.
Canada was a founding member of the International Labour Organization
(ILO) in 1919 and hosted its headquarters during the Second World War.
But today our reputation as a country that respects workers' rights is
in jeopardy because the Harper government inexplicably refuses to
ratify three critical Conventions of the ILO governing forced labour,
child labour and the right to collective bargaining.
We were viewed as one of the world’s most inclusive and accommodating
societies. Yet Canada was one of only four countries recently to vote
against the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and we
refuse to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons With
Disabilities.
Canada used to be known as diplomatic honest brokers, peacekeepers,
human rights advocates, good environmental stewards, champions of
foreign aid and a more equitable world. This reputation – which is a
reflection of our country’s character and what we have to offer the
world – served us well for decades. It paid us a dividend of global
influence that far exceeded the sum of Canada’s actual powers.
Four regressive years
But in just four years, with only a minority government, Mr. Harper
has blurred Canada’s image. The international community is wondering
what differentiates us from countries like the US. Our global
influence has deteriorated as a result.
But there’s more at stake than Canada losing its place on the world
stage. We might just lose Canada altogether. If Mr. Harper wins a
majority government there’s a good chance Canadians will wake up one
morning in a country they don’t recognize as their own.
We must not let that happen.
James Clancy
National President
NUPGE
James Clancy is the national president of the National Union of Public
and General Employees (NUPGE), one of Canada's largest labour
organizations with over 340,000 members. Our mission is to improve the
lives of working families and to build a stronger Canada by ensuring
our common wealth is used for the common good. NUPGE
Sid Harth
EU, U.S. Prepare for Climate Summit
Obama to Attend, Set Targets; Europeans Say Steps to Curb Emissions
Could Hurt Industries if Others Don't Take Part.
. Text .By ALESSANDRO TORELLO in Brussels and STEPHEN POWER in
Washington
As the prospect of a global climate deal this year recedes, European
governments worry that their critical industries will be left
dangerously uncompetitive.
U.S. President Barack Obama will attend a global climate summit in
Copenhagen next month, where he will lay out specific targets for
curbing greenhouse-gas emissions, White House officials said Wednesday
-- the first time the Obama administration has offered to commit to
concrete goals on emissions.
View Full Image
Associated Press
Beginning in 2013, many European industries will have to start buying
part of their rights to emit carbon dioxide, rather than getting them
free.
.While the summit isn't expected to produce a legally binding
agreement, Mr. Obama's decision to attend ratchets up pressure on his
administration to narrow differences with other nations over how to
distribute the costs of cutting emissions.
The United Nations' top climate negotiator, Yvo de Boer, said Mr.
Obama's participation in the summit is "critical to a good outcome."
However, a summit of leaders from the Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation forum, including Mr. Obama, earlier this month dropped
plans to reach a binding agreement in Copenhagen, and instead pledged
what they called a "political framework" for future negotiations.
European Commission President José Manuel Barroso is now also talking
about Copenhagen as being "a springboard" for a new treaty, possibly
in 2010, after pushing hard for a binding deal this year.
.The European Union agreed last year on a set of rules to cut carbon-
dioxide emissions by 20% of 1990 levels by 2020. A change in the EU
market for allowances to emit carbon dioxide -- called the Emissions
Trading System, or ETS -- will play a crucial role. According to the
new rules, from 2013 many industries will have to start buying part of
their rights to emit carbon dioxide, rather than getting them free.
European governments worry that if the rest of the world is operating
with looser controls over carbon emissions -- and therefore with
cheaper energy as well -- the EU commitment will hamper the
competitiveness of key industries, or that they will move their
production out of the EU.
The ETS rules approved last year did make a provision for a delay in
reaching a comprehensive agreement. Under that plan, major industrial
sectors competitively disadvantaged by the ETS regime could be given
leeway on their allowances.
Journal Community
Vote: Do you think the summit will produce meaningful
accomplishments?
.Eligible industries include those for which the cost of emissions
would sharply increase production costs, or whose products are heavily
traded internationally, or both. Businesses as diverse as oil and gas
extraction, paper-making, musical instrument and underwear
manufacturing ended up being eligible.
The breaks will be crucial for certain industries, even though only
the best-performing plants in each sector will get 100%-free
allowances, with the rest getting some lower percentage.
"It can be a question of survival for some companies in those
sectors," said Folker Franz, senior adviser for environment issues at
BusinessEurope, the European Union's largest business lobby.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy has proposed a tariff on certain
goods imported to the EU to offset the benefits foreign manufacturers
could experience by not having to face emissions standards as
stringent as Europe's.
Such a tariff could "prevent unfair competition, it could finance part
of the new green industry, and it could encourage other nations to
adopt similar [carbon reduction] targets," said Antonio Dai Pra, an
energy and environment consultant at European Consulting Brussels.
In the U.S., Mr. Obama intends to propose that the U.S. cut its
greenhouse-gas emissions by 17% from 2005 levels by 2020, and by 83%
by 2050, officials said. Those proposed reductions are consistent with
targets laid out in a bill passed by the House of Representatives in
June. Senate leaders have said the full chamber won't take up climate
legislation until the spring.
—Frank Huetten and Carolyn Henson contributed to this article.
Write to Alessandro Torello at alessandr...@dowjones.com and
Stephen Power at stephe...@wsj.com
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125915923048663833.html
Sid Harth
NOVEMBER 29, 2009, 8:09 P.M. ET.
Climate Change and Melting Glaciers
Nepal's poor have more pressing problems
. Text .By BJøRN LOMBORG
Global warming has captured the attention of politicians around the
world. The following article is part of a series leading up to the
December United Nations conference in Copenhagen on how ordinary
people in different countries view the issue:
Nine years ago, Maya Bishwokarma moved with her family to Kathmandu
from Trisuli, a remote village in the hilly Nepal countryside. Their
search for a better life has proved elusive. She and her husband and
two sons live in a small, two-room house with her brother-in-law's
family, near the bank of a small stream that has been converted into
an open sewer.
"The life of the poor is more miserable here [than in the
countryside]," Mrs. Bishwokarma told a Copenhagen Consensus researcher
in June. "Our kids are suffering." The family cannot afford to send
their children to a good school.
One of the visible signs of this family's hardship is the lack of
basic amenities. Their hut has electricity, but rolling blackouts mean
there is no power for as much as 16 hours a day. Even during the wet
season, Mrs. Bishwokarma must line up with other local residents to
collect water handed out every six days by government officials. Due
to a long drought, the price of vegetables and food has soared.
The lack of water in the shadow of the Himalayas may seem like a
strong argument for drastic, short-term reductions in carbon
emissions. Indeed, the plight of people like the Bishwokarmas has been
used by Al Gore and other campaigners to argue for just such cuts.
Climate activists argue that there is a link between melting glaciers
in the Himalayas and water shortages elsewhere.
On the surface, this makes sense. But when we dig deeper, we find that
the Himalaya glaciers are difficult even for scientists to understand.
Most suggestions of rapid melting are based on observations of a small
handful of India's 10,000 or so Himalayan glaciers. A comprehensive
report in November by senior glaciologist Vijay Kumar Raina, released
by the Indian government, looked more broadly and found that many of
these glaciers are stable or have even advanced, and that the rate of
retreat for many others has slowed recently.
Jeffrey S. Kargel, a glaciologist at the University of Arizona,
declared in the Nov. 13 issue of Science that these "extremely
provocative" findings were "consistent with what I have learned
independently," while in the same issue of the magazine Kenneth
Hewitt, a glaciologist at Wilfrid Laurier University, agreed that
"there is no evidence" to support the suggestion that the glaciers are
disappearing quickly.
When glaciers thicken and expand, the summer runoff into rivers
decreases. In other words, when climate change does increase glacial
melting, the flow of water to poor people like the Bishwokarmas will
increase for several decades.
This does not mean that we should cheer on climate change, which will
affect the planet in a myriad of complex and challenging ways. It does
cast new light on one argument for drastic, short-term carbon cuts. It
is important, after all, that we base our response to global warming
on the most solid scientific expectations.
What did Mrs. Bishwokarma have to say about such questions? Several
times, she asked the Copenhagen Consensus researcher to explain what
"climate change" was. When it was explained, she agreed that it was a
concern.
But she added that the government of Nepal and others should spend
money "first on our everyday problems, then on global warming." To
her, with the perspective of living in a slum and unable to send her
children to good schools, that prescription makes a lot of sense.
Mr. Lomborg is director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, a think
tank, and author of "Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide
to Global Warming" (Knopf, 2007).
comments
1 hour ago..Barrie Harrop wrote:
.More shameless Book promotion,just shifting from country to
country ,the man has no real solutions except to lift his flagging
profile prior to COP15.
45 minutes ago..William Badeau replied:
.Projection:
The tendency to ascribe to another person feelings, thoughts, or
attitudes present in oneself, or to regard external reality as
embodying such feelings, thoughts, etc., in some way.
36 minutes ago..Barrie Harrop replied:
.Try overreaching.
46 minutes ago.Nonsubscriber .
Paul Cooper wrote:
.Global warmists love to moan about melting ice and claim that it
alone is proof of some dreaded climate catastrophe in the near future.
Funny thing is, the ice has been melting since before the first human
civilization was founded. Indeed, if the ice hadn't melted, we might
still be huddling in caves, waiting for the ice to melt and wondering
how much longer the mammoths would hold out.
35 minutes ago..Barrie Harrop replied:
.Paul,
“Monbiot's royal flush”: “Cut out and keep climate change denier
cards”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/mar/06/climate-change-deniers-top-10
See Bjorn coudnt even make this pack.
32 minutes ago.Nonsubscriber
Paul Cooper replied:
.Still using venom where you lack a reasoned argument, aye Barrie.
That's nice. Anything else might imply the ability for emotional
growth.
Seems like "denial" has a new meaning when it comes to climate change.
22 minutes ago..Barrie Harrop replied:
.Paul,
it would be wasted on you, in mean time please post your WSJ profile
so we can all read about your credibility (if any)
15 minutes ago..Robert Boni replied:
.We know your credibility, barrie: lots of self interest in selling
windmills and other assorted junk that will have negative economic
impacts on societies who turn their backs on more proven, reliable
sources of energy. Give it a rest, will you?
6 minutes ago.Nonsubscriber
.I realize how hard it must be to face the truth of this situation,
Barrie, especially seeing as how your entire business model is
premised on the belief that climate change is as bad as the worst
predictions have suggested. But being an obnoxious snot and refusing
to admit that these guys have royally screwed the argument does not
serve to convince anyone of anything other than your own gullibility.
You so love to call people "deniers", but you're the one in denial
now, Mr. Harrop. And a profile of me would do nothing to cure you of
that. You'll have to cross that bridge all on your own, if you can.
Sid Harth
NOVEMBER 29, 2009, 9:46 P.M. ET.
The Web Discloses Inconvenient Climate Truths The world cannot trust
scientists who abuse their power.
By L. GORDON CROVITZ..
For anyone who doubts the power of the Internet to shine light on
darkness, the news of the month is how digital technology helped
uncover a secretive group of scientists who suppressed data, froze
others out of the debate, and flouted freedom-of-information laws.
Their behavior was brought to light when more than 1,000 emails,and
some 3,500 additional files were published online, many of which
boasted about how they suppressed hard questions about their data.
The emails, released by an apparent whistle-blower who used the name
"FOI," were written by scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the
University of East Anglia in England. Its scientists are high-profile
campaigners for the theory of global warming.
The findings from East Anglia have been at the core of policy reports
by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC does
not do its own research but compiles information relating to climate
change. It has declared the evidence that the globe is warming to be
"unequivocal," a claim routinely cited by lawmakers in the U.S. and
elsewhere as authoritative.
The IPCC stresses honest science. According to its Web site, its goal
is to "assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent
basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information
relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-
induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for
adaptation and mitigation."
The panel, which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore, now
faces the inconvenient truth that it relied on scientists who violated
scientific process. In one email, the Climate Research Unit's
director, Phil Jones, wrote Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State
University, promising to spike studies that cast doubt on the
relationship between human activity and global warming. "I can't see
either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," he said. He
pledged to "keep them out somehow—even if we have to redefine what the
peer-review literature is!"
In another email exhange, Mr. Mann wrote to Mr. Jones: "This was the
danger of always criticizing the skeptics for not publishing in the
'peer-reviewed literature.' Obviously, they found a solution to that—
take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to
stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed
journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate
research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this
journal."
Other emails include one in which Keith Briffa of the Climate Research
Unit told Mr. Mann that "I tried hard to balance the needs of the
science and the IPCC, which were not always the same," and in which
Mr. Jones said he had employed Mr. Mann's "trick" to "hide the
decline" in temperatures. A May 2008 email from Mr. Jones with the
subject line "IPCC & FOI" asked recipients to "delete any emails you
may have had" about data submitted for an IPCC report. The British
Freedom of Information Act makes it a crime to delete material subject
to an FOI request; such a request had been made earlier that month.
Over the weekend, East Anglia officials disclosed they had disposed
years ago of the historic weather data underlying their analysis. This
may be one reason they've fought information requests. They say
they'll release the data they still have some time next year.
The emails showed how the global-warming group stifled dissent. They
controlled the peer-review process, keeping opposing views
unpublished, then cited "peer review" as evidence of their
"consensus." One of the dissident scientists, Roger Pielke of the
University of Colorado, wrote on his blog that the emails show the
"collusion to suppress other scientifically supported views of the
climate system, and the human role within it, is a systemic problem
with the climate assessment process."
These disclosures have led to some soul-searching. "Opaqueness and
secrecy are the enemies of science," wrote George Monbriot, a leading
British environmentalist. "There is a word for the apparent repeated
attempts to prevent disclosure revealed in these emails:
unscientific." Demetris Koutsoyiannis, a hydraulic engineer who has
written on climate change, wrote that scientists who suppressed others
"must have felt that this secrecy was their best weapon: to censor
differing opinions, to develop 'trick' procedures, to 'balance' the
needs of the IPCC, and even to 'redefine' peer review."
This unseemly business reveals another flaw. Why are scholars who
review papers allowed to remain anonymous? Reforming scientists and
lawmakers might put the question more concretely: How many of the
anonymous reviewers who spiked skeptical scientific papers over the
years are the people who wrote these emails detailing how they abused
peer review to block contrary evidence?
Science was one of the first disciplines to insist on transparency in
order to foster competition in data and ideas. In the case of global
warming, transparency is better late than never, as policy makers now
have the chance to review the facts. Facing up to high-profile flaws
is hard for any profession, but honest scientists will cheer how in
our digital era eventually the truth will out, and will accept that no
scientific hypothesis can be viewed as sacred or can be proved in
secret.
There are 17 comments .
.
2 hours ago..Barrie Harrop wrote:
.A storm in a tea cup.
Expect many who have leaked have been financed by greenhouse gas
emitting Industries and provided with moral support by anti- climate
change lobby groups.
If the scientists are right, humanity is marching towards with eyes
wide open towards a not so pleasant future.
Many Industries that rely on fossil fuel emissions are working hard to
safeguard their interests by trying to convince your countries and
mine to delay the tough decisions that must be made.
48 minutes ago.Nonsubscriber
VIDYA SAGAR replied:
.@ Barrie Harrop,
You seem to have forgotten to cut/paste the usual boilerplate about
what Kevin Rudd said, Lord Stern's report, etc. Thank you for not
spamming:)
Do you have any proof that the "leakers" are financed by greenhouse
gas emitting industries? Even if that is the case, how does it
diminish the message about these so called "climate scientists" and
their dishonesty? We clearly know where these "scientists" are getting
their funding from; so why should the taxpayers believe anything they
say, when there is a clear conflict of interest? It is tryly sad that
inspite of all the evidence, some are still pushing this AGW nonsense.
38 minutes ago..Barrie Harrop replied:
.Vidya try the English Newspapers are full of it, i am not your
research assistant, it seems this story needs some fuel at the moment
as its rapidly losing momentum your efforts are pitiful
40 minutes ago.Nonsubscriber
R. Ryan replied:
."Expect many who have leaked have been financed by greenhouse gas
emitting Industries and provided with moral support by anti- climate
change lobby groups."
Yes, we all expect that you, Mr. Harrop, a professional spinmeister
and eco-profiteer, are most concerned about the motivations of the
whistle blowers. Your type of smoke screen might buy a bit more time
for the crooked scientists to get their stories straight and destroy
more evidence. And what industry or political agenda - i.e., the pro-
hysteric climate change lobby - has bought off your crooked
"scientists"?
The reason so many thinking people have smelled a rat all along is all
this rubbish about consensus while refusing to address reasonable
scientific objections or allow others to see the data. Now we know
why. The AGW hysterics have weak data and arguments.
9 minutes ago..Ellis Wyatt replied:
. Barrie, it doesn't matter who exposed the fraud. For the sake of
argument I will concede, though I don't know or care, that the e-mails
were exposed by those who are not sympathetic to the cause. So there.
Now we are left with the scandalous e-mails themselves and they are
crushing to the climate alarmist industry. I've read your posts in the
past and I know you are bright enough to move beyond betrayed emotions
and start demanding real science to either put up or shut up reagrding
a topic you are passionate about. This is not going to just go away
quietly.
1 hour ago.Nonsubscriber
Gar Mowery wrote:
.For most of this week I like most minded people have been completely
absorbed by the revelations coming from the e-mails from the Climate
Research Unit at The University of East Anglia. Given the lack of
reporting from the “trusted” alphabet soup of news organizations,
ABC,CBS,CNN,BBC we have ourselves read the e-mails and inspected the
notes in the code. My understanding is that the CRU headed by Dr Jones
supplied the data in their possession to the United Nations IPCC to
support the UN goal of implementing Cap and Trade legislation on the
whole world in order to combat a man made contribution to the
destruction of the world. A “if we do not act quickly there is no hope
scenario” much like the financial bailouts No Time to Think Trust Us
This is TOO BIG TO FAIL! Trust is what the e-mails from the CRU speak
to and manifest. How can I trust the data used to create the theory
that Global Warming was man made and not influenced more by an object
93 million miles away that constitutes 99% of the mass of the solar
system and in which we live, in its “atmospheric influence”,
recognizing that it only takes 8 min for the warm to reach us. All we
ever asked for was Show Us the Math!, well we have seen the math and
we have seen collusion, and we have seen stifling of criticism or
inspection, and we have seen the trick of adding real temps where your
code fails so that anyone else that has records from 1961 on cannot
refute your algorithm, and we have seen willful and criminal misuse of
US taxpayers money (Roger’s missed trip and all the stuff you did not
buy that US hardworking and suffering taxpayers paid for through the
NOAA), and we have seen the deliberate destruction of evidence in the
face of Freedom of Information Act requests. I am more concerned about
what we have not seen. I have not seen or heard a peep from Al Gore. I
still see the President of the United States prepared to agree to
putting a greater burden on the US taxpayer in the now unfounded
belief that somehow man was responsible for this last period of
warming that certainly ended more than 10YEARS AGO! Hide the decline
my great-mother! I as a law abiding tax paying citizen of the United
States Demand a Federal Investigation of this matter Climategate!
37 minutes ago..Barrie Harrop replied:
.Ga Gar, what is all this nonsense about??
1 hour ago.Nonsubscriber
Paul Cooper wrote:
.Without the original data, the entire model is meaningless, and the
conclusions reached by some through applying the model are equally
irrelevant. If you can't show that the original numbers punched into
the computers were actual temperature measurements, you have nothing.
Climate change as a scientific theory is dead until someone takes
enough measurements to show that the model holds with real data. Until
then, it's just another urban legend pushed by hucksters. Maybe
"Mythbusters" can do an episode.
54 minutes ago.Nonsubscriber
michael suede wrote:
.The actual hacked climate model source code explained by a software
developer:
http://fascistsoup.com/2009/11/25/more-on-the-climategate-source-code/
The entire thing is one gigantic fraud.
This is epic.
44 minutes ago.Nonsubscriber
VIDYA SAGAR wrote:
.These frauds are not scientists; they are "climate scientists" who
bring dishonor to their profession.
Why not disclose all the information and let the facts speak for
themselves, instead of pushing a point of view.
34 minutes ago..Barrie Harrop replied:
.Vidya name "one" that has been been refereed?? then provide the link
to his peer reviewed, work published in a leading academic climate
change journal,as for your so called facts lets not stuff up your
posting with the real ones.
23 minutes ago..Marty Cawthon wrote:
.Well done, Mr L. Gordon Crovitz.
18 minutes ago.Nonsubscriber comments
Paul Cooper wrote:
.The peer-review process on climate science has been seriously
compromised. Denying this fact does nothing more than indicate an
inability or unwillingness to face the obvious truth.
16 minutes ago..Ben Oglesby wrote:
."This unseemly business reveals another flaw. Why are scholars who
review papers allowed to remain anonymous?"
Double blind peer review is pretty standard in science. The editor is
the key to the whole thing. If you don't trust the editors of the
journals, you lose faith in the whole system. In the case of climate
science and other heated scientific debate with large public policy
implications, it may be wise to do away with double blind, but that
could lead to other problems like scientists refraining from being
overly critical of their colleagues.
What a sorry episode. Discovery Institute is already trying to use
this as proof that their ideas about intelligent design are being
suppressed by the science elite. Thanks dunderheads!!
16 minutes ago.Nonsubscriber
Rosemary Meling wrote:
.I would like to suggest that persons seeking links to more
information on the climate scientists' cheating take a look at
http://wattsupwiththat.com I have found this site to be informative
and accurate and it links to others who know what they are talking
about.
Re the comments of Barrie Harrop on this site, he reminds me of
Scrooge saying, "Bah, Humbug!" Suspicious of everyone but those of
whom he should be suspicious. I suspect he enjoys his negativity.
13 minutes ago..Steven Rogers wrote:
. Can you say Piltdown Man? These "scientists" have lost all standing
in the scientific community for their crime. The Whistleblower
deserves the Noble Prize these frauds collected.
Sid Harth
DECEMBER 1, 2009, 10:40 A.M. ET.
Climategate: Follow the Money Climate change researchers must believe
in the reality of global warming just as a priest must believe in the
existence of God.
By BRET STEPHENS..
. Text .Last year, ExxonMobil donated $7 million to a grab-bag of
public policy institutes, including the Aspen Institute, the Asia
Society and Transparency International. It also gave a combined
$125,000 to the Heritage Institute and the National Center for Policy
Analysis, two conservative think tanks that have offered dissenting
views on what until recently was called—without irony—the climate
change "consensus."
To read some of the press accounts of these gifts—amounting to about
0.00027% of Exxon's 2008 profits of $45 billion—you might think you'd
hit upon the scandal of the age. But thanks to what now goes by the
name of climategate, it turns out the real scandal lies elsewhere.
Climategate, as readers of these pages know, concerns some of the
world's leading climate scientists working in tandem to block freedom
of information requests, blackball dissenting scientists, manipulate
the peer-review process, and obscure, destroy or massage inconvenient
temperature data—facts that were laid bare by last week's disclosure
of thousands of emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate
Research Unit, or CRU.
But the deeper question is why the scientists behaved this way to
begin with, especially since the science behind man-made global
warming is said to be firmly settled. To answer the question, it helps
to turn the alarmists' follow-the-money methods right back at them.
Consider the case of Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man
at the heart of climategate. According to one of the documents hacked
from his center, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or
co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold
increase over what he'd been awarded in the 1990s.
View Full Image
Associated Press
Al Gore wins the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize: Doing well by doing good?
.Why did the money pour in so quickly? Because the climate alarm kept
ringing so loudly: The louder the alarm, the greater the sums. And who
better to ring it than people like Mr. Jones, one of its likeliest
beneficiaries?
Thus, the European Commission's most recent appropriation for climate
research comes to nearly $3 billion, and that's not counting funds
from the EU's member governments. In the U.S., the House intends to
spend $1.3 billion on NASA's climate efforts, $400 million on NOAA's,
and another $300 million for the National Science Foundation. The
states also have a piece of the action, with California—apparently not
feeling bankrupt enough—devoting $600 million to their own climate
initiative. In Australia, alarmists have their own Department of
Climate Change at their funding disposal.
And all this is only a fraction of the $94 billion that HSBC Bank
estimates has been spent globally this year on what it calls "green
stimulus"—largely ethanol and other alternative energy schemes—of the
kind from which Al Gore and his partners at Kleiner Perkins hope to
profit handsomely.
Supply, as we know, creates its own demand. So for every additional
billion in government-funded grants (or the tens of millions supplied
by foundations like the Pew Charitable Trusts), universities, research
institutes, advocacy groups and their various spin-offs and dependents
have emerged from the woodwork to receive them.
.Today these groups form a kind of ecosystem of their own. They
include not just old standbys like the Sierra Club or Greenpeace, but
also Ozone Action, Clean Air Cool Planet, Americans for Equitable
Climate Change Solutions, the Alternative Energy Resources
Association, the California Climate Action Registry and so on and on.
All of them have been on the receiving end of climate change-related
funding, so all of them must believe in the reality (and catastrophic
imminence) of global warming just as a priest must believe in the
existence of God.
None of these outfits is per se corrupt, in the sense that the monies
they get are spent on something other than their intended purposes.
But they depend on an inherently corrupting premise, namely that the
hypothesis on which their livelihood depends has in fact been proved.
Absent that proof, everything they represent—including the thousands
of jobs they provide—vanishes. This is what's known as a vested
interest, and vested interests are an enemy of sound science.
Which brings us back to the climategate scientists, the keepers of the
keys to the global warming cathedral. In one of the more telling
disclosures from last week, a computer programmer writes of the CRU's
temperature database: "I am very sorry to report that the rest of the
databases seems to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia
was. . . . Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight. . . . We can
have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!"
This is not the sound of settled science, but of a cracking empirical
foundation. And however many billion-dollar edifices may be built on
it, sooner or later it is bound to crumble.
Write to bste...@wsj.com
There are 239 comments
17 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Gar Mowery wrote:
.Barrie where are you, it is obvious you have been assigned to the
Journals comments pages since you show up on everyone to denounce
anybody that sees through this climate fraud. Just one question for
you Barrie. How much have you invested in "green"?
16 hours ago..Barrie Harrop replied:
.Ga Gar,
Busy getting ready for over 25+ requested meetings at COP15 next week,
following 10 years of R&D now commercializing our new water project
current plan just in Aust is 115 sites just over $2.5bn,first project
under way.
By the way of the 100+ Countries delegations coming over 40 countries
have today serious fresh water issues,as result climate change
impacts.
"AUSTRALIA'S largest wind-powered desalination plant is planned for
Adelaide's north this year'
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,27574,25151411-2682,00.html
We will go from about 5GL,p.a. to up to 50GL,pa, prior to this water
ran out to sea killed the sea grass, that in turn destroyed the fish
breeding grounds, it’s the largest such aquifer recharge project in
the world.
We will on completion support a community of some 250,000 people with
this fully sustainable new water project.
One of the waste products from our offer is brine; we are planning use
brine to grow algae which in turn we can use in our biodiesel back up
engine.
16 hours ago..Dave Cavena replied:
.Barrie - You find it necessary to call names, now? Pity. ONe would
have thought from your thousands of erroneous posts over the years
that you were above that. But then you now are rejecting real science
and real critique -- and calling names.
How quaint!
And I DO have a subscription.
15 hours ago.Nonsubscriber co
Theo Goodwin replied:
.Barrie Harrop is a troll. His signature is the non-sequitur. He is
here to make noise. It's an old communist trick. Do not respond to
him. WSJ should ban him.
15 hours ago..Robert Kral replied:
.Since estuaries are typically critical breeding grounds for fish, I
am curious about your description of the river out to sea and killing
the sea grass/destroying the fish breeding grounds. What river is
this? Had its flow patterns increased for some reason? In Florida
they're trying to increase the fresh water flow through the Everglades
and out into the Gulf in order to restore critical fish breeding
grounds, so I would be interested to know the details of the situation
you describe.
14 hours ago..ALEX EISENZOPF replied:
. Barrie, in case you didn't get the news, here's a little nugget from
your neck of the planet:
(headline) Australia opposition elects new leader, ETS laws set to
fail
CANBERRA, Dec 1 (Reuters) - Australia's opposition elected a new
leader on Tuesday, Tony Abbott, who is opposed to the government's
carbon-trade laws, ensuring the embattled legislation is almost
certain to be defeated in a hostile Senate.
Say goodbye to all of that _arrie! You may want to pack up your waste-
water company and find something more legitimate... like dowsing.
13 hours ago.Nonsubscriber comments are set to "Hide" Show this
comment + .
VIDYA SAGAR replied:
.i just wish the likes of Barrie Harrop engaged in honest business -
if Adelaide needs fresh water, for the love of God, build a
desalination plant and sell them water.
the same goes for "100+ Countries delegation coming over 40
countries" [whatever the heck that is supposed to mean] - if they want/
need your product, sell it and make money. Just don't cheat/lie/steal
from the taxpayers through corrupt pols.
12 hours ago.Nonsubscriber .
Vittorio Mazerati replied:
.I know you "Barrie Harrop". It is not your real name and you are not
from Australia.
You are one of those members of Obama Administration Internet Police.
It is a shame that my taxpayer stimulus funds are wasted to pay you
for trolling this WSJ blog.
Is this how Obama Administration plans to solve high unemployment
problem in this country -- tax hard working Americans and hire "green
jobs" internet trolls?
8 hours ago.Nonsubscriber .
Zvonimir Siljkovic replied:
.Barry what is your base load power source? Considering wind power
cannot offer reliable base load, what are the additional incurred
costs to build in a backup base load power capacity? Since you need to
install reserve capacity due to the intermittent, volatile and largely
unpredictable nature of wind power, where do the savings come from?
The last ten years in Europe has provided ample opportunity to
evaluate the real costsn and claimed benefits of industrial wind
turbines based on actual operating statistics. Studies by public
electricity distributors now challenge the very assumption upon which
the ecological value of commercial wind power is based: that it
reduces
carbon emissions.Industrial wind power is proving to be exceptionally
expensive to consumers once required backup and additional
infrastructure are
factored in. The high cost is caused by the need to maintain backup
generating reserve to cover times when the wind does not blow. The
need to
stabilize the grid when wind produces power that is not needed by
current
demand. Government subsidization and tax benefits for the wind
industry.
It has been estimated that the entire benefit of reduced emissions
from wind power programs have been negated by the increased emissions
from part loaded plant. So I don't really see anything green or
sustainable about wind power other then feel good simpleton voodoo
economics perfect for the Copenhagen crowd of know nothing politicians
and the business charlatans that prowl on their tax dollars.
3 hours ago.Nonsubscriber .
Charles R. Ryan replied:
.Barrie, look what’s happening back home in Australia. Can indictments
against eco-hoaxsters for crimes against humanity be far behind?
“Climate e-mails topple Australian opposition leader: So the great
climate e-mail fiasco has drawn blood – that of an opposition leader,
no less, on the other side of the world. Australian Liberal leader
Malcolm Turnbull has been replaced by a climate sceptic, Tony Abbott,
after ten of its most senior politicians resigned over its support for
the Government’s plans for fighting global warming.”
No doubt your WSJ postings can be used as evidence against you, but
they can also support an insanity defense. Look on the bright side:
when you get to prison one of the other cons can teach you how to
access the online WSH free of charge. Heckuva good deal.
1 hour ago..Tim Dolan replied:
.be gone crook. You are a shill for a two bit wind/water company who
is afraid that it the truth is out your company and income will go
bust. Your opinion is something that can be trusted no more than any
other salesman.
1 hour ago.Nonsubscriber .
Gar Mowery replied:
.I wrote you a poem Barrie,
A 21st Century Psalm
December 7th is coming fast
We must act, before Copenhagen is passed
If that Treaty is law I guarantee
Another occurrence of infamy
As they strip away democracy
We wish to debate the natural state
It was warm for awhile, but cold as of late
The scientist tried to hide the decline
Deny debate through deceit and design
The science was settled and the data deleted
All opposition was effectively defeated
From checking the facts, and results repeated
Who could prove the science was cheated
Man Made Global Warming is a lie
The CRU e-mails and codes do testify
The purpose, a Carbon Debt to apply
Kiss your money, technology and freedom goodbye
The silence is deafening across the land
As the revelations the public now understands
The weathers a carrot meant to disguise
A corrupt agenda before our eyes
And now we see light shining in Truth
Politicians, media, and search engines declare moot
You can glimpse the extent of the hypocrisy
In how they declare there is nothing to see
So much for transparency
Climategate Googlegate Copenhagengate
Who gave you permission to decide our fate?
Censoring discussion denying debate
The Spirit of Truth you desecrate
In all debate Truth intervenes
Asks does the end justify the means?
Demands that honesty remains supreme
That commitments aren’t made on fraudulent schemes.
It’s time for the passive acceptance to end
It’s time to stand for freedom as free men
It’s time to expose the lies and deceit
It’s time to take it to the streets
Do not commit sedition do not get jailed
Non-Violent revolutions do not fail
The voice of the Prophets, Gandhi and King
Are calling for you to get marching
Or just sit back and take the vaccine.
35 minutes ago.Nonsubscriber
Dorian Marvin replied:
.No need to cyberlynch, Barrie. Rather, examine his post. It does the
work.
By the arguments of all doctors involved, many of them famous
specialists, the patient's entire body needs a complete and total skin
graft including all surface areas and into the inner surfaces of his
orifices.
Barries for his part has just announced that a single mitochondria
from a particular skin cell has been renewed. This is good news.
This is good news. Yet, it's hard not to feel for the man. And his
doctors have what is called in the theory of computation, an absurd
amount of work to accomplish in a short amount of time - that's the
technical phraseology. However, te work needed hasn't been fully
quantified, so while some say regards completing it, full speed ahead,
others retaliate with their own, all the king's horses and all the
king's men can't make that burnt up effigy whole again.
But they got a vital part of a single cell down. They might be able to
use the result for similar vital parts in similar cells. Here's
hoping.
In the meantime, all rich countries will soon be force to pay X amount
dollars buy in money, annually, regards this type of work (but not
necessarily to fund it), so that poor countries "feel" the betteroffs
are sufficiently committed to the even larger political trappings of
the work.
16 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Greg Arnot replied:
.Like you, I have been wondering where the Warmist rent-seeker is.
Maybe he has a new gig....stealing from the old and weak....defrauding
children...? Who knows?
16 hours ago..Eric Vachon replied:
.I'm a subscriber Barrie, but I don't have anything nice to say, so
unlike you, I will just leave you with some facts:
Even people at the EPA don't believe what they are trying to be sold,
and think that there is not enough good data to suggest CO2 is
changing the atmosphere, but their reports are being suppressed:
"This report has been prepared by the National Center for
Environmental Economics (NCEE) in the EPA Office Policy, Economics,
and Innovation, which is part of the Office of the Administrator. It
was authored by Dr. Alan Carlin and John Davidson of NCEE and in part
builds on three previous reports (Carlin, 2007), Carlin (2007a), and
Carlin (2008)."
http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf
Is the EPA in your list of climate change pseudo-skeptics?
And by the way, money doesn't make you a winner, but being a jerk does
make you a loser, regardless of your material wealth.
<Barrie, insert your contentious, falsified, and condescending rant
here>
14 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Zachariah Edwards replied:
.The problem with Barrie's synopsis is the fact that European
Countries have found that Wind Mills are not efficient and yet the
government demands wasting money on power that is inefficient.
European wind mills are 25% efficient.
The problem is the funding that comes with Global Warming. Whether its
the millions being made by Al Gore and billions to be earned in the
future. Billions being paid to the scientists in their funding.
Hundreds of millions being earned by GE and alternative energy
equipment designers. There is a huge amount of money being earned in
this industry. Sadly four plus jobs are destroyed for every green job
that is created. There goes the economy.
As for the science, the temperatures according to NOAA and NASA show
that over the past 11 years, the average temperature has decreased
steadily. Ever since 1998 the temperature has dropped, minus 2005 when
the temp went up and then back down the next year. So if the
temperature is consistently decreasing over the past 10 years could it
be that the cycle is starting to change? And yet 'political
scientists' tried to hide this information from their reports and do
we take issue with the rest of the data, thinking that it may be
questionable, no, why not because it is part of a leftist agenda.
SOURCE OF ARTICLES ABOUT CLIMATEGATE: www.americanparchment.com
13 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Doug Guenther replied:
.Actually, NASA says the temperature trend has still been 0.1 degree C
increase per decade since 1998 (British data says it has been flat).
NASA further points out that the 30-year trend (which is more
significant) is consistently 0.2 degrees per decade, even with the
last ten years included.
4 minutes ago.Nonsubscriber
jean balloon replied:
.Barrie did you send some lumps of coal to the TEN liberal members who
resigned over the hoax of ETS?
Or is that a 'carbon obesity' thing and therefore prohibited? What
would send an equally appropriate message of distaste? Chunks of
bamboo? Tofu?
17 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
John Public wrote:
.The biggest irony about the climate debate is that the "green
industry" is going to be owned and controlled by large corporations
who were given the opportunity by anti-corporate sentiment.
To all the greenies out there: meet the new boss (large corporations),
same as the old boss (large corporations).
Unfortunately, Joe Taxpayer and Joe Consumer (who happens to be the
same guy), will pay for it all through increased costs and taxes.
17 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Leslie Jones replied:
.And all the green "stuff" will be made in China subsidized by US
taxpayers.
16 hours ago..Barrie Harrop replied:
.james,
lets not get too ahead of your self its going to happen .
16 hours ago..Barrie Harrop replied:
.leslie,
Yes i can fade in/out non-subscribers a benefit of being a WSJ
subscriber ,by the way its only fools like i tend to fade out
permanent.
16 hours ago..Barrie Harrop replied:
.Mr Public you can buy shares in listed Public Companies that will
benefit from the going green across the world ,stop whingeing.
16 hours ago..James Kolan replied:
."Whingeing?" Barrie, are you in Australia? Get ready for ETS...not!!!
LOL!
16 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Leslie Jones replied:
.harrop. a while back you said you would screen out all non-
subscribers. Another lie from an AGWer!
16 hours ago..Mark Forey replied:
. The gig is up Aussie . Now if only the WSJ would install an ignore
button . One Barrie , toast .
14 hours ago..Linda Walling replied:
.Barrie, I don't want to buy shares in anything that is not grounded
on the truth. I don't want part of the "take" if that makes me party
to exploitation of others.
5 hours ago.Nonsubscriber .
Leslie Jones replied:
.Harrop, You are so dishonest. You say you fade out non-subscribers
and then you say you fade out me. But you sure seem to see what I say.
Maybe it is because like AGW "scientists" you are clairvoyant. You are
Elmer Gantry. Like all the greenie "businessmen" you sell snake oil.
If you want to pimp your products on WSJ I suggest you BUY AN AD.
1 hour ago..Keith Peterka replied:
.Thank the gods for our High Priest of Global Warming.... Barrie Flop
14 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
.Doug Guenther replied:
.So, we should really be having a discussion here about the illegal
hijacking of the free-market system by big corporations? Seems like an
important issue to resolve, whether global warming is real or not,
because both society and the individual are getting screwed in the
meantime.
12 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Robert Bennett replied:
.Joe Taxpayer and Joe Consumer always get the shaft because they're
not organized and they don't see or acknowledge their common
interests. Worse, the organized special interests keep them
disorganized through disseminating misinformation - even lies - or
divided against each other on grounds of class, race, gender, age,
religion, lifestyle, etc.
In a polity thusly constituted, politicians are brokers who play all
bidders off against the middle - their own overriding desire to gain
and keep power. K street aggregates campaign cash and volunteer work
and bundles it with policy, creating a market where politicians are
bought and Congressional votes are sold. Joe Taxpayer and Joe Consumer
needn't come around, though, because none of them can even begin to
afford the prices.
I know we were taught in our high school civics classes that
government doesn't work this way, but we were lied to, keeping us
safely ignorant and docile. That's why the global warming industry
have been able to skim billions off the public fisc behind our backs
while green grifters like Al Gore and Barrie Harrop have made fortunes
off of the government subsidies poured into their green scrams.
If we let this continue, our fate and the entire nation's will be the
same as Central California's: 40% unemployment and severe economic
hardship because the federal government cut off the water to the farms
to save a worthless bait fish known as the "delta smelt". Save the
environment and destroy the people - us. That's the agenda we're
paying taxes to finance.
If we want this kind of stuff to stop, we have to dramatically reduce
the size and scope of the federal government, i.e. reduce the federal
government's revenues and legal authority. This remedy works the same
way the pigeon remedy does: Stop feeding the pigeons, and they'll go
elsewhere.
17 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Gregg Henderson wrote:
.That would be an "inconvenient Vested Interest"
17 hours ago..Byron Furseth wrote:
.Have not yet heard the argument "fake but accurate," but it seems
that it would be the best the true believers in anthropogenic global
warming could make.
16 hours ago..Dave Cavena replied:
.The UN weenie in charge of Climate nonsense today said the CRU stuff
was all fine and dandy but only a small part of the whole and AGW
remains his religion of choice... sounded alot like "Fake but
accurate" to me!
14 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
VIDYA SAGAR replied:
.and the UN weenie SOB is an indian - had to hang my head in shame:)
16 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
michael suede wrote:
.It's so refreshing to see a journalist actually do his duty.
Perhaps one day I can stop blogging and actually trust the media to do
its job once again.
For those still in doubt, the actual hacked climate model source code
explained by a software developer:
http://fascistsoup.com/2009/11/25/more-on-the-climategate-source-code/
This puts the emails to shame, trust me.
14 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Troy R. Garibaldi replied:
.Do you even know what a "climate model" is ?
I downloaded all 161 MB of stolen files. Your little list of "source
code cheats" are not *source code*, they are just *comments* sprinkled
within tiny 3KB IDL (Interactive Data Language) procedures that make
quick and dirty plots of data. Did you bother to look at the actual
files involved ? You probably don't know how to grab them on
BitTorrent, so rely only on random blogs complaining about what they
"show".
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/
Those .pro files are tiny plotting programs. It doesn't matter what
researchers do to data before they publish - they can correlate cool
temperatures to the number of essays Richard Lindzen publishes in the
popular press that month - it has nothing to do with finished, peer-
reviewed, polished science results.
A large portion of your "climate model source code" is actually just a
running journal of some researchers' griping about how difficult it is
to analyze data - HARRY_READ_ME.txt, a 701 KB file covering 4 years of
stream-of-consciousness comments.
Boo hoo, research is hard.
And lost in all the sound and fury of the SwiftHacking of the CRU, is
the fact that proxy temperatures for the last 2000 years (OMG ! they
are "hiding the decline" in tree ring proxy data by showing ACTUAL
THERMOMETER MEASURED temperatures !) is only tangentially relevant to
climate models. Paleoclimate only establishes the ranges of past
climates, and shows that there are tipping points. It has nothing to
do with predictions of climate to come.
Which you would know, if you knew what "climate models" are.
14 hours ago..Allan Bird replied:
.I know what climate models are. I also know the Hockey Stick graph
was created using data that was intentionally distorted.
In the future please use the more accurate phrase "fraudulent climate
models."
9 hours ago..Iman Oin Tedtoo replied:
.Why did the CRU claim to have discarded some of the primary data?
This is most unusual in scientific research.
5 hours ago..William Ledsham replied:
.Troy, you have of course, looked at the inventory of where those
thermometers have been located in the US. Some of the them are well
sited, but the vast majority seem to be sited in places where local
human activity effects their readings. Then, of course, there are the
station records from stations that do not even exist anymore. Those
are a bit hard to explain. But I will not ascribe to malice that which
is explained by sheer incompetence.
3 hours ago..Karl Wright replied:
."OMG ! they are "hiding the decline" in tree ring proxy data by
showing ACTUAL THERMOMETER MEASURED temperatures !"
Hi Troy,
The problem with plugging in temperature data from another source is
that you have to first establish the relationship between that new
source of temperature data and the old source. For example, how
exactly does tree ring data map to satellite-measured temperatures? If
you don't do that properly (or at all), you wind up introducing a
bias. That seems to be what happened here.
So, tell me I'm wrong, and tell me why what they did is correct...
1 hour ago.Nonsubscriber
BRIAN BONISH replied:
.Give it up. None of them are going to listen to you or do anything
other than parrot talking points. Since you seem to understand the
data, you must be part of the conspiracy. People who are willing to
believe that a bunch of competitive, disorganized, argumentative
scientists have gotten together to form a vast conspiracy promoting
global warming are not going to change their minds.
13 hours ago..Bryan Smith replied:
.I want to thank you for steering me to this web site, Shocking, just
shocking. I just can't believe the prevalent Fraud perpetrated on a
Global scale. This is going to set Science, real science, back for
tens of years if not more. And no one is taking a hard look at this,
at this data, and how it is collected and interpolated. These (So
called) scientists need to have their Doctorates nullified, and thrown
out on their collective rears. A full and complete peer review of all
data needs to be comb through...before the world is subjected to the
world’s largest 'Ponzi' scheme ever created in the history of mankind.
The worlds developing nations beware! You are about to be scammed into
a very expensive exchange of monetary fleecing by other nations larger
than you, with purveyors lining their pockets at your expense...you
have been forewarned.
P.S. And Michael, I feel the same way...
27 minutes ago..john majoros replied:
.Drill Baby Drill is the answer - Right?
The picture is BIGGER! We the Us citizens cannot keep using 35 times
the energy of the average world citizen and expect no ramifications.
Pollution issues, water issues, the list is much bigger than just
climate.
13 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Doug Guenther replied:
.So were *all* the so-called hockey stick graphs created with
distorted data? The National Research Councils congressional report of
2006 showed half a dozen other plots with similar results, and pretty
much vindicated Michael Mann (despite propaganda to the contrary).
Link Track Replies to this Comment ..
Please Join this Group to participate in Discussion..
13 hours ago..ALEX EISENZOPF replied:
. Doug-
Mann's graph is garbage. The Wegman and NAS reports both confirm it,
and Wegman is definitive. And now we know how good the "value-added"
data is- since much of the raw data was tossed.
Even the IPCC was too embarrassed to stick by the hockey stick- it was
quietly removed from the report some weeks ago. Mann's sporting
implement (no Medieval Warming, no Little Ice Age) is junk science.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanOp-Ed.pdf
4 hours ago..Michael Kennedy replied:
."The National Research Councils congressional report of 2006 showed
half a dozen other plots with similar results, and pretty much
vindicated Michael Mann (despite propaganda to the contrary)."
Actually, Steve McIntyre has shown that random number input generates
hockey sticks using the Mann process. Take a look.
1 hour ago..William Ledsham replied:
.When all the factors you use in a factor analysis look like hockey
sticks, guess what the factor analysis generates what looks like a
hockey stick.
Link Track Replies to this Comment ..
Please Join this Group to participate in Discussion....16 hours
ago..ED FORBES wrote:
. do not forget to add tax evasion
"..Briffa is funding Russian dendro Shiyatov, who asks him to send
money to personal bank account so as to avoid tax, thereby retaining
money for research.(0826209667)..."NYT
He also asks that the money be sent below the $10k USD amounts needed
to geterate IRS notice.
16 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
martin heilweil wrote:
.greenists are allowed to take money, like The Goracle investing in
Greeni$m
but they have to say so
second rule of science, first is don't lose the data
zeroth is don't lie
and fourth is:
computers are fallible they can lose your emails to hackers, and they
can give you fake GloWar models
it is supremely ironic that those who did not understand the
vulnerability of computers, and who loaded them up with their secret
stuff, also don't understand computers and loaded them up with their
junk stuff
"GIGO /
to the Next level"
this is more fun than, well than making fun of marcia crowley, who has
died and gone to cyber hell, who is her next avatar? dave lucas?
16 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
.John C Dean wrote:
.When I was 12 years old I had the flu and a few days to improve
myself. I read a book that said glaciers have been retreating for
thousands of years. Another book said that the Chinese had correlated
temperatures to sunspot activity. Another book that carried the
sunspot - temperature correlation up through the middle ages and the
current day. Today at 60 the science is still the same. Just read
Michael Crichton's book. Those that believe that we can control or
impact the climate or weather are ignorant fools. If they have a case,
let them prove it.
14 hours ago.Nonsubscriber comme
Troy R. Garibaldi replied:
.Maybe you'll catch the Swine Flu this winter and have the opportunity
to improve yourself once more.
5 hours ago..William Ledsham replied:
.Troy, you are turning into a Barrie. It is most unbecoming of you.
16 hours ago.Nonsubscriber .
Joe Jefferis wrote:
.Great idea to follow the money -
Money says - "so what " sort of like www.recovery.gov.
So what?
16 hours ago..Joseph Wootten wrote:
.There needs to be serious jail time for those perpetrating this
fraud, including Algore. THis is way worse than Madoff. This is an
attack on every American's wallet and more importantly, freedom for
either profit, or the religion of environmentalism.
16 hours ago..Barrie Harrop replied:
.OK Joe your in charge of the hanging committee.
16 hours ago..Joseph Wootten replied:
.Barrie - - That rust fund must be working out real well for you. You
seem to have plenty of time to wax stupid all over the WSJ Opinion
page.
3 hours ago..David Bryant replied:
.Barrie --
Orthography alert! In English, one would say "you're in charge."
Joe --
"[R]ust fund? Or "trust fund"? (Or is it a sly Biblical allusion --
lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust
doth corrupt ...?) Either way, it looks weird.
16 hours ago..Dave Cavena replied:
.We can start by impeaching Henry Waxman and tossing him in jail for
fraud. It isn't as though real scientists ever have bought Gore's
ignorant nonsense...
http://inthisdimension.com/2008/05/28/global-climate/
http://inthisdimension.com/2008/07/28/global-warming-not/
16 hours ago..Marc Garrett wrote:
."so all of them must believe in the reality (and catastrophic
imminence) of global warming just as a priest must believe in the
existence of God."
priceless
16 hours ago..Penttijuhani Jarvinen wrote:
.Climagate research made the serious mistake of deleting all their
original raw information. Only the results, that cannot be verified,
are thus left. But there is a way round all that. Just forget all the
talk and science and find a way to get water to the dry or drying
territories in Africa, to start with. If half the science money had
been used to produce water, with the help of nuclear energy for
instance, a number of the today empty places would be producing food
not only for Africa but for Europe too. They would be doing it at too
competitive prices which probably is the main problem behind all the
babble about the climate. Forget the climate and get the water!
16 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Doug Brockman replied:
.They say you can probably still get the original data from the
primary sources. Wonder how many decades and bureaucratic barriers
would have to be surmounted to accomplish that...
3 hours ago..Michael Gretchen replied:
. Are you working for Barrie?
25 minutes ago..john majoros replied:
.Yea, and he is not a patriot he actually questions the small minions
posting comments here on the Comment area of the WSJ.
A "debate" on the facts no longer seems possible here on these pages.
The vitriole being spewed is pathetic.
13 minutes ago..David Bryant replied:
.Welcome to the open internet, John. Just try to work around the
crazies -- it's not all that hard to do. When somebody calls you a
name, consider the source. And if it really does start to get on your
nerves, go do something else for a while.
16 hours ago.Nonsubscriber .
Dan Ramsey wrote:
.Game, set & match to the Wall Street Journal. If there is no global
warming, then lavish sources of research funding dry up and jobs get
cut. If there is no global warming, then large, well-funded
bureaucracies like the IPCC have no reason for existence.
Ergo, there must be global warming.
6 hours ago..Joseph Wootten replied:
.Not only should these sources of funding dry up, but anyone caught
using the money to perpetuate this fraud should be "clawed back" from
the thieves.
16 hours ago..Michael Selden wrote:
.It is well past time to show this pseuo-science masquerading as a
divine truth for the hollow cascade argument it is. Just like other
false "settled" matters of the past from the coming ice age to the
eugenics scare to the global population bomb. More exploited false
prophecies.
16 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Doug Brockman wrote:
.For the last 500 years European explorers have discovered humans in
every habitable clime and ecosystem on earth, having adapted in their
primitive condition to every state from freezing arctic tundra to
deserts to isolated pacific islands. I suspect humans could even adapt
to global warming or cooling if it ever occurs. I suggest that since
we live on a huge windfall of oil, coal, gas and uranium to finish
using these readily available cheap energy sources until market forces
move us to less efficient wind and solar alternatives.
15 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Doug Guenther replied:
.Sure we can adapt, but at what cost? Is it cheaper to adapt, or try
to limit the damage to begin with? What if, for instance, our entire
agricultural system has to move 10 degrees northward? Whose going to
pay for that? Or what if Southern California, Nevada and Arizona run
out of water? Who's going to pay to relocate thirty million people?
As far as using up the windfall resources and letting the market drive
us to more expensive renewables, that's happening right now. But
because market forces lag when they're not pushed enough by hidden
environmental costs, we're at least thirty years behind in the
conversion, making everything that much more expensive.
1 hour ago.Nonsubscriber
Rosemary Meling replied:
.At what cost? Look at how expensive the efforts to limit the mythical
global warming have been. And it will be worse if the governments
don't come to their senses before Copenhagen. I'm not even taking into
consideration all of the lost economic opportunities from this foolish
diversion of monies. Oh, yeah, and what if we are actually cooling and
not warming as some data indicates? Fixing the wrong problem is as bad
as not doing anything - only I don't believe we have that kind of
control over the planet to begin with.
24 minutes ago..john majoros replied:
.Doug, You get it! There is a bigger picture out there. Wonderful
post.
15 hours ago.Nonsubscriber .
Charles R. Kiss wrote:
.The fundamental problem with climate "science" is the limited sample
size of the data, the limited sophistication of the computer
programing, and correlation between elevated temperatures and CO2
measurements.
The more dangerous factors include the egos of individuals in one
group (scientists), in combination with the decision making of another
group (government officials) that discourages creativity and
individual responsibility.
As usual, individuals with the strongest opinions are those with the
least knowledge.
I only wish that I could have the time to count the by-products of
combustion and identify them, hardly difficult, but tedious.
I imagine the resolution of computer modeling the entire planets
biosphere is several orders of magnitude lower than that which in any
other science would be considered acceptable -less cosmology.
I think it is very serious individuals are manipulating data and
programming input on a model whose resolution is probably very weak.
If the skill in executing the manipulation on the model is
approximately as large as the model is weak then those responsible
should be dismissed from employment.
15 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Doug Guenther replied:
.Researchers in a wide range of fields (atmospheric chemistry,
geophysics, geology, oceanography, plant biology and on and on) have
been doing their best to observe and document natural processes on
this planet and the changes to them in the last fifty years. There has
been a tremendous investment of time, effort and intelligent thought
in this effort, and in a single sentence all this work is supposedly
discredited by armchair commentators labeling all scientists as
egotists. How, exactly, is that discrediting justified?
It's certainly a surprise to the scientists.
14 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Charles R. Kiss replied:
.Thank you Doug,
The conflicts of interest can be analogized this way; using the
geologists and the geophysicists above, let's say who are hired to
model a method of finding hydrocarbons such as oil or coal -if they're
manipulating the modeling, they don't find oil and they get fired.
Especially if they are found to be obfuscating the models of other
inventors.
But my argument is mostly one of scale and resolution, in combination
with cause and effect: an individual identifies the inconvenient
mistakes in the data and programming, but not the convenient ones, ie.
don't ignore the sources, ignore the sinks.
A climate model I imagine must be at least tens of orders more
sophisticated than say atmospheric chemistry, plant biology,
geophysics, oceanography, etc. because climate science should include
them.
Finally, if this modeling, considering it's scale and resolution, is
accurate to within four decimal places (100ppm), I would consider this
an amazing scientific achievement -or just pure luck. For now,
however, I am increasingly skeptical.
13 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
timothy garwood replied:
.please spare me your intellectual bu double hockey sticks.all that
science and on and on and they still can't tell me what the weather
will be in a week let alone 50 years.
1 hour ago.Nonsubscriber
Rosemary Meling replied:
.You are aware, aren't you, of the many scientists who have disagreed
with the AGW people and been subject to all manner of abuse?
7 hours ago.
Matt Cummings replied:
.When I first started programming 20+ years ago, whenver I had trouble
putting a program together, my mentor would tell me that my
programming problem was nothing like the one he was working on which
was the "World Simulation Program". He would tell me he had the basic
logic worked out, but he just didn't have enough memory for all the
variables. He would say that even if he could store all the variable,
he hated to think how long it would take to initialize them all. I
still laugh whenever I hear talk of these climate models, thinking of
my buddy's "WSP".
I realize that modeling is necessary, but it's been hard for me to
accept man-made global warming when back in the 70's Time magazine was
convinced that the world was pluinging into a new ice age:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
It's all BS with $$$$ as the driving force.
15 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Doug Guenther wrote:
.The Wall Street Journal has some very fine, very intelligent
journalists - Bret Stephens is obviously not one of them. This little
piece of yellow journalism displays a shocking lack of understanding
about the funding of ongoing basic scientific research, about the size
and breadth of the research community, and about the fundamental
scientific tenant of repeatable, reproducible observations.
Even if Mr. Stephens were to excuse himself as 'not being a
scientist', then he owes it to journalistic integrity to also mention
the far greater amounts of money motivating the energy companies,
lobbyists and conservative pundits to flat out lie in the pursuit of
greater profits.
15 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Steven Douglas replied:
.Sorry Doug, the energy companies and lobbyists are All On Board --
they're ALLLLL "going green". In case you haven't noticed, Green is
the New Green, and they stand to make a killing off this delicious
rats nest of artificially created and artificially inflated
opportunity. You don't attack a sure thing, you gear up for it. You
may fantasize about running them out of town on a rail, but you're
really just staging a parade that they will assume in their honor. You
don't see that? (HINT: Why do you think GWB got on board?) And the
conservative pundits - they thrive and get paid no matter what,
climate change or no climate change.
Here's the bigger problem, and another thing you might not see (I'm
giving you pearls here):
Global warming (and/or cooling, of which we now have of both) is
referred to as Climate Change. You knew that, but what you didn't know
(I'm betting) is that in truth the only Climate Change Deniers are to
be found in the AGW Warmist camp. You among them.
WHAT?! LUDICROUS!!! How so, you ask?
It's elementary. AGW Warmists/Alarmists have collectively convinced
themselves that none of the recent climate changes were even possible
without human-produced CO2. Absent our meager, fractional contribution
of that bio-beneficial trace gas added to the atmosphere, the climate
would have remained, more or less, static.
Think about it. The Warmist's are the ONLY denialists (over that which
can be observed and is thoroughly proved by science). The AGW
Warmists' first (failed) attempt at illustrating their own Climate
Change Denial was seen in Mann's now discredited hockey stick graph,
which depicted PRECISELY what the Climate Change Denial camp (AGW
Warmists) were shooting for, wanted to prove, and which AGW warmists
have been aiming to convince us of ever since. No MWP, no warming
prior to the 40's (when most of the warming occurred), and certainly
no "declines" to hide. Just a straight stick, starting out as low as
possible, with a nice, sharp, dramatic - even scary - upturn at the
end.
That was evidence of Climate Change Denial at its finest, and ONLY the
AGW Warmists are guilty of it.
MESSAGE TO DOUG AND AGW WARMISTS EVERYWHERE: Skeptics don't hide
declines, nor do they want to "get rid of" the Medieval Warm Period or
anything else. They're demanding data, not hiding and hoarding it.
They're the only ones demanding absolute transparency. Stop denying -
Climate Change is, and always has been, a reality, not just on Earth
but everywhere that there's a climate, and regardless of our meager
fractional contributions of trace gases, with their real but
statistically insignificant (read = negligible) effects.
14 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Doug Guenther replied:
.So I'm curious about your take on a very simple question. CO2 has
increased more than 30% in the last century; it's now the highest it's
been in a million years (according to ice cores). The increase is all
man-made (according to isotope measurements). CO2 absorbs and re-
radiates infrared, as shown in the lab. So, why *wouldn't* you think
that we're warming the earth?
13 hours ago..Allan Bird replied:
.Doug, tell me about the "repeatable, reproducible observations." What
tests did these GloWar religionists masquerading as scientists repeat?
What reproducible observations did they reproduce? A large portion of
what CRU does is modelling -- GIGO susceptible. And as proven when
forced to provide data for the now discredited Hockey Stick graph,
these GloWar religionists have been caught previously filling their
models with garbage.
13 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Steven Douglas replied:
.Responding now to the follow-up below (no link to Reply to that one,
sorry):
Firstly, I didn't say or even suggest that our activities weren't
adding some kind of warmth to the earth, or even that the earth hasn't
warmed (by roughly .6 deg. over the past century). I'm not a climate
change denier, Doug. We're only talking attribution, not whether.
Secondly, you claim (and this is a fundamental plank of the AGW
warmist's theory) that the increase in CO2 is ALL man-made (according
to isotope measurements). I question that, as does Roy Spencer, who
wrote:
"...it is indisputable that the amount of extra CO2 showing up at the
monitoring station at Mauna Loa, Hawaii each year (first graph below)
is strongly affected by sea surface temperature (SST) variations
(second graph below), which are in turn mostly a function of El Nino
and La Nina conditions (third graph below):"
Roy Spencer does not use the word "indisputable" lightly, and the
above science has not yet (nor can it be, I submit) refuted by anyone.
IF the principle holds true for Mauna Loa, and it does, then we have
at least ONE example of PART of the CO2 additon that is NOT coming
from humans, and which is strongly affected by increases in sea
surface temperature. If that is true (and it is) then might it not be
the case that this same principle could hold true in at least one more
place on the earth as well - not just a lone Mauna Loa-based anomaly?
See here for Roy Spencer's report:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/12/spencer-on-an-alternate-view-of-co2-increases/
It's always been interesting to me that warmists avoid any kind of
claims of joint, combined, or complex attribution. That would
simplifiy things for them, but it's always struck me as stunningly
irrational. You/they are claiming that ALL of the increases in
atmospheric CO2 came from human contributions ALONE, and that ZERO CO2
(do you not see how ludicrous that sounds? How can you even consider
that - ZERO? REALLY?) - that NO CO2 increase would have come from ANY
natural source whatsoever - that it was only humans up to their own
dirty CO2 tricks - "upsetting the natural balance" as it were.
Doug, that makes you not just a natural climate change denier, but a
"natural CO2 change" denier as well. And yet history, both paleo and
recent, shows this view not to be true at all. Both temperature AND
CO2 have varied over time. And always will.
And you didn't respond to the question I begged, so I'll ask it
directly, just to see if you'll state it outright for th record: Do
you believe that, absent human CO2 contributions, that NONE of the
warming (going back eleven years and counting back from there) would
have occurred? (i.e., the temperature of the earth would have remained
more or less static?)
P.S. Highest CO2 levels in a millon years? How about fifteen million?
It wouldn't matter to me either way. You're the one with
CO2=bad=pollutant=terrible crisis on your mind. Not me. Go back even
further, and keep going backwards from there, and you'll see CO2
levels many times that of today. Saying it's the highest in recent
history is not that meaningful to me.
4 hours ago..William Ledsham replied:
.Err Doug, you have made a very simple and fatal error in logic. CO2
absorbs and re-radiates heat (I assume you meant infrared radiation,
but that is something else). Yes it does. However the CO2 absorption
bands are already opaque through most of the lower troposphere. Adding
more CO2 does not absorb more heat any more than adding a can of black
paint to a can of black paint makes it any blacker. Adding more CO2
does marginally push the level of opacity a bit higher in the
atmosphere. In that it is a secondary forcer of climate. The
sensitivity is of the order of 0.00125 to 0.00250 degrees C per ppm of
CO2 at the present concentrations.
1 hour ago.Nonsubscriber
Rosemary Meling replied:
.Y'know, it's only repeatable if they share their data. Which they
went to great lengths NOT to do. I'm beginning to wonder why you are
so highly motivated to protect the climate scientists who showed such
scorn for the scientific methods and their scientific colleagues? What
is your motivation? And where is your data on the money?
15 hours ago..Alice Felt wrote:
.So Global Warming is a hoax, just as so many have suspected, but the
willingness of these scientists to fudge the truth goes way beyond
money. There is an ideology involved, one that seeks to destroy
capitalism and global warming is the perfect economic “bomb” designed
to help accomplish that task. There are so many pluses for the left,
all packaged in this one little theory, including increased government
control, the ability to redistribute wealth in whatever direction is
seen as “green,” and the destruction of anyone or any business or
group that doesn’t comply.
But Global Warming is just one hoax or “bomb” among so many, promoted
and pursued by the left to accomplish the same goal. We have the
“defender of the little guy” hoax, when in fact the left’s policies
will actually enslave us all, and the healthcare reform hoax, which
will allow the government further control, down to deciding who lives
and who dies, and the stimulus hoax, another word for looting of the
Treasury, just to name a few.
If we’re talking about following the money, we have to include
taxpayer earnings being sucked up by the bureaucracy in Washington and
the U.N., etc. as they attempt to implement one hoax after another. We
really need to expose them all because it means so much more than just
losing a few dollars. It will mean losing our freedom.
15 hours ago..Steven Stevens replied:
. Alice,
They are relentless -- true fanatics, hard-core cadre. They never give
up. There is only one way to deal with them.
14 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Steven Douglas replied:
.No doubt. I always knew that if they could figure out a way to tax
the sun, or sunlight (something everyone depends on for life) they
would do it in an instant. It looks like they found something much
better, much more accessible, with that same dependency of all life --
in a single molecule.
If there was a secret lever that would cause atmospheric CO2 to TRIPLE
in a single day I would pull it. The earth wouldn't experience any
significant warming, a lot of it would just disappear into ocean sinks
anyway, but it would benefit ALL life on earth. And the plant life,
which we all desperately need, and would grow more than ever, wouldn't
owe an ounce of gratitude to a single tree hugger afterward. That
gratitude, if there was such a thing in the plant kingdom, would
belong to me.
The Climate Change Deniers (AGW Warmists who believe that no climate
change is possible without humans) are a scary, irrational bunch. They
can predict huge tipping points with twenty foot sea level rises and
nightmare scenarios with catastrophes beyond our imaginations, but
they can't predict the simplest things - like the backlash that is
only beginning, and is now coming their way.
Ah, but that's the nature of climate change, even political - there's
no escaping it, and no denying it.
11 hours ago..Roger Avrit replied:
.Very nice summary, Alice. Well said.
15 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Carolyn Knight wrote:
.A report written two years ago by a group of international
environmentalists meeting in Switzerland called for environmentalism
to be equal to religion and to replace religion as the moral model for
future generations. These people are truly arrogant psychopathic
fools. John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, was the Chair of the
Executive Committee of the Pugwash Conference on Science and World
Affairs. promoting environmentalism as public policy and evidently as
religion. Understandable since this creep believes there are too many
people and he would just as soon most of us die of illness and disease
or be aborted or murdered before we reach the age of 2 yrs. Obama and
the UN want to control us by controlling wealth, health and energy.
The whole progressive scheme is aimed at the destruction of the USA,
loss of soverignity, and in the end annihilation of America.
13 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Doug Guenther replied:
.You seem to be confusing the players here. Scientists don't believe
climate change is a religion; they are merely reporting what they
observe. Don't shoot the messengers. Some activists may be fanatical
about the issue, but they don't get much of a hearing. The real debate
will be among the sober representatives and heads of state of 120
countries who meet in Copenhagen to try to decide how seriously to
tackle the problem.
7 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Matt Cummings replied:
.Doug,
I'd say by the subject of this article, the scientists involved are
more than messagers - they are the cooks, cooking the data. And they
take it apon themselves to prevent any change to the menu.
5 hours ago..William Ledsham replied:
.You seem to have missed the main point here. "Tackle the problem"
implies that the problem exists. By that very nature of your
description you have stated that the people meeting will be a self
selected group of people who believe in something. Scientists, and
there are lots of them, who state that AGW is at best a secondary
forcing will not be invited.
1 hour ago.Nonsubscriber
Rosemary Meling replied:
.No, they are not reporting what they observe. That is the whole
point. And President Obama's energy czar is part of the scandal (back
when he was at Harvard) so I'm pretty sure I don't trust him to advise
Obama truthfully.
15 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Carolyn Knight wrote:
.The "green" movement seems to have originated in the Netherlands with
a bunch of bureaucratic environmentalists. John Holdren was a chairman
of the executive committee of the Pugwash Confrence which meets once a
year to plan environmental public policy. It's more like scheming to
promote international policies that will make the UN the ultimate
power on all environmental issues. John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar
received the Nobel Prize for the Pugwash Group. He also received the
Heinz Award extablished by Teresa Heinz Kerry in 1993. These rats are
thicker than thieves. Our senators and representatives, including the
President are pushing Cap and Trade, not for the American people but
to further the UN's agenda and their own personal wealth and power.
14 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Don Hansen wrote:
.And this was in the natural sciences. Imagine what goes on with
sociology, psychology, history, etc., where there are far fewer
reality checks, and there can be some powerful emotions at play.
14 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Charles R. Kiss replied:
.You mean like Freud having sex with his patients?
Yes, fortunately when conflicts of interest happen in physics, it
doesn't last very long.
14 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
David L. Hagen wrote:
.Environmentalists focus on $2 million per year from ExxonMobil while
Big Government spends $2,000,000,000 per year on climate. Joanna Nova
details this in "Climate Money: The Climate Industry: $79 billion so
far – trillions to come" http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climate_money.html
The CRU emails show the corruption of climate science by The Team
hogging funding and preventing outside scientists from getting
published or included in the IPCC report, thus severely distorting
science.
Current global warming models are unvalidated, violate at least 72
principles of scientific forecasting, and cannot predict the impact of
the Pacific Decadal Oscillations on global temperature.
See: Public Forecasting Policy
http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=129/
See: Don Easterbrook's presentations
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/research/global/glocool.htm
The atrocious state of climate data is shown in the CRU
HARRY_README.txt file. See:
E-Mail Fracas Shows Peril of Trying to Spin Science NYT Nov 30, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01tier.html?_r=3
Climate science will only become objective and believable when the
government specifically requires that a major portion of funds be
given to validating each and every contribution of both natural and
anthropogenic causes to climate change.
When we taxpayers are being asked to put in $45 trillion, we should
demand investing at least 0.01% of that into "kicking the tires."
ClimateGate is exposing those tires as pretty flat.
14 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
timothy garwood wrote:
.i think the global warming Nazi are counting on the fraud being
continued in Denmark so they can say see because we acted the temps
are lowering. is it true the evidence shows temps are actually
lowering since 1998? is there any way to force an honest debate?
13 hours ago.Nonsubscriber comm
Doug Guenther replied:
.Godwin'd!
5 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
timothy garwood replied:
.what does that mean?
14 hours ago..Thomas Sheehan wrote:
.CO2 caused "global warming" was a hoax from day
one. The "theory" is based on some 19th century
scientist's observation of a greenhouse in England
(where else?) and extrapolating that heat behaviour
to the entire planet earth and its entire atmosphere.
Whoa there 21st century dudes! Isn't that a bit of
stretch? Yeah a greenhouse is hotter than outside
on a cold winter's day. Take away the glass though
and it is as cold as the trees next to it. So where is
that glass for Earth? CO2? Wrong dudes. CO2
doesn't do anything but convey heat. "Reradiate"
is the "scientists" concept of how "greenhouse
gases are going to scorch us and melt the ice caps.
Well, think about that - all that "reradiated" heat in
the greenhouse is trapped by the glass. Sure the
place is warmer than outside. Not so on Earth folks.
Whether heat is missed or caught by CO2 it is heat
on a one way trip to entropy. To outer space, man.
I hate to say this but here is the equation for all the
great "scientists" out there. Heat from the Sun that
hits the Earth = Temperature of Earth. There is no
"greenhouse effect" in Earth's atmosphere. Our
atmosphere only conveys heat; it can't create heat
or hold heat to increase that heat beyond what the
Sun delivered in the first place. When you start to
believe some bogus computer program and ignore
common sense as well as the 3rd Law of Thermo-
dynamics you are what I will call: The Neoalchemist.
Now some bozo is going to bring up the planet
Venus as evidence of a "greenhouse effect."
Let's take care of you now. Venus is many millions
of miles closer to the Sun than Earth. Next time
you have a fire in your fireplace do an experiment -
move closer to the fire and tell me what happens.
Thomas A. Sheehan
2 hours ago..David Bryant replied:
.Hi, Thomas.
Alexander Pope said:
"A little knowledge is a dang'rous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Phrygian spring."
This is good advice for everyone. Your "greenhouse" analogy is
incomplete. The "glass" containing the atmosphere, which you
conveniently overlook, is the Earth's gravitational field. Your
equation, that heat = temperature, is dimensionally incorrect. Entropy
is not a destination; it is a measure of the disorder, or randomness,
of a physical system. In other words, entropy is _not_ outer space,
man.
Your assertion that "Our atmosphere only conveys heat; it can't create
heat or hold heat ..." is only partly correct. If the atmosphere did
not hold heat, the temperature of the air would be absolute zero, and
life on earth would be impossible. Temperatures near the ground are
tolerable precisely because our atmosphere does hold heat. Every
physical substance holds heat. Even black holes hold heat -- have you
heard of Hawking radiation?
If you don't believe me, please go read the Wikipedia article on
specific heat. Please pay particular attention to sections 7.2 through
7.4, concerning the specific heat capacity of gases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_heat_capacity
The physical principles underlying the greenhouse gas phenomenon are
very well understood, and nobody with, say, Feynman's introductory
physics course under his belt would presume to question the conclusion
that adding more carbon dioxide to the air will raise the specific
heat of the atmosphere. The real question in the global warming debate
is whether increasing levels of "primary" greenhouse gases will
produce positive feedback effects (primarily involving water vapor)
that will cause the average atmospheric temperature to rise very
rapidly, or whether negative feedback effects will tend to dampen the
temperature rise and make the effects more gradual, or perhaps almost
imperceptible.
There are many other variables (besides greenhouse gas concentrations)
that affect Earth's climate: the flux of solar energy, the Earth's
albedo, convection currents in the atmosphere and in the ocean, etc.
Some of these variables are more easily predicted than others. The
scientists who study atmospheric dynamics -- even the ones who concoct
"doomsday" scenarios -- try to take as much of this into account as
they possibly can. They all agree on the basic principles of physics
and chemistry. They don't necessarily agree on the way that the many
complex dynamic processes going on at or near the surface of the earth
interact with each other.
Oh yeah, one more thing about entropy. Does the Third Law of
Thermodynamics say anything about the ultimate state of the
atmosphere? Yes, it does -- a couple of trillion years from now. The
short run phenomena are of much more practical significance, don't you
think?
13 hours ago..Bryan Smith wrote:
.Gee, I kind of wished this didn't happen just now, you see, I was
trying to figure out a way to get money from ignorant corporations to
line my pockets and get a Nobel at the same time. I tried to tie three
resistors together but that had already been done, then, I thought of
cleaning out bird doo out of old antenna feed horns, but I still got
this annoying hiss, then, I thought of shaving 2 X 4s down to make
propellers and putting them on my handmade glider with an engine I
threw together at the last minute, but my wife said I was just wasting
my time, and I should go out and get a real job. Then it struck me,
Climate Scientist, I can be a Climate Scientist and warn the World the
Ski is Falling and be given millions from large corporations....Alas,
I've been foiled again. Does anyone have a Holiday job I can do, just
until my enriched Uranium comes from Iran so I can finish my self
contained, House hold, energy source so I can go off the grid, Edison
is about to raise the rates again, and you know, these Christmas
lights don’t light themselves…!
/Sarcasm
3 hours ago..Michael Gretchen replied:
. I'm about to launch a new promotion for free energy from alternate
dimensions. It's expensive to start, but then it'll be free. Get on
board before the train leaves the station.
2 hours ago..David Bryant replied:
.And your new venture will open its first bank account in Rio de
Janeiro, right, Michael? ;^>
38 minutes ago.Nonsubscriber .
Brian Mann replied:
.Be sure to send Barrie Harrop your materials, as he'll need a back-up
energy source for his water plants when his windmills are idle.
13 hours ago..sue podiak wrote:
.Francis Bacon, recognized as one of the creators or the modern
scientific method, once noted, "If a man will begin with certainties,
he will end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts,
he will end in certainties."
(from the Arizona State University Magazine)
Seems to me the Global Warming crowd have started with a certainty and
ignoring anything that might stir up doubt. This is not science, this
is politics. Politics of taking more of your money in taxes and
deciding how you get to spend the little you have left.
7 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Matt Cummings replied:
.Well said Sue.
13 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Rob Johnson wrote:
.You whiny neocons obviously never took any science classes beyond
high school, did you? If you did, you'd know what a joke this article
is and how irrelevant this whole fabricated "Climategate" frenzy is.
You'd also know why the statement "Climate change researchers must
believe in the reality of global warming just as a priest must believe
in the existence of God" is the most laughable thing written since the
Bible.
Seriously, since you guys seem to think scientists are all a bunch of
blackballing, fascist, greedy corporate whøres, why stop your
denialism at just climate science and evolution? Why not go the
distance and start denying other peer reviewed research as well, like
cell theory, germ theory, gravitational theory, atomic theory, and
quantum theory? No doubt the "scientists" in those fields are just as
fascist as the ones in climate science. After all, if your ideology
contradicts the claims of the scientists, the scientists must be
wrong, right?
You right wingers are morøns. And that includes the author of this
article.
Here, try to educate yourselves.
http://www.realclimate.org/
12 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Steven Douglas replied:
.For the record, and I know I'm in a minority here, but just for the
record, I'm both a skeptic and a liberal. A moderate liberal to be
sure, but not a neocon, not a conservative (as long as we're feeling
all frisky and like name calling, and the need that polarizing labels
somehow have to be thrown about).
The CRU climate scandal is a GLOBAL DISGRACE. It is both embarrassing
and INDEFENSIBLE. George Monbiot (also hardly a neocon) was absolutely
right to call for Jones' resignation, and if you had an ounce of
integrity, you'd be calling for the same, and wanting the chips to
fall wherever they may.
This is NOT a "few ill-chosen words" in some "private emails". This is
a heinous betrayal of both the public trust and science in general.
And throwing realclimate in everyone's faces - are you that daft? Do
you not realize that they're implicated in all of this: NAMED in those
emails as being in these scientist's pockets? That's like saying,
"Let's go ask one of the suspects if there's anything to these
charges!" Better yet, if you want to find out if a given church is
true, we need go no further than to one of it's chiefest members.
Oh yes, by all means, if they're not an authority on their own
innocence, who would be?
BTW, that doesn't mean their guilty of anything, and they can (AND
MUST) answer to all of this. But let's not be too moronic here - we
can at least consider the source.
12 hours ago..Bryan Smith replied:
.Thank you Mr. Douglas, I agree, real Science transcends Politics,
period. Albert Einstein famously said, "I simply work at my feeble
capacity, at the risk of pleasing no one." but sometimes the money
screams louder than the facts, but lies are like physics, you can only
keep so many balls in the air, until they come crashing down upon your
head, and the only thing you have left with is the facts, and that is
what transcends politics. The Earth is not the center of the universe,
but if it would help a cause, give me enough money, and I will move
Heaven and Earth so that you are the center of it, I just need a big
enough lever...
11 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Rob Johnson replied:
."The CRU climate scandal is a GLOBAL DISGRACE. It is both
embarrassing and INDEFENSIBLE.... This is NOT a "few ill-chosen words"
in some "private emails". This is a heinous betrayal of both the
public trust and science in general. "
Dead wrong. It's the right wing wackjobs cherry picking a few
sentences from tens of thousands of documents and from that claiming
some huge scandal that somehow proves AGW is a huge hoax.
That's absolute baloney. Here's the thing you don't seem to grasp: the
science is fundamentally sound. Data have not been fabricated. Huge
errors have not suddenly been uncovered. Conclusions have not changed.
You want to know why I'm linking to Real Climate? Because if you
actually read it (which you won't), you'd realize it's the scientists
who actually know what they're talking about and not the uneducated
propagandists like Limbaugh, Beck and the WSJ editorial page. Does our
society value education so little that we trust morøns like Beck over
scientists with PhDs? Unbelievable.
11 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Steven Douglas replied:
."You want to know why I'm linking to Real Climate? Because if you
actually read it (which you won't), you'd realize it's the scientists
who actually know what they're talking about..."
Once again you are dead wrong, Rob. I'm on realclimate just about
every day. I understand what they're talking about AND I contribute
from time to time. But I don't worship them. I don't "have faith" in
them. I both agree and disagree with MUCH of what they say. They're
not "dead wrong on everything". Only a polarized political myopic
would think that about the scientists on either side of this issue
(the parts that actually are disputed, which is NOT how it's
reported). I can see when RC zigs, when it zags, and when their in or
out of their element. And I can also see that they're preaching to
their own, highly controlled, choir.
If you're going to throw the likes of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh out
there, expect to get Al Gore, Ed Begley Jr and Leonardo DiCaprio
thrown back in your face, as if that meant anything at all but a NYAH!
on both parts. They're all politically charged, non-scientist
mouthpieces, and just as meaningless. Try Richard Lindzen, Roy
Spencer, or other peers if you don't want to appear partisan
disingenous. Actual scientists who are experts and skeptical.
And if you want to stoop low, in a partisan political way, you can
always do like many others do - vilify, go for the ad hominem attack,
and ignore what they're actually saying as well (or dismiss it all as
"debunked already", because an expert on your side told you so).
7 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Matt Cummings replied:
.Nicely said Steven
8 hours ago..Iman Oin Tedtoo replied:
.Do you have any emails to share re your extrapolatiohn?
5 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Leslie Jones replied:
.People with PhDs also caused the great credit crunch with
mathematical CDSs, etc. Just because you have a PhD does not make you
smart. Anyone that has been to college has first hand experience with
degreed total idiots.
5 hours ago..sue podiak replied:
.If it is science why did they destroy the original data? Or at the
very least refuse to release it and let others replicate their
research? Isn't that the standard scientific way? Was cell theory,
germ theory, gravitational theory, atomic theory peer reviewed by
anonymous peers, did they withhold data so their results could not be
duplicated? Did they answer questions such as what about sun spots
correlation to temperature, what about the Little Climate Occurrence,
what about CO2 levels 15 million years ago, what about the rising
temperatures on Mars, Jupiter and Venus? I didn't realize they had
SUVs there.
"You right wingers are morøns. And that includes the author of this
article."
Sorry son, but you are the one acting like a horses a$$, blinded by a
left wing superiority complex so embedded you can't even consider any
questions, which is the core of scientific inquiry.
4 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Bill Anderson replied:
.
Thanks, Sue, for getting the discussion back on track. True science
requires that the discovery of truth be the only acceptable goal.
Adjusting the methods and the data so that the results support a
particular position is not science, but is more often used in the
pseudo-scientific fields of psychology, sociology, etc.
Scientific inquiry requires that experiments be independently verified
by other scientists using their own data and methodologies. There is
no way to have independent verification of this climate change
nonsense unless all experimenters use the same flawed processes and
the same fraudulent data.
13 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Davie Jones wrote:
.Climategate speaks as much against the media as against the
"scientists" involved.
Here a simple question: How can it be that 1997 was the hottest year
on record, yet temperatures were rising for the last decade - as has
been reported since at least 2005? The only way that could be is for
temperature to have dropped at some point.
Even the simplest poking around into temperature records some US
cities would have shown that there has not been a temperature rise in
the last decade. Nevertheless, many reporters echoed what they were
told - namely that temperatures were still rising. Of course, you
would expect members of the flock to willingly believe (and certainly
not investigate) what the pastor is declaring from the pulpit.
Today, we have stories that not only were some members of the press
aware of the emails at the center of Climategate a month ago, but it
seems either they, or their employers, suppressed the story.
What more evidence is needed to show the damage that a biased and
compliant press can do to the world? Their self-denial as to their
bias and buy-in to patent falsehoods have us on the verge of
destroying our economy.
Climategate is really Mediagate.
13 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Michael Santomauro wrote:
.Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
The falsification of data and the conspiracy to commit same etc,
constitutes serious criminal activity. Further, the granting of public
funds for research warrants a federal investigation. I’m hoping the
perpetrators, including possibly Professor Michael Mann, director of
Pennsylvania State University’s Earth System Science Centre and a
regular contributor to the popular climate science blog Real Climate,
and their facilitators will be tracked down and prosecuted to the
fullest extent the law allows. -- Michael Santomauro
13 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Vittorio Mazerati wrote:
.Thomas Paine, said it best:
"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its
worst state, an intolerable one."
12 hours ago.Nonsubscriber .
Davie Jones replied:
.Only to a Libertarian or Conservative.
A liberal might say "The only tolerable government is the best
government. The only evil is inequality."
Too much of America is only now starting to realize that "evil" is not
just a concept, but is like a weed that must be trimmed back from time
to time. You can't really kill it outright, it always grows, and if
you ignore it for too long, it spreads rapidly.
Government has grown, and we have not trimmed it back. Now, it will be
even harder.
13 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Vittorio Mazerati wrote:
.Lets assume that there is global warming and it is secondary to
industrial carbon dioxide emissions (this is what after wasting
billions of taxpayer money these “scientists”, “alarmists”, and the
liberal politicians are telling us).
~186 billion tons of CO2 enters earth’s atmosphere each year from
three main sources:
~90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth’s oceans
~90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land
plants
~6 billion tons are from industrial carbon dioxide emissions
Even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting or
completely eliminating industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have
no effect on global climate.
It just does not make any sense what the liberals are forcing on us;
therefore, there are other reasons motivating these progressive
liberals: use it as an excuse to expand government, use it as an
instrument of social and cultural change, use it as an instrument of
wealth redistribution and to raise taxes, use it as an instrument to
control the economy through the manipulation and interference in the
free markets, use it as an excuse to participate in international
organizations that usurp American sovereignty, use it as an excuse to
undermine the inherent freedoms of individual citizens, use it as an
excuse to to impact every facet of American life, or simple greed and
money.
(And if you disagree with them, the liberals will attack you, label
you as a denier and enemy of the planet or an enemy of the people or a
racist.)
As a rule of thumb, usually one needs to start with follow the money.
13 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Vittorio Mazerati wrote:
.Global warming is not science. It is an ideology that is blind
fundamentalism, unrelated to scientific facts. “Scientists” use it to
milk the taxpayers for grants. Alarmists as Al Gore use it to siphon
public funds to their bank accounts. Politicians use it as a cover to
borrow and to spend taxpayer money , to build new bureaucracies, to
achieve their social and political goals, and to pose as environmental
saviors without having to face the consequences of their actions.
Their words speak for themselves.
Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming theory, in
interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)
“We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic
statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of
us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and
being honest.”
Al Gore:
“Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a
problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to
have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous
(global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to
listen to what the solutions are…”
Bill Clinton:
“In the United States…we have to first convince the American People
and the Congress that the climate problem is real.”
“Researchers pound the global-warming drum because they know there is
politics and, therefore, money behind it. . . I’ve been critical of
global warming and am persona non grata.”
— Dr. William Gray (Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado
State University, Fort Collins, Colorado and leading expert of
hurricane prediction, in an interview for the Denver Rocky Mountain
News, November 28, 1999)
“Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to
attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the
public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and
more dangerous than they really are.”
Petr Chylek (Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie
University, Halifax, Nova Scotia)
Commenting on reports by other researchers that Greenland’s glaciers
are melting.)
“Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the
right thing — in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
Tim Wirth , while U.S. Senator, Colorado. After a short stint as
United Nations Under-Secretary for Global Affairs he now serves as
President, U.N. Foundation
“No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral
environmental benefits…. Climate change [provides] the greatest chance
to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Christine Stewart, Minister of the Environment of Canada
13 hours ago.Nonsubscriber .
Vittorio Mazerati wrote:
.Dems, liberal media (CNN, ABC, CBS, BBC, PBS, NBC and all other GE
propaganda networks [GE is positioned to gain billions of taxpayer
gravy from the global warming hype]), and Obama administration are all
lying to the public about the “scientific consensus”.
In fact, over 700 prominent international scientists, including many
current and former UN IPCC scientists, (more than 13 times the number
of UN scientists [52] who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007
“scientific consensus”), voiced strong skepticism about the so-called
man-made global warming.
More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent over Man-Made Global
Warming Claims
Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008 & 2009
“Over 700 dissenting scientists (updates previous 650 report) from
around the globe
challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice
President Al Gore.
This new 2009 255-page U.S. Senate Minority Report — updated from
2007’s
groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism
about the so-called
global warming “consensus” — features the skeptical voices of over 700
prominent
international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC
scientists, who have
now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated report includes an
additional 300 (and
growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial release
in December 2007.
The over 700 dissenting scientists are more than 13 times the number
of UN scientists (52)
who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007?
12 hours ago.Nonsubscriber .
David Lucas wrote:
.I'd feel better if Mr. Stephens took his follow the money approach
with drug companies. Make a drug. Invent a disorder. Market it. Invent
a drug. Make a disorder. Market it.
So the basic premise is that global warming was concocted as a giant
Ponzi scheme to dump money into our evil, liberal universities? Nice.
11 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Davie Jones replied:
.From one "Dave" to another. No, I don't believe Universities invented
global warming because alumni weren't donating enough (even though it
may work out that way).
However, as to your analogy, it's nice, but it breaks down very
quickly. If I "believe" I need Viagra because I see a commercial on
TV, is that an indictment of my will or the persuasiveness of big
pharma?
On the other hand, if I don't live under the rules mandated by
government (you WILL use this light bulb, and drive this kind of car,
and run your business this way - whether you belive it is good for you
or not). Failure to comply may result in fines or jail time.
I'm pretty sure I prefer "strong persuasion" to "forced compliance".
12 hours ago..Edward Weite wrote:
.Patrick J. Michaels and Robert C. Balling, Jr. wrote a book : Satanic
Gasses: Clearing The Air About Global Warming. In that book the
authors wrote much about how the data was being fudged and modified
and how the facts were being misrepresented in order to keep the 6
billion dollar annual climate change budget flowing in the yea sayers
direction. Michaels has repeatedly lobbied congress to at least look
at the data. What is truly wrong here is the science funding has
become agenda driven; Prove what was asked, and you'll get MUCH more.
4 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Greg Arnot replied:
.And the corrosive effect of this intense propaganda is pervasive.
Hotel bathrooms have a sign telling guests how they can "Save the
Earth".
Good grief...how can such a massive fraud survive! And how can the
suckers be rehabilitated.
I suppose the suckers will find a way to recycle their "Save the
Earth" signs...
2 hours ago..David Bryant replied:
.What good would it do if congress looked at the data? They're mostly
a bunch of lawyers who flunked out of math class and didn't care about
chemistry and physics in the first place.
11 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
David Land wrote:
.GETTING AT THE TRUTH:
1. Follow the money to uncover possible sources of bias. (this
excellent article)
2. Examine the data to find out "how they know" what they're talking
about. (check surfacestations.org and ask how anyone can infer
temperatures to within 0.1 degree when 69% of the stations have
probable errors greater than 2 degrees C and only 10% of the stations
have probable errors less than 1 degree C).
3. Test the theory using reproducible experiments and/or demonstrating
validity by accurately predicting the future. (AGW theory has FLUNKED
the "predictive validity" test on temperature, hurricane frequency,
tornado frequency, polar ice mass, and sea levels)
4. Discover who the proponents of the theory are, and whether they are
qualified and motivated to seek the truth. (If they quote "2500
scientists say..." as proof of anything, they are NEITHER true
scientists nor truth seekers)
5. Examine from afar exactly what the theory alleges. Is it in
conflict with well-known scientific principles (like the Third Law of
Thermodynamics as Thomas Sheehan points out in the comments above)
6. Examine the proposed "solutions" presented by those advocating the
theory to see if they truly solve the alleged "problem":
a. Ethanol substituted for gasoline (net energy LOSS, drastically less
efficient, leading to MORE total waste and pollution)
b. Windmills (discredited 50 years ago: extremely low efficiency,
unreliable, and subject to widespread extinction via occasional
storms)
c. Twisty light bulbs (inadequate light output and in the wrong
spectrum, poisonous and produce hazardous waste, orders of magnitude
more costly to buy, won't work at all in many lighting applications
requiring dimming or certain form factors.
=====
It seems to me that the proponents of AGW have collectively FLUNKED
all of the above. While some of them may be honestly trying to do
good, they have actually been hoodwinked into worshiping a false god
named "environmentalism". The old name for "environmentalism" is
"Paganism", and it has always been associated with destructive and
anti-social behavior (prostitution, eugenics, etc) and has failed
every time it has been tried over the millenia.
9 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Kevin Costello wrote:
.Climate-warmers are a cult, no different than Scientologists. Cults
are money-makers for their founders and leaders, always have been.
Where's Gore been in all this? Is he in hiding? He always was gutless.
I wonder if he also believes in thetans?
8 hours ago.Nonsubscriber .
PEDRO CARNEIRO wrote:
.Stephens, are you out of mind? Including in the same sentence in a
comparative mode, climate change and God. This is a complete nonsense.
God is rea., He is material and spiritual. Climate Change is a hoax
without God.
For God sake.
8 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Dennis Posadas wrote:
."Climate change researchers must believe in the reality of global
warming just as a priest must believe in the existence of God." - Bret
Stephens, "Climate Gate: Follow the Money", 30 November 2009
ADS THAT RAN ALONGSIDE THIS ARTICLE INCLUDE:
- The people of America's Oil and Gas Industry
- Ford
- Chevron
Yes indeed, FOLLOW THE MONEY PAID BY WSJ ADVERTISERS!
1 hour ago.Nonsubscriber
Mark York replied:
.Bravo! That's it. It's good thing these people here aren't in a
geosciences class. You know the punks who ditched class and hung out
smoking cigarettes in the parking lot and flunked out eventually?
That's the average poster, and editor, here. What ignorance. Get help,
seriously.
7 hours ago..john preston wrote:
.What about a company like GE,that used its media outlets to elect
Obama and has structured most of its businesses to profit from the man
made global warming hoax? What about the continual green brainwashing
by NBC? What happens to a CEO like Immelt and GE stock if the
truth,that humans can not control climate,is ever broadcast by
mainstream media?
1 hour ago..John Pound replied:
.Ya know, 30 Rock is one of my favorite shows; consistently well
written, always funny and never a somber/serious note. The recent
"green' episode with the cameo by "Saint" Al Gore of the church of
climate catastrophe broke my heart.
Tina Fey - if things don't work out at home look me up (love your
Sarah Palin impersonation)!
7 hours ago..Rich Gimmel wrote:
.So, the oil companies and the environmental alarmists are in cahoots.
The alarmists shake down the oil companies, and the oil companies ante
up to keep things from getting too warm for them and their own agenda.
And the cycle repeats itself.
What a plan.
3 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Chris Bolts replied:
.Umm, no. The oil companies ain't in on this. Please provide evidence
that they are.
58 minutes ago.Nonsubscriber
Marcia Crowley replied:
.No, the oil companies' scientists know that climate change is real.
They are very intelligent, unlike you.
6 hours ago..Steven Weisbrod wrote:
.Climategate represents a real problem for science and public policy
in general. Public funding of scientific research creates interest
groups that have a vested interest in the conclusion, which, of
course, warps true scientific enquiry. But conducting scientific
research has become so expensive that it is hard to see how it can be
done without government support even as that support has a tendency to
wreck the process. I would like to think we can find a way to return
scientific research to private endeavors.
1 hour ago..David Bryant replied:
.You know, Steven, donations to universities and colleges are already
tax deductible. A lot of scientific research is funded by
corporations. I think we should just bite the bullet and eliminate the
NSF altogether. Let the grant seekers get their money from places like
the Ford Foundation. It would still be a political process, but at
least the ordinary taxpayer wouldn't have to foot the bill.
6 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
bg grove wrote:
.Barrie is Orlando's Al Gore / we have frauds here as well..........
6 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Linus Leavens wrote:
.The first of the 36 strategems from the classical chinese is "decieve
the heavens to cross the ocean". Global Warming (AGW) is being used in
order to get One World Government. Follow the money, indeed. Who's
going to gain from trading in CO2? Read this:
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2322&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=257
6 hours ago.Nonsubscriber .
JACK LAYNE wrote:
.These scientists are following in the footsteps of Trofim Lysenko,
who discovered the greatest principle of modern science: scientists
who tell people what they want to hear live lives of luxury.
6 hours ago..BILL HEMETER wrote:
.Duh! When it comes to money most people can justify just about
anything.
Now let's explore the second hand smoking scare.
5 hours ago..Peter Wilson wrote:
. The Climate Change Crowd is not satisfied with Al Gore's Nobel
Prize. Now they want a Pulitzer Prize for fiction.
1 hour ago..Denise Pace replied:
. hehe, nice one
5 hours ago..John H. Mcconnel Jr wrote:
.The system has been corrupted as evidenced by the emails exposed
recently. If the system itself is corrupt, then the results MUST be
corrupted as well, it is simple fact.
Most thing pertaining to democrat party are corrupt, their philosophy
is to reward GROUPS who keep them in power via elections by granting
these groups special "rights" and reducing competition. We must change
this philosophy of corruption if we are to save our nation...
5 hours ago..Jeremy Bixby wrote:
. The "scientists" who promulgated this fraud should be fired.
Falsifying data is the first cousin of plagiarism, and the only sure
method of preventing this from happening elsewhere is to make an
example of them. I've seen it happen to graduate and undergraduate
students. The institutions they represent ought to be embarrassed. Bet
it doesn't happen, though.
5 hours ago.Nonsubscriber .
Ray Van Lenten wrote:
."Peer reviewed" is looking a lot more like "pol reviewed."
1 hour ago..William Ledsham replied:
.No, it is called incest reviewed. If you submit a paper on flying
saucers to a "respected flying saucer journal" they will of course
publish it unless it says that flying saucers are bunk. The same has
happened with "climate change".
Link Track Replies to this Comment
5 hours ago.Nonsubscriber comments are set to "Hide" Show this comment
+ .timothy garwood wrote:
.
Journal Communityclose window ..Send a Message. Type your personal
message. .Journal Communityclose window ..Your message has been
sent.Close window .Message
Journal Communityclose window..Make a Connection. Type your personal
message. .Journal Communityclose window ..Your message has been
sent.Close window .Connect
.the silence of the state run media speaks pretty loudly.the cowards
like Catie and Matt care more about themselves than America they are
spineless.tiger is more important than this fraud.
5 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Leslie Jones wrote:
.The really funny thing is the AGW hoaxers could not gin up models
that backtested properly without fudging the data. So why are we
expected to believe the prognostic ability of the models?
Answer: we can't.
Plus, the first thing they should study and model properly are the
natural climate cycles. Even if there is AGW and even if it is due to
MM CO2, how do we know we are not slipping into an Ice Age again and
CO2 is the only thing that could SAVE the planet?
5 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Fred Bartlett replied:
.re: Even if there is AGW and even if it is due to MM CO2, how do we
know we are not slipping into an Ice Age again and CO2 is the only
thing that could SAVE the planet?
AKA, the birth of the man-made flobal warming religion, from the late
70s.
1 hour ago..Todd McKay replied:
.Thanks Leslie. I've wondered the same thing. Since it appears that no
one knows where the climate is going, it seems like there is a 50/50
chance that more CO2 would be helpful. Global warming beats an ice
age.
11 minutes ago..William Ledsham replied:
.As always, it depends on the time scale and random events. All else
being equal the next 30 years will be cooler as the 60 year Atlantic
Multidecadal Cycle goes into its downswing. There will be small
periodic upturns due to the El Nino or PDO. The joker in the pack is
the de Vries 200 year solar cycle. The last one was the Dalton minimum
in the early 1800s. Others have be blamed for the "little ice age" and
so forth. We are about due for one, and we have a very, very
magnetically quiet sun on our hands. We can expect global cooling to
some degree for the next 30 years or so. At that point the trend will
reverse if we are lucky.
5 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Fred Bartlett wrote:
.Re: But the deeper question is why the scientists behaved this way to
begin with,
Because political science is not science.
Because 'soft science' is another way to say, 'not anything like
science.'
4 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Greg Arnot replied:
.Ask a high school student what science he or she studies...
odds are the only science they get is "Earth Science". Our schools
seek to "save the Earth" by dumbing down whole generations.
In Texas, 3rd graders are subjected to intensive Warmist propaganda,
from "Save the Earth" plays to art class where eco-destruction is the
theme...to Dr. Suess videos depicting evil and greedy industrialists
who destroy the planet in order to make too many socks.
Warmists subject our children to propaganda no less intense than that
imposed by Mao Tse Tung or Stalin.
5 hours ago..Stephen Mayo wrote:
. After the world has gone through several ice ages (without humans by
the way), it begs the question human intervention can get lost in the
data variability. Humans impacting the overall climate does fail the
"funny looks test" in all those who are not religiously committed to
the concept that human impact on the evironment. I agree with Bret
Stephens that human impact on the environment looks like a religion
that is protected by a select priesthood.
5 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
timothy garwood wrote:
.unbelievable the news is all about Tiger.shouldn't it be that if
global warming isn;t stopped all the golf courses will be sand traps.
4 hours ago..JANICE STINE wrote:
.It has long been said by scientists of character and true to science,
it is bunk! At the center of the money trail will be the bloated
sponge of a self thought leader - Al Gore. Research will prove him,
once again, on the money strewn trail of a shameful pursuit, not just
of money for money, but for power. Something at which it seems, he is
destined to fail.
4 hours ago..Chuck Dickens wrote:
.It is time to start lining up the lawsuits. Somewhere, somehow
American tax dollars must have funded the collection of the data that
was destroyed. There must be some sort of intellectual property suit
that Americans can nail the Warming-Industrial-Complex with.
If Congress can waste its time looking into steroids in MLB, then they
can spend some time looking into this hoax.
And then have the climate pimps "frog marched" before the nation.
4 hours ago..SCOTT SMITH wrote:
. Nice piece in WSJ today but there are points you omitted:
• Bush Administrations similar historical bent towards manipulation of
the science and/or message.
o http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml
o http://www.webexhibits.org/bush/5.html.
• The converse….which is always true if your assertion is, that
conservative and energy interest wish to continue to profit from the
status quo and optimize their long term fossil fuel investments.
I’m not a “true believe” as you and others in WSJ have portrayed the
climate change crowd. Most of us believe climate change is occurring
but that there is a lot of question as to the cause of it. Whether it
is a natural shift as the ice cap research and fossil records indicate
have happened or whether it is caused by man’s activity. I’m not sure
we’ll ever know in my lifetime to what degree one cause or another
contributes. It doesn’t really matter either as we have to deal with
it one way or the other and more oil isn’t a solution to a new ice
age.
The issue of clean energy and alternative fuels is really more about
sustainability and national security to me. We simply cannot and
should not continue to send enormous sums of money overseas for energy
which funds unstable governments and terrorists. It hurts us
economically as well, impacting the cost of living and US jobs. Am I
worried about climate change? In a word, yes. I lived thru the 1970s
when industry told us that a new depression would result over
expanding EPA and clean up measures. What we ended up with was clean
rivers in Ohio, geese that I have never seen before in such numbers,
wild turkey over running my yard and fields. It’s a problem for my
landscaping but far from a regulatory recession. The green crowd was
correct then, I give them that.
Conservatives and energy firms don’t have much credibility left with
me. I haven’t forgotten $4.00+ a gallon gasoline as much of the nation
seems to have.
Still you make excellent points but understand that there is more to
the picture than you present.
1 hour ago..John Pound replied:
.As a fellow Ohio resident, I can attest that news stories regarding
flaming rivers in Cleveland ended a long time ago. Last Sunday, while
taking advantage of one of the season's last nice motorcycling days, I
saw a gaggle (flock?) of wild turkeys close to the A/C airport;
something I'd seen only before in the very eastern part of the state.
Deer hunting in Ohio has lost some of its allure, since the most
effort it takes in many areas is simply to step out on your back porch
& shoot one.
Clean air, clean water, controlled disposal of refuse and hazardous
materials will always get my support. Scientists (not politicians mind
you, scientists) who purposely fudge the data to support their own
agendas will not.
I expect politicians to lie, but not scientists.
4 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Rousseau Robert wrote:
.For starters, just because a priest professes beleif in God doesn't
necessarily mean that the priest actually beleives in God. How many
priests have been arrested for child abuse crimes? Leave it to the
republicans to try to change the political discourse on climate change
based on some stolen emails. That is about as stupid as it gets. These
emails would in no way stand in a court of law. A bunch of emails and
other documents does not negate 10+ years of solid research and the
consensus of the world's top climate scientists. Climate change is a
reality....yes it is man made...and yes...it is happening now. Not
only is it happening, it is accelerating at a faster rate than ever
predicted. It is so characteristically republican and expressive of
their shallow intellects that republicans beleive these emails are a
game changer. They are not and they do not change a single thing about
climate change. Republicans will stop climate change regardless of the
cost because they need to above all else, protect the fossil fuel and
coal industries that fuel the south. I have never seen a more stupid
and internationally embarrassing group like American republicans. "You
can bring a republican to water but you can't make him think. "
4 hours ago.Nonsubscriber comments
timothy garwood replied:
.why do you fear an open an honest debate?why won't the high priest Al
Gore debate?your high priests can't tell me what the weather is going
to be next week let alone 50 years from now.
3 hours ago..andrew toxey replied:
. LOL. There is no science that confirms man has anything to do with
global warming, er climate change. Just like there is no science that
can prove the existence of God. One simply has to believe and climate
change advocates like yourself are nothing more than preachers who
proselytize in the hopes of converting people to your fath.
4 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Pop Seal wrote:
.Like TV preachers that smart people recognize as nothing more than
religious hustlers, the green movement has the same kind of snake oil
salesmen in it. Think of the Al Gore ilk as just another Joel Olsteen/
Benny Hin with a different message with the same motive...$$$$$ Not
surprisingly, one of Jesus sharpest warnings was about these kinds of
people, you know, false prophets.
4 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Rousseau Robert wrote:
.Everyone's getting the shaft and the government is screwing us and
there is a conspiracy to doctor up the climate change data and those
evil democrats...they want to ensure that Americans have health
insurance.....shame on them! The Democrats are socialists, marxists,
and every other thing that ends with ist. LOL. This is so ridiculous
it hurts my stomach to laugh so hard about it. If Republicans went for
psychological treatment and became conscious of their victim complex,
their persecution complex, their inferiority complex, and their
repressed fear and shame...there would be no more Republican party.
The entire republican paradigm is built upon these unconscious
foundations which are like a deck of cards. A deck of cards like the
one that came crashing down on the repubs 3 years ago. The Republicans
are the party of no, no we can't, excuses, "let's leave it for the
next guy", paranoia, fear, and shame. Hence why republicans feel a
desperate need to protect their guns....their instruments of death.
Republican psychology is so classic...so textbook spot on...and so
boring and predictable. Most republicans style themselves as upright
"church going" folk, who don't use the "fancy" language of the elite.
They like to wrap themselves in the American flag and other symbols of
patriotism but it is all an act.....it is all an empty persona to
cover up the deeply buried fear, insecurity, and paranoia in their
unconscious psyche.
3 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Bill Anderson replied:
.Thanks, Robert, for a perfect illustration of how leftists respond to
attempts at honest debate.
No further debate is needed or will be tolerated. We have decided what
is best for you. Even if our facts are wrong, our conclusions are
correct, and must be implemented for the good of the “country”.
The primary difference between liberals and conservatives are that
while conservatives operate by using logic, reason, and common sense,
and are primarily interested in discovering the truth (which is why
the vast majority of scientists are conservative), liberals live in a
fantasy world where feelings and emotions dominate. Liberals believe
in such “noble” concepts as moral relativism (if it feels good, do
it), “social equality”, “diversity”, “multi-culturalism”, and
“political correctness”.
You, sir, are part of the problem, not part of the solution
13 minutes ago.Nonsubscriber .
David Peterson replied:
.The GOP is a tiny minority in this Congress, and has no influence at
all in the White House. Republican v. Democrat is passe. The story has
nothing to do with partisanship. It's about intellectual dishonesty
masquerading as science for the sake of the almighty dollar. Yes,
that's right... These guys sold their intellectual souls for a bag of
silver. Try to defend that, instead of changing the subject.
4 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
timothy garwood wrote:
.so answer the question why won't Al Gore debate?instead of debating
the facts you resort to name calling wow you convinced me.
4 hours ago..MARC DELAMATER wrote:
.Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our
industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution
during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more
formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is
conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been
overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing
fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the
fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a
revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge
costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute
for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now
hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal
employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever
present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we
should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that
public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-
technological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate
these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our
democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free
society.
-- President Dwight D. Eisenhower (January 17, 1961)
4 hours ago..John Collins wrote:
. Unless grounds for prosecution can be established for those
accepting grants for what turns out to be fraudulent climate change
research this "vested interest" research will continue.
4 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
David Peterson wrote:
.Global warming is a fraud. I would say the "greatest fraud of the
Twentifirst Century," but then I am reminded about social security,
which may soon be supplanted by healthcare reform as the greatest
fraud.
1 hour ago..Denise Pace replied:
. I would put Obama as the "greatest fraud" of the 21st...
3 hours ago.Nonsubscriber .
GEOFF JOHNSON wrote:
.“SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted
throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their
predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations
said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150
years.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
3 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
GEOFF JOHNSON wrote:
.From Eduardo Zorita, who was a contributing author of the 4th
assessment report of the IPCC. Zorita has headed the Department of
Paleoclimate and has been a senior scientist at the Institute for
Coastal Research of the GKSS Research Centre in Germany. Zorita has
published more than 70 peer-reviewed scientific studies.
—————–
Excerpt from:
“Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should
be barred from the IPCC process
Eduardo Zorita, November 2009 ”
http://coast.gkss.de/staff/zorita/myview.html
“I may confirm what has been written in other places: research in some
areas of climate science has been and is full of machination,
conspiracies, and collusion, as any reader can interpret from the CRU-
files. They depict a realistic, I would say even harmless, picture of
what the real research in the area of the climate of the past
millennium has been in the last years. The scientific debate has been
in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas.
These words do not mean that I think anthropogenic climate change is a
hoax. On the contrary, it is a question which we have to be very well
aware of. But I am also aware that in this thick atmosphere -and I am
not speaking of greenhouse gases now- editors, reviewers and authors
of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations,even based on the
same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly
blackmailed. In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to
tweak their data so as to fit the ‘politically correct picture’. Some,
or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy
makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties
under a unified picture. I had the ‘pleasure’ to experience all this
in my area of research. ”
and see http://global-warming.accuweather.com/
3 hours ago..Robert Novak wrote:
.An Inconvenient Truth -- ohh the irony!
3 hours ago.Nonsubscriber .
timothy garwood replied:
.great comment!
3 hours ago.Nonsubscriber .
timothy garwood wrote:
.I'd love to here Al Gore answer the question put to him by people way
smarter than me "If you found out that the planet was not heating up
would you be happy"yes or no?
3 hours ago..james stanton wrote:
.Al Gore is a con man. He is a chronic and habitual liar. He was a
breath away from being the 43rd US President. This man and his pseudo
science that he is helping to shove down our throats is costing us
billions and making Al and his private equity partners hundreds and
hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars.
3 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Chris Bolts wrote:
.The sooner this cult crashes and burns the better off all of us will
be.
Once this is destroyed, I wonder which other Socialist program will
blow up? Medicine, perhaps?
Link Track Replies to this Comment ..
Please Join this Group to participate in Discussion...3 hours
ago.Nonsubscriber comments are set to "Hide" Show this comment + .Art
Vandelay wrote:
.
Journal Communityclose window ..Send a Message. Type your personal
message. .Journal Communityclose window ..Your message has been
sent.Close window .Message
Journal Communityclose window..Make a Connection. Type your personal
message. .Journal Communityclose window ..Your message has been
sent.Close window .Connect
.Well done sir, "Climate change researchers must believe in the
reality of global warming just as a priest must believe in the
existence of God." sums it up beautifuly.
The real sadness here is that this scam has diverted attention,
funding, reasearch, etc. away from real environmental / social issues.
Anybody with an elementary understanding of statistics has called this
a sham from the start, but alarmist stories and pictures polar bears
swimming grabs your attention more than a normal distribution graph.
It's isn't right vs. left, it's the state vs. us
Link Track Replies to this Comment ..
Please Join this Group to participate in Discussion...3 hours
ago.Nonsubscriber comments are set to "Hide" Show this comment + .Bill
Anderson wrote:
.
Journal Communityclose window ..Send a Message. Type your personal
message. .Journal Communityclose window ..Your message has been
sent.Close window .Message
Journal Communityclose window..Make a Connection. Type your personal
message. .Journal Communityclose window ..Your message has been
sent.Close window .Connect
.Massive government corruption is driving this trillion dollar scam,
and we now see world governments and vested interests "circling the
wagons". The far left mainstream media, which has been silent on this
issue hoping it will blow over, is now in full spin mode.
Just as ACORN and the MSM are attacking the messenger while government
officials still support that corrupt organization; that appears to be
the current situation concerning Climategate.
Obama still plans to visit Copenhagen with the goal of “hurry and get
something passed” before the planet ceases to exist. His entire
“economic recovery” program is based on “green” jobs.
We need to do all we can to let our voices be heard in Congress. Stop
this “cap and trade” and Copenhagen nonsense before it is too late.
Link Track Replies to this Comment ..
Please Join this Group to participate in Discussion...3 hours
ago..Terry Kimble wrote:
.
Journal Communityclose window ..Send a Message. Type your personal
message. .Journal Communityclose window ..Your message has been
sent.Close window .Message
Journal Communityclose window..Make a Connection. Type your personal
message. .Journal Communityclose window ..Your message has been
sent.Close window .Connect
.The hoaxers have been caught. They can try to spin this away but the
effort will be a waste of their time. Of course they will try, they
had their entire business plan wrapped around this fraud (see; Gore,
Al).
Man made global warming is a fraud meant to allow for a selected few
to profit from the transfer of jobs, economic power and tax money from
rich nations to poor ones.
2 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Gerald Meazell replied:
.Whoa, nobody ever said those poor nations were getting any of that
money. Al Gore and his ilk are getting that money trading carbon
credits and using the profits to build more houses/offices that do not
incorporate a single green technology.
3 hours ago..John Sheehan wrote:
.Why does every idiot reporter feel the need to append "gate" to the
latest pecadillo? A third the people alive today weren't born when
Watergate happened and for those who were, it's ancient history. Let's
really go old school -- add "dome" to every scandal, like the "Teapot
Dome Scandal." Everyone remembers that, right?
3 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Art Vandelay replied:
.Lol - Nice - I'm a sucker for a Teapot Dome ref.
1 hour ago..David Bryant replied:
.I share your outrage, John. But it is, alas, too little and too late.
I just ran a Google search on "climategate" and I got 12,500,000 hits.
It's not just the reporters any longer. It's part of the lexicon.
2 hours ago..Tai Shou Chuan wrote:
.How far is Norwich (location of Climatic Research Unit) from
Piltdown? The Piltdown Man fraud was perpetrated just about 100 years
ago.
If I were a data analyst of CRU caliber I might interpret these facts
as a solid trend.
Hopefully, it will not take the scientific community 40 years to
recognize the hoax as it did with Piltdown Man.
2 hours ago.Nonsubscriber.
Kirk Patrick wrote:
.Phil Jones and Michael Mann should hang for crimes against humanity.
2 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Peter Freeman wrote:
.Here is the concluding statement from the Scientific paper
"Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The
Frame Of Physics" by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner.
In other words: Already the natural greenhouse effect is a myth beyond
physical reality. The CO2-greenhouse effect, however is a
\mirage" [205]. The horror visions of a risen sea level, 94 Gerhard
Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner melting pole caps and developing
deserts in North America and in Europe are fictitious consequences of
fictitious physical mechanisms as they cannot be seen even in the
climate model computations. The emergence of hurricanes and tornados
cannot be predicted by climate models, because all of these deviations
are ruled out. The main strategy of modern CO2-greenhouse gas
defenders seems to hide themselves behind more and more pseudo-
explanations, which are not part of the academic education or even of
the physics training. A good example are the radiation transport
calculations, which are probably not known by many. Another example
are the so-called feedback mechanisms, which are introduced to amplify
an effect which is not marginal but does not exist at all. Evidently,
the defenders of the CO2-greenhouse thesis refuse to accept any
reproducible calculation as an explanation and have resorted to
unreproducible ones. A theoretical physicist must complain about a
lack of transparency here, and he also has to complain about the style
of the scientific discussion, where advocators of the greenhouse
thesis claim that the discussion is closed, and others are
discrediting justified arguments as a discussion of \questions of
yesterday and the day before yesterday"25. In exact sciences, in
particular in theoretical physics, the discussion is never closed and
is to be continued ad infinitum, even if there are proofs of theorems
available. Regardless of the specific field of studies a minimal basic
rule should be fulfilled in natural science, though, even if the
scientific fields are methodically as far apart as physics and
meteorology: At least among experts, the results and conclusions
should be understandable or reproducible. And it should be strictly
distinguished between a theory and a model on the one hand, and
between a model and a scenario on the other hand, as clarified in the
philosophy of science. That means that if conclusions out of computer
simulations are to be more than simple speculations, then in addition
to the examination of the numerical stability and the estimation of
the effects of the many vague input parameters, at least the
simplifications of the physical original equations should be
critically exposed. Not the critics have to estimate the effects of
the approximation, but the scientists who do the computer simulations.
“Global warming is good… The net effect of a modest global warming is
positive." (Singer). In any case, it is extremely interesting to
understand the dynamics and causes of the long-term fluctuations of
the climates. However, it was not the purpose of this paper to get
into all aspects of the climate variability debate. The point
discussed here was to answer the question, whether the supposed
atmospheric effect has a physical basis. This is not the case. In
summary, there is no atmospheric greenhouse effect, in particular CO2-
greenhouse effect, in theoretical physics and engineering
thermodynamics. Thus it is illegitimate to deduce predictions which
provide a consulting solution for economics and intergovernmental
policy.
2 hours ago.Nonsubscriber .
Peter Freeman wrote:
.Apologies for the double post, I am not used to this system
2 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Peter Freeman wrote:
.Apologies for the double post, I am not used to this system
2 hours ago.Nonsubscriber comments
Gerald Meazell wrote:
.Hockey Stick? I think what we're dealing with here are a bunch of
Hockey pucks (regards to Don Rickles).
2 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Rosario Milana wrote:
.My company has been in the alternative energy field for over 12 years
when energy efficiency was an afterthought. We have seen a great deal
of misinformation provided on behalf of the "Green movement". For the
"Think Tank" community, it has always been more about money than
action. There is no need to fund groups such as those in this article.
All we need to increase energy efficiency and reduce our individual
carbon footprint can be found in off the self technology. This is a
common sense approach that requires no government intervention or
mandate. We've managed to reduce energy use in a typical home or
commercial building by up to 80% simply by updating building systems.
These companies that are extorted into paying should bypass these
"Green" charlatans and create an energy fund in their respective
countries. The fund would be targeted at homeowners to reduce their
energy consumption. Companies gain positive PR and homeowners use the
money they save to stimulate the economy. Win, win! Life Quality
Systems, LLC.
2 hours ago.Nonsubscriber
Kenneth Perlman wrote:
.My daughter is a research scientist in academia and her entire career
(and livelihood) is dependent on obtaining research grants. There are
"hot" fields that attract such money from the government and private
sources and there are fields that do not. Woe to the academic that
tries to buck the trend. It may take courage to yes no to power, but
it takes more to deliberately say no to those supporting you.
2 hours ago..Tony Pelz wrote:
. These people should be jailed for fraud.
2 hours ago.Nonsubscriber .
Kenneth Perlman wrote:
.Its not like the Democrats actually think anything they propose will
do anything; its just another good excuse for redistribution of
"wealth".
1 hour ago..James Anderson wrote:
.Oil companies aren't supposed to be allowed to publish their own
opinions while pricks like Algore can have vested interests in green
start-ups? What kind of "logic" is this???
1 hour ago..William Schmauss replied:
.Arn't you giveing credit to Al Gore far beyond his demonstrated
anatomy?
1 hour ago.Nonsubscriber .
Mark York wrote:
.No, what this is is the sound of wingnuts trumpeting. The science is
settled for those who know their heads from their... Alas those of
certain political types don't understand basic math and chemistry and
whose agendas is to keep burning oil and coal. You know which side
your bread is buttered on. Maybe we do have an education problem eh?
From sad ignorant detractors we get the cackling of Kookaburra's while
the waters steadily rise. You've lost. How does that feel?
1 hour ago..James Anderson replied:
.This is just about par for the course when it comes to hearing a
"discussion" with warmongering fruit loops. My guess is you don't even
know the difference between math and chemistry.
1 hour ago.Nonsubscriber .
Art Vandelay replied:
.What is the basic math and chemistry? The earth has been here 4.5
billion years and has gone through numerous warming and cooling
cycles; it's cyclical just like everything else. Even if they hadn't
cooked the data and the earth was warming I wouldn't care. Ever seen a
normal distribution graph? Please explain what I am missing.
We should be transitioning to nuke power like the French, but the same
alarmist idiots that are behind global warming have killed that
industry in the U.S.
1 hour ago.Nonsubscriber comments are set to "Hide" Show this comment
+ .
Anna Warren replied:
.Markie, you're a real hoot. Do you hear that shrieking sound, Markie?
That's your fellow rats as they try desperately to find a dry spot on
the sinking AGW ship. Are you going down with the ship, Markie?
1 hour ago..William Schmauss replied:
.Over and over people have demonstrated the 'simple math' that global
warming is a hoax and also how torchered the math is to make the
projections work. It seems pretty clear what group has the agenda and
Mark, it seems you're riding with that group.
54 minutes ago.Nonsubscriber .
Charles Reynolds replied:
.Yea basic math and chemistry. I thought your latest strong talking
point is the climate is more complex than an anecdotal observation
from our back yard. Now it back to basic. This is straight from "Rules
for Radicals" by Sal Alinsky to obsfuscate . Nice try you go to the
back of the class Mr. York.
1 hour ago..Todd McKay wrote:
.It is over for the climate change mongers. I knew it was a big
fantasy simply by observing the changing language. Remember "global
warming"? Then the mongers noticed that the earth was not warming.
Remember "climate change"? Then some brilliant ace recalled that the
climate was never NOT changing. Now it is "manmade climate change".
1 hour ago..James Anderson wrote:
.Brett, we are following the money. It leads from taxpayers' pockets
to rent seeking sycophants in D.C. Slick.
1 hour ago.Nonsubscriber
John Norton wrote:
.The earth is flat! Go get 'em Bret!
1 hour ago.Nonsubscriber
Anna Warren replied:
.The earth is cooling, friend. AGW is a man-made fantasy.
.The Earth is flat. By spewing more carbon into the atmosphere,
mankind is making it even flatter. Keep this up and it will soon
become concave, then when it rains, we will all drown! STOP BREATHING,
EVERYONE, BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!
1 hour ago.Nonsubscriber comme
aku ankka wrote:
.Maybe it was Hitler who was behind Global Warming Scam?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwfNJC_SfVI
1 hour ago..William Schmauss wrote:
.I believe that this 'global warming' religion will be more damaging
than what real global warming could of done.
Since this whole thing started to gain traction it just felt like a
hoax to me and then when Al Gore looked like he was running point on
it, that made it seem all the more phony. In the process of digging
out opposing views and bringing them in front of family, friends and
constituents I was held up as some sort of loon. Now I'm just as
ostricised because my belief seems to have some credibility after all.
Sometimes being right is a punishment all by it's self!
Who is John Galt?
1 hour ago.Nonsubscriber
Charles Reynolds replied:
.Agreed just look at what the phony report on DDT has done to 3rd
world nations. Millions have died as a result of that report. A report
which was subsequently found to be flawed.
56 minutes ago.Nonsubscriber
Marcia Crowley replied:
.NOthing phony about it.
And America has always used the poor in those countries as guinea
pigs.
1 hour ago.Nonsubscriber
Marcia Crowley wrote:
.Climate change deniers must believe in the nonreality of global
warming just as a priest must believe in the existence of God.
Meanwhile on both poles of our planet the ice is melting faster and
faster.
Why does this mean that some places are getting coolerr?
Think of being in the backyard on a hot day with buckets of ice
around.
It feels cooler not because the ice is there, but because it is
melting.
It's not a difficult concept to understand.
Those emails were from a tiny few who weren't even smart enough to
know not to expect that emails are easily available for all to see,
but can be totally erased beyond finding if you know how.
That's how Cheney et all managed to totally and illegaly get rid of
tens of thousands of emails they illegally posted from the WH.
48 minutes ago.Nonsubscriber
Art Vandelay replied:
.Let me make sure I understand this:
If it is getting warmer, it's due to man made global warming
If it's getting cooler, it's due to man made global warming
What if the temperature stays the same? Is the ice melting and man
made warming in perfect equilibrium?
See below, I'm not a fan of oil companies, dems, or repubs. I am a fan
of science and statistics, and this whole thing is a sham.
4 minutes ago.
Joe Jefferis replied:
.We mustn't let the truth get in the way of a good story.
1 hour ago.Nonsubscriber com
Charles Reynolds wrote:
.Man made global climate change is a hoax.
59 minutes ago.Nonsubscriber .
Marcia Crowley replied:
.Nope, dope.
So why is it that the once-massive ice at both poles are melting
faster and faster?
59 minutes ago.
Marcia Crowley wrote:
.Four dumb climate change scientists mess up.
The other 10's of thousands? Ignore by the righties.
The income they get is tiny compared to their corporate gods,
including those who killed their own companies.
They want all the money to go to their already megarich corporates
whose ONLY goal is to make more money for themselves.
And righties have helped them hugely by slashing the taxes of the
people who have benefitted the most for being Americans.
The rest of us? Peons. What they don't notice is they are describing
their own selves.
6 minutes ago.Nonsubscriber
Joe Jefferis replied:
.You are making progress Marcia. Good work. We should all live in
poverty. No American should have wealth, knowlege, or freedom. It is
all settled now. We are all peons and Marcia Crowley and her 10's of
thousands shall rule the world. Wow - why did it take so long to reach
obvious scientific conclusion about humanity?
54 minutes ago.Nonsubscriber .
Eli Snyder wrote:
.This hack has had no impact on the actual science of global warming.
The American Meteorological Society released a good statement
explaining why here:
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeclarify.html
Basically, global warming is supported by many independent lines of
evidence -- it's not going to be overturned just because somebody
hacked somebody's email.
There is a good interview with Gerald North, who chaired the NAS
investigation into the hockey stick controversy a few years ago, which
also does a good job of explaining the lack of impact on the science:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2009/12/gerald_north_interview.html
What the WSJ and other critical commentators have yet to explain is
exactly which of the published scientific results they think are
disproved by this evidence. Which papers were wrong? Which data was
manipulated? Which scientific conclusions are invalidated?
This article is a flimsy attempt to establish motive. Others have
pointed to a "smoking gun" by quoting emails out of context. There was
obviously opportunity. But so far, nobody has actually produced a body
-- there is no new scientific information in these emails or code, and
no science has been invalidated by them. Without a body, you have no
case.
Responsible critics understand that, and are being careful not to make
overstated claims. Look at climateaudit.org, for example. They have
picked through this data and the worst accusations they can come up
with are:
1) The hockey stick graph produced by Phil Jones in which he "hid the
decline" in tree ring widths (note, this is not actually a decline in
temperature, as many have claimed) was misleading, because it displays
two different types of data using the same color.
2) The code is a mess. It has been cleaned up substantially since the
version that was hacked.
3) The "divergence problem" indicates that tree ring proxies may not
be accurate. This is a valid criticism, but is not news. This has been
extensively discussed in the literature, and there are other kinds of
proxies available which allow the conclusion that current warming is
anomalous to be extended back 1300 years (Mann Et. Al. PNAS 2008
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.abstract ).
4) The CRU is not releasing all of their data, and don't have copies
of the original data. This is a problem which people are working to
resolve -- the original data is available from meteorological
stations, but will have to be recollected, and some of it is
proprietary. In the mean time there is plenty of other data and code
publicly available from NASA and other sources. Gavin Schmidt at
realclimate.org has compiled a list of available data and code:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
Please note what is missing from this list: any indication that any
published, peer-reviewed paper is proven false. The guys at
climateaudit.org would have said so if they had found anything of the
sort. They can't. Until somebody comes up with some sort of evidence
that disproves some scientific paper, the science stands as is and is
not affected by this at all.
32 minutes ago..Denise Pace replied:
. "Until somebody comes up with some sort of evidence that disproves
some scientific paper, the science stands as is and is not affected by
this at all."
Too bad they destroyed/lost/dumped? some of the raw data. How do you
explain that? While people are asking for the data, to do a REAL
analysis, supposed "scientists" cannot hand over the raw data. Real
scientists do not hide/destroy their data. This proves very shady
dealings, indeed.
Now that we know the scientists were spewing fraudulent "results,"
people ARE asking for the data to be reviewed. But, isn't it
convenient that the data has disappeared...
You and I both know what this means. Either incompetency or fraud. You
pick. Either way, the end result is fraud.
30 minutes ago..Chuck Dickens replied:
.You say the science stands as it is. How does the science stand, in
your opinion?
Would you agree that any study that uses the corrupted data is no
good?
11 minutes ago.Nonsubscriber
Joe Jefferis replied:
.If all fraudsters stand in a circle and nod their heads at the same
time - It means they all agree. It is called peer review and it is
what modern science has evolved into bobble-headed looters.
19 minutes ago..
ANTONIO SOSA replied:
.Actually the hoax was already debunked in 2007 and informed people
know it. However, the state-controlled media (80% of the media), the
U.N., and other fradulent billionaires and organizations that expect
to benefit from the SCAM are investing billions in propaganda to
counter the evidence against them.
“Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust,” declared
astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing a new study that has been
accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research
authored by a Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz. A
former Harvard physicist, Dr. Lubos Motl, said the new study has
reduced global warming fear-mongers to “playing the children’s game to
scare each other.” http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=141&Itemid=1
14 minutes ago.Nonsubscriber
Joe Jefferis replied:
.The hockey stick chart party ended on July 11, 2008 when oil began
its tremendous decent back to reality. The hockey stick chart party
really ended with the Lehman bankruptcy. The hockey stick chart is a
complete fraud.
To quote one master of the ceremonial hoax yelled - "THEY PLAYED ON
OUR FEARS" - has a familiar ring to it.
We did not have a financial crisis in the USA until the collapse of
global warming oil prices. Why? Because it was a hockey stick chart
fraud based on lies of scarcity and fabled growth in demand from China
and India.
All good hoaxes come to an end.
11 minutes ago..John Galt replied:
.Deleted and moved
48 minutes ago..Emerson Segura wrote:
.Sure, and the melting icecaps, the displaced polar animals by loss of
habitat, the pacific island sinking in the ocean, the quick
disspearance of snow from the Andes (locals were telling me stories of
weekly rain/snow showers now occuring monthly), etc are all in our
wild imaginations. Probably Al Gore put some pills in our water to
make us all delusional and buy his grren energy product.
Disgusting that anyone can claim to do a scientific analysis yet
ignores the evidence and just builds a 'conspiracy theory'. More
disgusting, is what the jurnal has become, a print version of fox.
25 minutes ago.Nonsubscriber
ANTONIO SOSA replied:
.Icecaps are melting in some areas while increasing in other areas (as
usual); the number of polar bears has INCREASED, and a pacific island
sinking in the ocean in part of what nature has done for millions of
years. It has NOTHING to do with global warming because the earth has
been COOLING in the last few years.
25 minutes ago..Denise Pace replied:
. I think many do not doubt that, as has been since the beginning of
earth's life, tectonic shifts have occurred (causing warming/cooling
in varying areas), climate has changed due to atmospheric changes that
can be attributed to what? the sun? sunspots? meteors? earthquakes?
volcanoes? etc...
I see this all as natural evolution.
Yes, we need to clean up our oceans, our air, our food stuffs, in
order to live healthier lives, and preserve some of what we are "used
to." But, natural evolution will overpower humans, regardless.
38 minutes ago..Janet Rollins wrote:
. While everyone with a functioning brain always doubted the results
of these "garbage in/garbage out" models, I'm afraid that Al Gore and
his cronies win by default. Who's going to get off the green scam
train now? Every country is showing up in Copenhagen where the carbon
footprint will be as large as the one left by the stupid concert they
had a few years back to fight global warming! PT Barnum must be
laughing loudly.
30 minutes ago.Nonsubscriber
ANTONIO SOSA wrote:
.The emails confirm what thousands of HONEST scientists and thinking
people all over the world have been telling us – that "man-made global
warming" is a HOAX. Based on this hoax, Cap and Trade “would be the
equivalent of an atomic bomb directed at the U.S. economy—all without
any scientific justification,” said famed climatologist Dr. S. Fred
Singer. It would significantly increase taxes and the cost of energy,
forcing many companies to close, thus increasing unemployment, poverty
and dependence.
Cap and trade represents huge taxes and cost increases, which will
hurt mostly the poor and the middle class. It would give dictatorial
powers to Obama and further enrich his billionaire friends (Gore,
Soros, Goldman Sachs, Obama’s Chicago Climate Exchange friends, GE,
the United Nations, etc.) -- all at our expense and at the expense of
our children and grandchildren.
21 minutes ago.Nonsubscriber
Joe Jefferis replied:
.Precisely. Exactly. Right on target. Global Elite thug dictators
support keeping the hoax alive forever.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574566124250205490.html
...and I am Sid Harth
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574566124250205490.html
Sid Harth
NOVEMBER 30, 2009, 7:44 P.M. ET.
The Climate Science Isn't Settled
Confident predictions of catastrophe are unwarranted..
. Text .By RICHARD S. LINDZEN
Is there a reason to be alarmed by the prospect of global warming?
Consider that the measurement used, the globally averaged temperature
anomaly (GATA), is always changing. Sometimes it goes up, sometimes
down, and occasionally—such as for the last dozen years or so—it does
little that can be discerned.
Claims that climate change is accelerating are bizarre. There is
general support for the assertion that GATA has increased about 1.5
degrees Fahrenheit since the middle of the 19th century. The quality
of the data is poor, though, and because the changes are small, it is
easy to nudge such data a few tenths of a degree in any direction.
Several of the emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate
Research Unit (CRU) that have caused such a public ruckus dealt with
how to do this so as to maximize apparent changes.
The general support for warming is based not so much on the quality of
the data, but rather on the fact that there was a little ice age from
about the 15th to the 19th century. Thus it is not surprising that
temperatures should increase as we emerged from this episode. At the
same time that we were emerging from the little ice age, the
industrial era began, and this was accompanied by increasing emissions
of greenhouse gases such as CO2, methane and nitrous oxide. CO2 is the
most prominent of these, and it is again generally accepted that it
has increased by about 30%.
View Full Image
Getty Images
.The defining characteristic of a greenhouse gas is that it is
relatively transparent to visible light from the sun but can absorb
portions of thermal radiation. In general, the earth balances the
incoming solar radiation by emitting thermal radiation, and the
presence of greenhouse substances inhibits cooling by thermal
radiation and leads to some warming.
That said, the main greenhouse substances in the earth's atmosphere
are water vapor and high clouds. Let's refer to these as major
greenhouse substances to distinguish them from the anthropogenic minor
substances. Even a doubling of CO2 would only upset the original
balance between incoming and outgoing radiation by about 2%. This is
essentially what is called "climate forcing."
There is general agreement on the above findings. At this point there
is no basis for alarm regardless of whether any relation between the
observed warming and the observed increase in minor greenhouse gases
can be established. Nevertheless, the most publicized claims of the
U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) deal exactly
with whether any relation can be discerned. The failure of the
attempts to link the two over the past 20 years bespeaks the weakness
of any case for concern.
The IPCC's Scientific Assessments generally consist of about 1,000
pages of text. The Summary for Policymakers is 20 pages. It is, of
course, impossible to accurately summarize the 1,000-page assessment
in just 20 pages; at the very least, nuances and caveats have to be
omitted. However, it has been my experience that even the summary is
hardly ever looked at. Rather, the whole report tends to be
characterized by a single iconic claim.
The main statement publicized after the last IPCC Scientific
Assessment two years ago was that it was likely that most of the
warming since 1957 (a point of anomalous cold) was due to man. This
claim was based on the weak argument that the current models used by
the IPCC couldn't reproduce the warming from about 1978 to 1998
without some forcing, and that the only forcing that they could think
of was man. Even this argument assumes that these models adequately
deal with natural internal variability—that is, such naturally
occurring cycles as El Nino, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the
Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, etc.
Yet articles from major modeling centers acknowledged that the failure
of these models to anticipate the absence of warming for the past
dozen years was due to the failure of these models to account for this
natural internal variability. Thus even the basis for the weak IPCC
argument for anthropogenic climate change was shown to be false.
The Climate Emails
The Economics of Climate Change
Rigging a Climate 'Consensus'
Global Warming With the Lid Off
Climate Science and Candor
.Of course, none of the articles stressed this. Rather they emphasized
that according to models modified to account for the natural internal
variability, warming would resume—in 2009, 2013 and 2030,
respectively.
But even if the IPCC's iconic statement were correct, it still would
not be cause for alarm. After all we are still talking about tenths of
a degree for over 75% of the climate forcing associated with a
doubling of CO2. The potential (and only the potential) for alarm
enters with the issue of climate sensitivity—which refers to the
change that a doubling of CO2 will produce in GATA. It is generally
accepted that a doubling of CO2 will only produce a change of about
two degrees Fahrenheit if all else is held constant. This is unlikely
to be much to worry about.
Yet current climate models predict much higher sensitivities. They do
so because in these models, the main greenhouse substances (water
vapor and clouds) act to amplify anything that CO2 does. This is
referred to as positive feedback. But as the IPCC notes, clouds
continue to be a source of major uncertainty in current models. Since
clouds and water vapor are intimately related, the IPCC claim that
they are more confident about water vapor is quite implausible.
There is some evidence of a positive feedback effect for water vapor
in cloud-free regions, but a major part of any water-vapor feedback
would have to acknowledge that cloud-free areas are always changing,
and this remains an unknown. At this point, few scientists would argue
that the science is settled. In particular, the question remains as to
whether water vapor and clouds have positive or negative feedbacks.
The notion that the earth's climate is dominated by positive feedbacks
is intuitively implausible, and the history of the earth's climate
offers some guidance on this matter. About 2.5 billion years ago, the
sun was 20%-30% less bright than now (compare this with the 2%
perturbation that a doubling of CO2 would produce), and yet the
evidence is that the oceans were unfrozen at the time, and that
temperatures might not have been very different from today's. Carl
Sagan in the 1970s referred to this as the "Early Faint Sun Paradox."
For more than 30 years there have been attempts to resolve the paradox
with greenhouse gases. Some have suggested CO2—but the amount needed
was thousands of times greater than present levels and incompatible
with geological evidence. Methane also proved unlikely. It turns out
that increased thin cirrus cloud coverage in the tropics readily
resolves the paradox—but only if the clouds constitute a negative
feedback. In present terms this means that they would diminish rather
than enhance the impact of CO2.
There are quite a few papers in the literature that also point to the
absence of positive feedbacks. The implied low sensitivity is entirely
compatible with the small warming that has been observed. So how do
models with high sensitivity manage to simulate the currently small
response to a forcing that is almost as large as a doubling of CO2?
Jeff Kiehl notes in a 2007 article from the National Center for
Atmospheric Research, the models use another quantity that the IPCC
lists as poorly known (namely aerosols) to arbitrarily cancel as much
greenhouse warming as needed to match the data, with each model
choosing a different degree of cancellation according to the
sensitivity of that model.
What does all this have to do with climate catastrophe? The answer
brings us to a scandal that is, in my opinion, considerably greater
than that implied in the hacked emails from the Climate Research Unit
(though perhaps not as bad as their destruction of raw data): namely
the suggestion that the very existence of warming or of the greenhouse
effect is tantamount to catastrophe. This is the grossest of "bait and
switch" scams. It is only such a scam that lends importance to the
machinations in the emails designed to nudge temperatures a few tenths
of a degree.
The notion that complex climate "catastrophes" are simply a matter of
the response of a single number, GATA, to a single forcing, CO2 (or
solar forcing for that matter), represents a gigantic step backward in
the science of climate. Many disasters associated with warming are
simply normal occurrences whose existence is falsely claimed to be
evidence of warming. And all these examples involve phenomena that are
dependent on the confluence of many factors.
Our perceptions of nature are similarly dragged back centuries so that
the normal occasional occurrences of open water in summer over the
North Pole, droughts, floods, hurricanes, sea-level variations, etc.
are all taken as omens, portending doom due to our sinful ways (as
epitomized by our carbon footprint). All of these phenomena depend on
the confluence of multiple factors as well.
Consider the following example. Suppose that I leave a box on the
floor, and my wife trips on it, falling against my son, who is
carrying a carton of eggs, which then fall and break. Our present
approach to emissions would be analogous to deciding that the best way
to prevent the breakage of eggs would be to outlaw leaving boxes on
the floor. The chief difference is that in the case of atmospheric CO2
and climate catastrophe, the chain of inference is longer and less
plausible than in my example.
Mr. Lindzen is professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html
Sid Harth
Environmental activists, climate experts say burning of fossil fuels
may account for 20 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions
Brian Padden | Sumatra, Indonesia 01 December 2009
Photo: AP
A 2008 file photo shows Fire near Bukit Tiga Puluh natural forest in
Riau, Central Sumatra, Indonesia.
"One of our demands is to ask the developed countries to at least put
money on the table, at least 30 billion euros [$44 billion] to helping
countries like Indonesia, who have the forests, to save the forests
from deforestation," says Bustar Maitar, an Indonesian Greenpeace
leader.
While the burning of fossil fuels is considered
the main contribution to global warming from humans, tropical
deforestation also plays a significant role. Climate experts say it
may account for 20 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions.
Environmental activists say to reduce global warming the international
community should pay countries such as Indonesia, Brazil and Congo to
protect tropical forests. VOA's Brian Padden traveled with Greenpeace
activists to Riau Province on the Indonesian island of Sumatra to look
at how deforestation threatens the world.
Burning forests to clear land for agriculture has long been a
lucrative endeavor in Indonesia. Agus Nata is a palm oil farmer who
owns eight hectares of land. Years ago he cut down and sold any trees
of value on his land. Then he burned what was left.
He says burning the fields is the cheapest and easiest way to clear
the land. The global market for the palm fruit he now produces, which
can be used to make biofuels, is growing. Large agricultural companies
are also clearing and burning vast areas of forest. In the past 50
years, more than 72 million hectares of Indonesia's forest have been
destroyed.
For some communities in Indonesia, such rapid deforestation threatens
their traditional way of life.
Pelli, a fisherman on the Kerumutan river is happy today because he
caught a five-kilogram snakehead fish. His family has lived on the
river for generations and depends on the forests for wood for his
home, his boat, and his nets. He is worried about what would happen if
the land near the river were developed.
He says it is dangerous and quite threatening. Where else, he asks,
can they find wood to make what they need?
AP
A 2008 file photo shows an Indonesian worker carrying an acacia tree
during an area clearing near Bukit Tiga Puluh , Riau, Central Sumatra,
Indonesia
Deforestation also has harmful regional effects. Smoke from large
forest fires in Indonesia and Malaysia has reached Singapore and other
countries in Southeast Asia.
Clearing forests also removes trees that help absorbe greenhouse
gases, such as carbon dioxide, or CO2. Many climate experts say CO2
and other greenhouse gases, most of them released by burning fossil
fuels, contribute to global warming.
In Sumatra, the problem is compounded because the ground in the jungle
is covered with moist decaying vegetation known as peat. The peat
stores vast quantities of the carbon dioxide. Environmental
organizations such as Greenpeace say that drying and burning peat
releases the CO2 into the atmosphere. Because of deforestation,
Indonesia is now the world's third largest greenhouse gas emitter,
after the United States and China.
Volunteers from Greenpeace are building a dam in Sumatra to focus on
both local and international solutions to the problem. The dam will
restore an area of peat-land forest that was damaged by fire.
Greenpeace is using the project to encourage Indonesian volunteers
like local student Joni Heriadi to become more involved in protecting
the local environment.
He says he wants to join Greenpeace because he sees so much
destruction of the forests.
Greenpeace also brought international journalists here to see the
deforestation firsthand.
Bustar Maitar, an Indonesian Greenpeace leader, says these activities
are part of a global campaign to urge rich countries to provide
financial incentives to developing countries to stop deforestation.
"One of our demands is to ask the developed countries to at least put
money on the table, at least 30 billion euros [$44 billion] to helping
countries like Indonesia, who have the forests, to save the forests
from deforestation, to solve the climate crisis, what we are facing
now," he explained. "Without that we are not confident we can solve
the problem of the climate crisis," he said.
The issue will be on the agenda at upcoming global climate talks in
Copenhagen. Nations will meet to try to hammer out a deal to reduce
emissions both from industrial activity in developed nations and from
deforestation in developing nations. One mechanism being considered
would allow a polluting industry to pay another business or government
to reduce emissions, which could pay countries to leave forests
standing.
However, it is not clear an agreement will be reached in Copenhagen,
as some developed countries, including the United States, say they
want the large developing countries to commit to binding emission
cuts, which nations such as China have rejected.
Maitar says without international assistance little can be done to
stop developers from burning the forests for short-term profit and
long-term global environmental damage.
http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/Greenpeace--Indonesias-Forest-Fires-01NOV09-.html
Sid Harth
Going Green explores new trends and technologies in environmental
science and services. E-mail your questions, comments or suggestions
for Going Green
Watch Video
http://www1.voanews.com/english/video-audio/going-green/
bademiyansubhanallah
Posted December 2nd, 2009 at 1.44pm in Energy and Environment.
Q: As we get closer to the United Nation’s conference on climate
change in Copenhagen and nations begin setting their agendas, are
their goals realistic? Last week, the U.S. and China each announced
their emissions target goals. Are they big enough?
Throughout the global warming debate, there have always been those
willing to put on an extra-thick pair of rose-colored glasses when it
comes to China. China is going green, we are repeatedly told, and thus
America needs to catch up in committing to reductions in carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. The latest announcement,
ahead of Copenhagen, that China may agree to first-ever emissions
targets is the latest such instance.
It is time for a reality check on China before the American delegation
puts its own proposal on the table in Denmark.
The reality is that China’s carbon dioxide emissions will continue
heading sharply upward. China is building new coal-fired power plants
at a furious pace as well as expanding its coal mining operations. It
is buying up fossil fuel reserves at top dollar all around the world.
If the Chinese are really going to reduce emissions, then why continue
to spend billions every year on stuff they’ll soon have to stop using?
The U.S. Energy Information Administration has looked beyond the
rhetoric and assessed China’s actions, and it projects Chinese
emissions rising nine times faster than America’s through 2030.
Nor is China denying this reality. As with past announcements from
China, there is less here than some would like to believe. First, the
targets are emissions intensity targets - emissions per unit of
economic output. In other words, emissions can still go up as long as
China’s economy grows. Given recent growth rates, China’s targets
suggest little if any change from business as usual. China also made
clear that its compliance is not subject to independent verification.
To ask the question whether China would simply cheat if in their
economic interest to do so is to answer the question. Further, despite
holding $2.3 trillion in foreign exchange reserves, China insists on
developed world aid for its troubles, and in amounts neither the U.S.
nor the E.U. has shown any willingness to provide.
On the other hand, President Obama’s pledge ahead of Copenhagen — a 17
percent emissions cut within a decade — would not be a charade. If the
U.S. were to ratify a treaty with this target, it would have the force
of law, and the resultant energy price hikes would become a painful
reality here for consumers and businesses. A Heritage Foundation
analysis of similar energy rationing targets in the House Waxman-
Markey bill (17 percent target for 2020 on its way to 83 percent by
2050) found higher energy costs for a household of four over $800 per
year and an average of over 1 million net job losses. And all for
emissions reductions that would be swamped by increases from China
alone, not to mention other fast-developing nations.
Whether or not the pre-Copenhagen proposals from China and the U.S.
create momentum for a major agreement, one thing is clear: they
shouldn’t.
Originally appeared in The Washington Post. Author: Ben Lieberman
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/12/02/reality-check-on-china/
bademiyansubhanallah
Posted November 30th, 2009 at 4.38pm in Energy and Environment.
Dog and Pony Show: An elaborate presentation orchestrated to gain
approval, as for a policy or product. See also: China’s carbon dioxide
emission cuts.
One day after President Obama announced he’d make a trip to the
Copenhagen Climate Change Conference in December with a pledge to cut
our nation’s greenhouse emissions 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020,
the Chinese State Council said it would cut the country’s carbon
intensity, its “carbon emissions relative to the size of its economy”,
45 percent by 2020. But here’s the kicker:
“The goal is essentially where China would get to anyway in the next
decade, according to the International Energy Agency. That has
prompted some energy analysts to pan the Chinese pledge as
insufficient.”
Senior fellow for energy and the environment at the Council on Foreign
Relations Michael Levi called the announcement disappointing, saying,
“It does not move them beyond business as usual.” For those thinking
that action by China would spur the United States to aggressively
approach cuts of its own or pass a cap and trade bill, this isn’t
quite the action they intended.
Even with a 45% reduction in carbon emissions per unit of GDP projects
to their emissions being twice ours in 2020. For reference, the U.S.
and Chinese levels of emissions output were about the same in 2006.
Despite heavy investments in wind and solar Heritage Research Fellow
in Asia Economic Policy Derek Scissors asserts that “Diversification
from coal has failed and will continue to fail. Coal now provides 70
percent of the PRC’s energy and almost 80 percent of its electricity,
with both figures higher than they were a decade ago. These shares may
barely shift for decades to come.”
China prefers to measure carbon emissions relative to its size of the
economy mostly because it is less verifiable than a pure emissions
target. Since carbon intensity is measured in relation to gross
domestic product and Chinese statistics are often altered or censored,
it will be easier for China to “meet” its goals.
To actually make a difference on the earth’s temperature China, India
and the rest of the developing world would likely have to revert to
emission output levels that are pure fantasy. But these countries have
repeatedly stated that they won’t trade economic growth for emissions
reductions, especially when these countries face serious environmental
threats.
China’s announcement shouldn’t spur the United States to take action.
The U.S. has become dramatically more energy efficient over the past
few decades without sacrificing its economic growth with carbon caps.
We shouldn’t start now nor should we demand other countries to do the
same.
2 Comments
November 30, 2009 Bobbie Jay writes:
China, India, Governments of the world, man-made global warming is a
man-made global scamming. Pollution does effect the health but can be
remedied by reducing your emissions…
December 1, 2009 Freedom of Speech, TX writes:
There is a global pandemic called “Fudging Numbers Syndrome” or GNS
“Grifters Numbers Syndrome”.
Maybe the UN will investigate the accuracy?
I feel better already.
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/11/30/china%e2%80%99s-carbon-targets-purely-for-show/
bademiyansubhanallah
Do
Posted December 1st, 2009 at 10.55am
While most Americans were out shopping on Black Friday, Senator Jim
Webb (D-VA) was busy sending a letter to Barack Obama with an
important message for the president to take to Copenhagen: Don’t
forget about us. Senator Webb’s letter to President Obama said the
following:
Dear Mr. President:
I would like to express my concern regarding reports that the
Administration may believe it has the unilateral power to commit the
government of the United States to certain standards that may be
agreed upon at the upcoming United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change Conference of Parties 15 in Copenhagen, Denmark. The
phrase “politically binding” has been used.
Although details have not been made available, recent statements by
Special Envoy on Climate Change Todd Stern indicate that negotiators
may be intending to commit the United States to a nationwide emission
reduction program. As you well know from your time in the Senate, only
specific legislation agreed upon in the Congress, or a treaty ratified
by the Senate, could actually create such a commitment on behalf of
our country.
I would very much appreciate having this matter clarified in advance
of the Copenhagen meetings.”
Although a House cap and trade bill narrowly passed this summer, there
are more than enough reasons why cap and trade or any other carbon
reduction scheme is not U.S. law right now. But the two big reasons
are that it is prohibitively costly, thereby reducing economic growth
and increasing unemployment, and it is highly ineffective, reducing
the global temperature by only a fraction of a degree in a century’s
time.
Webb’s mention of the phrase “politically binding” is an important one
since any international treaty is legally binding on the U.S. under
the supremacy clause of the Constitution, and therefore by nature
represents a potential erosion of our nation’s sovereignty. In a
recent paper, Heritage Fellow Steven Groves outlines the sovereignty
concerns that could result from a carbon reduction treaty agreed to in
Copenhagen. He points out that multilateral treaties are much more
dangerous than bilateral treaties since “the U.S. has less control
over the final terms of multilateral treaties and thus less control
over what obligations it has to the other treaty parties. The less
control the U.S. has over the final terms of a treaty, the greater the
possibility that the terms of the treaty will not comport with U.S.
national interests.” Moreover, a post-Kyoto treaty’s “intrusive
compliance and enforcement mechanisms; the inability to submit
reservations, understandings, or declarations to its terms” are all
reasons that legitimize Senator Webb’s concerns.
You can read the rest of Groves’ paper, “The “Kyoto II” Climate Change
Treaty: Implications for American Sovereignty” and the rest of
Heritage’s work on Copenhagen here.
Author: Nick LorisInteract: SphereShare This
6 Comments
December 1, 2009 Charles, The Republic of Texas writes:
Surrendering any part of US sovereignty to a world government is
TREASON, pure & simple.
December 1, 2009 Freedom of Speech, TX writes:
As if our economy is not suffering enough.
As if the new tax increases will not burden us enough.
As if the unemployment forecast is not bad enough.
As if we don’t have enough national security problems looming on the
horizon.
As if we even have any money in our treasury, which we don’t.
As if this entire global warming issue is nothing but a giant ripoff
of primarily the American taxpayers and the Western world.
PLEASE Mr. President - do not further erode the economic and fiscal
health of this country!!!
Your administration and this congress is doing enough damage without
adding to it.
December 1, 2009 L. Hodges writes:
When is Obama going to get the message that he is not the leader of
the entire world. He has created enough problems here in the U.S. Cap
and Trade and the Health Care Bill need to be put on the back burner
until he can get our Economy and the 10+ unemployment under control.
Both bills will cause many more problems than they will solve. I am
not a Virginia Democrat,but thanks to Senator Webb for not going along
with everything Obama wants. I am disappointed in Senator Mark Warner,
who I thought was a good fiscally conservative governor, for not
speaking up also. Senator Warner was a businessman, and I was hoping
for better management in the Senate from him!
December 1, 2009 Dan, Republic of Arizona writes:
I’m with Charles. Impeechment is the only answer for this President’s
behaviour.
Article II, section 4:
“…shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of,
Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”.
December 1, 2009 Bobbie Jay writes:
The President has committed all penalties for impeachment! Article ll,
section 4! Good one, Dan!
bademiyansubhanallah
Posted December 1st, 2009 at 2.49pm
When asked about ClimateGate, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs
dismissed its importance, emphasizing that “climate change is
happening.”
Of course climate change is happening. Soon we’ll be calling press
conferences to declare, “The earth is moving” or “It’s going to get
dark tonight.” The reality is the climate has been changing ever since
there was a climate, and part of that change was a cooling period as
recent as the 1940s to the 1970s giving rise to fears of a coming ice
age. When Gibbs spouts this rhetoric, he’s clearly referring to human-
induced warming, but since when has climate change become synonymous
with manmade global warming? And what does it take for a scientific
consensus to stop being one?
In fact, the phrase “climate change” is one of climatologist Roy
Spencer’s major irritations about the whole climate change debate. He
writes, “Thirty years ago, the term “climate change” would have meant
natural climate change, which is what climate scientists mostly
studied before that time. Today, it has come to mean human-caused
climate change. The public, and especially the media, now think that
“climate change” implies WE are responsible for it. Mother Nature, not
Al Gore, invented real climate change.”
A number of events may have made it clear to global warming alarmists
and proponents of cap and trade legislation that global warming just
wasn’t selling. Maybe it was in the beginning of 2009 when global
warming ranked dead last when a Pew poll asked respondents to
prioritize 20 issues facing the nation. Global warming fell well
behind the economy, jobs, social security, education and it even falls
behind moral decline, lobbyists and trade policy. It could have been a
more gradual shift over the past decade since temperatures have
relatively flat lined.
Or maybe it was the lack of natural disasters that failed to reach
U.S. soil after Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth depicted constant 2012-
like weather catastrophes. Interestingly, the hurricane season ends
today and “has been the tamest in 12 years, and for the first time in
three seasons not a single hurricane made landfall in the United
States. And as researchers at Colorado State University pointed out,
for the first time in a generation the Atlantic Coast has been spared
major land-falling hurricanes - defined as those with peak winds of at
least 111 m.p.h. - for four consecutive seasons.”
That’s not to say we won’t have more Katrina-like storms in the
future, but adaptation and preparation to climate change is prudent
while changing the weather with silly mechanisms like cap and trade is
impossible.
It’s likely a combination of these events and a multitude of others,
but in lieu of ClimateGate Gibbs remains confident that “there’s no
real scientific basis for the dispute of this.” For all this incessant
talk about scientific consensus from proponents of cap and trade
legislation, there sure are a lot of dissenting scientists - more than
650.
• Addressing Drastic Sea Level Rises
• Natural Forces Slow Warming
• Tropical Cyclone Activity
• Warming and Cooling in the North Pacific
• Climate Change Modeling and the Sun’s Effect on Global Temperature
• Climate Engineering and the Fallacies in the EPA’s ANPR
• Anthropogenic Effects on Global Warming
• Global Warming is Irreversible
• Scientists Make Anti-Global Warming Case
• Could Global Warming Models Be Wrong?
Heritage Senior Policy Analyst Ben Lieberman summarizes it best,
saying, “If influential scientists’ being caught manipulating and
suppressing data is no big deal, and if the absence of any additional
warming since the late 1990s is also no big deal, one wonders what if
anything would be a big deal.”
Author: Nick Loris
23 Comments
December 1, 2009 Winghunter writes:
The Scientists Involved in Deliberately Deceiving the World on Climate
http://tinyurl.com/ygglbxr
December 1, 2009 Freedom of Speech, TX writes:
The people running this country are frightful. Wanna be scientists.
Scientists signing on to climate reports that know nothing about
climatology. Remember, a PHd is also a “doctor”.
Other scientists who are “fudging” data. Original data was destroyed
because of lack of storage space? These people are sounding more
unintelligent all the time.
They believe that if they keep saying something often enough then
people will believe it.
Our propaganda minister now says that climate change is happening.
Climate change is always happening. Except the temperature has been
dropping and even if it is not, there is nothing WE can do about it.
Even if we bankrupt our country and “distribute the wealth” to foriegn
countries, it will not change anything - except turn us into a totally
government-dependent people.
That is the real goal, is it not - Mr. Gibbs?
I guess a meteor strike would change the climate also. Let’s spend
more trillions to build a climate defense shield around the planet!
I don’t know how much longer I can take these guys. It would have been
better to die in combat than a slow death of liberal propaganda
insanity.
December 1, 2009 Senate ObamaCare Bill to give HHS Kathleen Sebelius
the power of life and death; Socialism – it isn’t just a concept «
VotingFemale Speaks! writes:
[...] White House Balks at ClimateGate, Says Climate Change is
Happening [...]
December 1, 2009 killer of 4 non-black cops starts sentence in Hell
today; no parole possible; was cop killer a racist? « VotingFemale
Speaks! writes:
[...] White House Balks at ClimateGate, Says Climate Change is
Happening [...]
December 1, 2009 BaitSlinger.....NC writes:
You know something is up when a writer for the New York Times starts
questioning the validity of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPPC) and Climate Research Unit (CRU) findings. The climate
has been changing since day one and it will continue to change until
the last day. I find it amazing how ignorant and arrogant man can be
to think he holds the key to life or death for planet Earth. But,
everybody in today’s world seems to have to have a cause to champion
and if it makes them filthy rich (enter Al Gore stage left) in the
process that’s icing on the cake. Really, all this talk about all
organisms being fried (except for cockroaches) because the ozone layer
is starting to disappear is a moot point. Teotwawki will take place in
2009 or 2011 or is it 2012, well no matter, we won’t be here so
climate change and global-warming will have little to no effect on
us.
December 1, 2009 Shane, San Francisco CA writes:
Right on. Evidence of scientific fraud that has tainted the academic
system on a global scale is a very big deal. Not too mention the gain
in profits from this nonsense. Why does the White House simply dismiss
hard facts such as these emails? Obama and his staff are nothing but
no good crooks that are out to fraud the citizens of the United
States.
December 1, 2009 Phil Jones to be Suspended writes:
[...] responded by saying that climategate does not alter their
position that the climate is changing. White House Balks at
ClimateGate, Says Climate Change is Happening The Foundry You can see
Phil Jones is in rather a lot of trouble! __________________ We’re
pilgrims in an [...]
December 1, 2009 Ld Elon writes:
You have to ask yourselves now, what else is there that they could of
mislead you on regarding all that is.
Surely this would not be thee only subject to question in mind to ones
self being.
“One mans peace is another mans war” “War is Peace”
December 1, 2009 jon eden writes:
The study of GW is the largest scientific enterprise ever, and the
idea that you are going to overthrow findings that have been shown
every which way to Sunday by coming up with some emails from a few
rogue scientists is, well frankly, absurb.
I really don’t understand you people. Do you think the only purpose of
science is to support an ever growing economy?
When humans alter major green gases in an absolutely unprecedented
fashion, you don’t think that has consequences?
Or is it that you think the consequences of such action are just tough
crap–let the victims work it out the best way they can?
I do want to credit you with winning the public opinion battle–not a
necessarily difficult task among a population that thinks the Earth is
only 6 thousand years old. Nice piece of work you so called
conservative guys and gals.
December 1, 2009 Bobbie Jay writes:
As a child, I remember a very advising commercial. “It’s not nice to
fool mother nature.” Al Gore and the egg on his face proves it.
I believe climate change is happening, IN GOVERNMENT! Instead of a few
missteps here and there, it’s now throughout!
DECEPTION LEADING THE WAY!
December 2, 2009 Ron Rice Bakersfield, Ca writes:
I really think we should look into that “the world is flat,” thing
again. I’m sure there are enough LIBs that would fall for that one as
well.
December 2, 2009 Richard S Courtney, Falmouth, UK writes:
Jon Eden:
There is no evidence of any kind that man-made global warming exists,
will exist, or - if it does exist - will become a problem.
There is much evidence that Mann-made global warming disinformation
exists and is a problem.
Richard
December 2, 2009 Ben writes:
Mr. Eden, the science is exactly what is the problem here. The problem
is that the greenhouse gas hypothesis is large on rhetoric and light
on evidence. You need five steps to prove that we should enact carbon
reductions
Temperatures are rising;
CO2 is to blame;
This is bad;
We can meaningfully reduce CO2;
It is better to reduce CO2 than to adapt.
Any “proof” that I have seen has simply been to show step one. The
science behind step 2 is sketchy at best. Step 3 relies on models that
cannot reliably predict tomorrow’s weather predicting weather events
such as floods based on heavily exacerbated global warming. There is
no hard evidence for either 2 or 3, and as an engineer, I know exactly
how far to trust extrapolative models (I can throw this computer
further). Straight-line extrapolation is more accurate and simpler.
Based on generous assumptions, we can say that a doubling of CO2 will
give 1C of warming.
Step 4 and 5 are flat-out false. There is only one way to meaningfully
reduce carbon usage on a large scale, and that is nuclear power
generation (all the “renewables” in Europe could be replaced with a
single large-scale nuclear plant for a fraction of the price).
However, this option is for all practical purposes banned. Estimates
of coping with a temperature rise of 2C are in the tens of billions.
Reducing CO2 output by 10% is in the neighborhood of 10 trillion.
So, in a logical argument where every step MUST be true in order to
act on climate change, we have one truth, two possibilies, and two
falsehoods. This is hardly an ironclad case for action.
December 2, 2009 John, USA writes:
The White knows “climate change” is coming because of the inbound
object they are hiding with the chemtrails and not telling you about.
December 2, 2009 Tom Waterloo Iowa writes:
Can you say Crap and Sharade? I meen Cap and Trade. Just another Obama-
Pelosi-Reid-Gore lie on its way to raising taxes..
December 2, 2009 Dean-Texas/Alaska writes:
The cult of man caused “global warming,” amongst the liberals attracts
the self lobotomized as radical as the most radical Islamic. Too bad
for intellectual freedom, and the so called intellectual “elite.” Now
protecting their turf like something with rabies.
December 2, 2009 Richard, Texas writes:
It’s getting bad for the “greenies” when the liberal news media starts
asking embarrassing questions about “global warming”.
December 2, 2009 Brad S,, Detroit, MI writes:
What was really disturbing was to see Al Gore’s big fat head on the
cover of Newsweek the other day. I think the title was “The Thinking
Man’s Thinking Man”. It should have read “The Bernie Madoff of Global
Warming.”
I am also an engineer and I agree with the previous post. When so-
called scientists refuse to share data and methods to come to an
agreed upon model for predictions, it’s not really true science
anymore - more like political science. There is no money in telling
the government that provided you the grant in the first place - “Well,
you see, we did all of the analysis and we really don’t see any effect
of man’s pollution on global climate change. We actually found out
that the earth’s rotation, solar activity and ocean currents that we
have no control over are the biggest factors in determining the
world’s temperature. Sorry. I guess we won’t need the study and
testing funds for 2010 thru 2014 like we originally planned. ”
I really like the way the so-called ECO-NUTS have changed their story
over the past decade. First it was CFC’s and HydroCarbons and NOx were
destroying the Ozone layer and then leading to global warming. And
then, at some point it was CO2 and climate change. What a load of
shinola.
December 2, 2009 Lloyd Scallan - New Orleans writes:
It’s hard to accept that some of those that reply to this site are as
out of touch with reality as they seam to be. Just study the history
of our
environment. Changes have occured since records have been kept. I
don’t understand how some people can’t see the deception and flat out
lies the left has told to get the power and control they so desire.
Since its very inception, the entire left-wing environmental movement
has had one ultimate goal, COMMUNISM. Just as Obama has declared, he
wants to “spread the wealth”. The facts have been hidden from all of
us by those that support this ideology, the Democrats and the main-
stream news media, are just now starting to be exposed. Only those
that are total fools that refuse to question and explore the true
facts, will continue to support the lie that is
“man made golbal warming”.
December 2, 2009 Tim Az writes:
Maybe it’s time to stop buying anything that is marketed as good for
the environment. Since this marketing ploy is based in the science of
fraud. Green marketing has been an increasing annoyance to me since
its inception. I always look for products that do not support the
fraud of global warming. It seems to me there’s a mass amount of money
to be made from fraud lawsuits here. There must be at least one lawyer
out there that would’nt be apposed to some financial gain.
December 2, 2009 Military Wife, Texas writes:
Bondservant1958, california, that was an awesome Psalm. I would like
to copy and send this to everyone in my address book. Did you write
this? I want to give credit where credit is due.
December 2, 2009 Dennis Idaho writes:
I am reminded of a poem: Fire and Ice by Robert Frost
Some say the world will end in Fire
Some say in Ice
What I have tasted of desire
I hold with those that favor Fire
But Ice is also great
And will suffice.
The objective of the “climate change” group is to wealth and control.
Man has always wanted to control the weather, however with all our
technology we cannot even get an accurate forecast more than a week
without a 50% disclaimer.
bademiyansubhanallah
Missed Nuclear Opportunity
Posted November 30th, 2009 at 12.02pm
Next month, global leaders will gather in Copenhagen to demonstrate
their commitment to reducing carbon emissions and creating
ecologically sustainable solutions to power our economy in the 21st
century. Indeed, a moment has arrived when the world is looking to the
United States to set the tone and serve as a model worthy of emulation
– to be, as it were, a carbon-free city upon an ever-green hill.
That is, if we can keep the lights on.
America’s economic strength was forged on the back of abundant,
affordable, carbon-intensive energy. Reducing our dependence on fossil
fuels is undoubtedly important but it will take patience, prudence,
and most important- money. Carbon-free energy, in all forms, comes
with a significant cost.
Congress has pursued a strategy of taxing fossil fuels in order to
discourage their consumption and has heavily subsidized alternative
energy sources like wind and solar in an effort to expand deployment
of zero carbon energy sources. This strategy ignores an inconvenient
truth - renewable energy cannot meet the nation’s everyday power
demands.
These resources must be developed but current technological,
geographic and economic constraints limit their potential. The sad
truth is that many of these resources are most abundant in remote
regions, require massive amounts of land, and at present, generate
variable and limited amounts of energy. In 2007, wind, geothermal and
solar energy accounted for just a combined 2.5% of the nation’s
electricity generation.
The conspicuously missing link in the recent climate debate has been
the most efficient and proven source of carbon-free energy – nuclear
power. Any realistic climate change policy must include support for
the only source of clean, dependable, and relatively inexpensive
energy. In 2008, the 104 nuclear reactors operating in the United
States produced more than 800 billion kilowatt-hours, equal to 19% of
our total electricity output and representing nearly 75% of U.S.
carbon-free electricity.
For 30 years, economic and social constraints sidelined the
development of nuclear power in the United States. Today, social and
economic shifts have placed the nuclear industry on the cusp of a
renaissance. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is currently
reviewing applications for 26 new reactors that would provide an
additional 34,000 megawatts of electricity. Even as our economy
struggles and job losses mount, nuclear energy remains a sign of hope,
creating almost 15,000 jobs in the last three years as communities
anticipate new plant development.
Yet clean, safe nuclear energy continues to stir fears that hearken to
earlier times of environmental suspicion and political bias. In more
than 50 years of operation, however, not a single American has lost
his or her life as a result of commercial nuclear power. Building on
decades of experience, new reactor designs are more efficient,
affordable and safe.
We have only scratched the surface of nuclear energy’s potential.
Advanced reactor designs could revolutionize the auto industry with
hydrogen fuel cells, or close the fuel cycle completely- turning the
earth’s most volatile natural resources into electricity for millions.
Yet it will take decades to completely close the fuel cycle- even
longer if America continues to sit on the sidelines.
In the late 1970s, fears of global proliferation prompted the Carter
administration to abandon domestic reprocessing. Regrettably, America
still lags behind other nations that are already producing safe, clean
nuclear technologies and developing new methods to secure and
reprocess nuclear waste. The American solution for waste disposal – a
proposed geologic repository at Yucca Mountain – appears destined
never to open its doors. Such delays are the unfortunate result of
decades of bad policy, which, if unchanged, will only widen the energy
gap, hinder carbon goals, and weaken our energy security.
Still in its infancy, nuclear power is nonetheless a titan in the
energy world. If the United States wants to fight the battle against
carbon emissions and lead the global economy, we must build upon the
innovation and entrepreneurial edge that nuclear technology has given
us. Decisions today will reverberate for decades. It is time for us,
as a nation, to reassert our commitment to this promising clean energy
solution.
The views expressed by guest bloggers on the Foundry do not
necessarily reflect the views of the Heritage Foundation.
Author: Rep. Darrell Issa
12 Comments
November 30, 2009 Leon, Durango, CO writes:
Thanks first for your solidarity and principle, voting against the
madness. Nuclear Energy is doomed by fiat, the dictates of the
Demolition Plutocrats who mean to destroy all American Energy, the
whole Industry. I wish Republicans wouldn’t go along with Junk
Science, but of course any Real Solution demands Nuclear. Clean Coal
can get us by until these Reactors can be built. But unless you can
break the Infiltraitor stranglehold on our government, good luck doing
anything sensible.
November 30, 2009 Mary,Cleveland, OH writes:
There is no such thing as “zero carbon energy.” We need carbon.
Without this basic element, life would not exist. I do not know where
these politicians come up with these crazy ideas.
November 30, 2009 GN Las Vegas writes:
It seems to me that we aren’t in a fight to reduce carbon emissions,
since climate-gate has been brought to light. I realize that it will
take awhile for the people who were convinced that greenhouse gasses
were the responsibility of the human race, to come around to their
senses and get on board with those of us with more common sense. There
is proven science to suggest there is no such thing as a greenhouse
affect from CO2. Now I agree with the development of more nuclear
energy due to the fact that it is very economical and would have a
positive affect on our economy, unlike this high priced so called
green energy. I live in Nevada and our ungreat and unwise senator Reid
decided to kill Yucca Mountain, which would have sustain countless
jobs for this state as well as for the nation. It would have solved
the issue of storage for the waste from nuclear power plants. This
would have allowed the building of these plant to be more palatable
for people. I believe that by killing these more economical energy
sources it makes the democratic left agenda of green conspiracy easier
to employ..Don’t kid yourself the green movement is a conspiracy
larger than anything you can imagine. It’s agenda is to redistribute
our wealth in order to bring this great country inline with the rest
of the mediocrity in the world!!!!
November 30, 2009 Clearfield, Utah writes:
Powerful people in government and business do not care to carry out
policies, procedures and campaigns that reduce their financial and
power positions. So it is not likely that these selfish, avaricious
and predatory people will do what is best for the freedom and
prosperity of the bulk of mankind, for their aim is to enrich and
establish themselves, no matter the cost and consequences.
December 1, 2009 Bill, Forney, TX writes:
The inconvenient truth is that the carbon-free crowd has selected less
feesible (& more expensive) technologies as the preferred source of
the carbon-based power they are trying to strip from the electrical
grid. Al Gore, for one, is heavily invested in these other
technologies. Nuclear energy would also greatly lessen the money to be
made by somebody selling carbon credits. It’s a lose-lose for those
who have always been in the anti-nuke camp since the mid-70’s. I’ve
posted for years that nuclear is the way to go and sensible heads must
prevail as we seek reliable, home-grown solutions to future power
increases (not decreases as the green-crowd would have).
December 1, 2009 Jim - Gadsden Alabama writes:
Cong. Issa is right, but does not include the nutty thing
Mr. Obama has done (even though “O” claims to be “pro-nuclear”)
1) He has removed the minor streamlining of the approval
process that Mr. Bush had put in place. With the Bush
changes the total time for planning/construction would
be 10/11 years. With the Obama plan it is back to 15 yrs.
(approximately) (The Chinese have preplaned sites and
have reduced the construction time to three years)
2) Mr Obama has eliminated the program to reprocess
waste overseas. We have enough waste on hand to power
104 plants for about 70 yrs. if reprocessed. Jim K.
December 1, 2009 Brian, Milwaukee, WI. writes:
It’s a amazing that we have developed the technology to put a man on
the moon yet still burn inefficient and polluting coal to generate our
electric power. The politicians and special interest groups have to
get their heads out of the sand.
December 1, 2009 Tim Az writes:
Issa’s words in closing demonstrate that he believes in the cause of
socialism implemented through the manufactured science that supports
global warming. He just wants to persue socialism more slowly. We
don’t need another liberal republican. We need congressmen who’s
purpose is to represent the will of the people rather than to attend
cocktail parties arranged by DC elitists.
December 1, 2009 Bruce, San Jose writes:
Nuclear Energy is the wide open solution, in every respect.
Unfortunately, I am in agreement with November 30 Clearfield, Utah, no
solution is sought by the House of Reps, only an agenda, in a pre-
formed format, limiting our choices in identifying and resolving any
issue, leaving us in the position to acquiesce in dependence of a
tyrannical government. In dependence, or Independence.
December 2, 2009 Linda Carlsbad, CA writes:
Tim,Congressman Darrell Issa, was and is a very sucessful business man
in the private sector.
Don’t you keep up on the news. this is the guy that has another great
plan for health reform.I know I went to his townhall on health reform!
This is the guy who is trying to bring down Acorn.
This is the guy who really represents, we the people, he has his own
millions.
He is far from a socialist, he is using his brains, not his pocket
book like most people in Washington. Go on his web site, you might
like what you see.
He is right, along with drilling, drilling & more drilling. The only
reason this government is trying to shove global warming down our
throats, it will be profitable for them. Also so they can put us under
the UN dictators treaties!
Have you noticed our constitution doesn’t matter anymore. Where is our
Supreme Courty when we need them?
December 2, 2009 Linda Carlsbad, CA writes:
I know for a fact that Obama prevented a facility to be opened to
store used nuclear waste. We need this facility.
I don’t know of 1 thing President Obama has done to help our country
move forward! All I see he spends 3 times the money, for what, more
welfare and food stamps. This isn’t working, we need a President that
at least somewhat cares about the country. Hey, I care, thats all it
would take, not oh! lets destroy the country!
Where the heck is the Supreme Court. Our government isn’t taking over
our private industry is it. oh, no. Freedom loving governments don’t
do that, only dictators!
December 2, 2009 Tim Az writes:
Linda he may be all these things you say. But if he can’t bring
himself before a public forum and denounce global warming as the fraud
that it is. And the true intentions behind global warming fraud. Then
I have to question the depth of his convictions.
bademiyansubhanallah
Betting on Copenhagen
By OLIVIA JUDSON
Olivia Judson on the influence of science and biology on modern life.
Setting: A casino in a luxury space cruiser currently in the vicinity
of the star that Earthlings call “The Sun.”
Characters: Four rich aliens from different planets in the galaxy;
they are standing by a window, looking out at the Earth.
First alien: What a beautiful planet! Don’t you like the way the
clouds swirl?
Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
Aren’t the oceans a gorgeous color? I’m so glad we’re going to be
stopping here for a few days; I must get some postcards.
Second alien (paging through “Wild Guide: Milky Way”): Yes, it’s home
to an interesting set of life forms, too. [Pauses at a picture of a
human.] Pity about these semi-intelligent bipedal apes — the place is
simply swarming with them.
Third alien (with a chuckle): It soon won’t be, not with the forces
they’ve set in motion.
First alien: Don’t be so silly. They’re not going to go extinct.
Weren’t you at the lecture last night? The speaker said the bipeds
know they have a problem. Apparently they’re having a big meeting
about it in the next few days — at a place called [produces a notebook
and reads out] “Copenhagen.”
Third alien (hooting with laughter): Meeting, schmeeting. Haven’t you
read the reports by the Intragalactic Council? Carbon dioxide levels
in the Earth’s atmosphere are now at 387 parts per million — up from
around 280 parts per million just 200 years ago. Do you know the last
time they were as high as they are now? Fifteen million years ago,
that’s when. And 15 million years ago, that [he points at South
America] was an island.
Second alien: And? On Anafraxion we’ve been using carbon dioxide as a
climate regulation mechanism for eons. It works rather well.
Fourth alien: Sorry, fellow life forms, but could you explain to me
why carbon dioxide matters? My kind have been space-farers for so
long, I don’t really remember how our planet worked.
Third alien (rolls one of his many eyes): The Earth’s climate is
affected by many factors — methane gas, volcanic eruptions, ocean
currents, the planet’s orbit, that kind of thing. But by far the most
reliable way to affect the climate is to fiddle with the amount of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. When that rises, the atmosphere
traps more of the sun’s heat, and the planet warms. When it falls, the
reverse happens.
Fourth alien: So what you’re saying is, a change in carbon dioxide
from 280 to 387 parts per million must change the climate?
Third alien: That’s right.
Second alien: But is it really a big deal? It says here [points at
guidebook] that for the last million years, the amount of carbon
dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere has been low by historical
standards, and that for much of the last 600 million years, it’s been
higher than it is now.
Third alien: That’s true. But these bipeds have been pumping carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere at an insane rate; if they keep it up,
they’re going to go the same way as the bean-heads of Zarg.
First alien (shudders): Oh, come come — it won’t be that bad.
Third alien: You know as well as I do that what matters for the
stability of a place, is not how much carbon dioxide there is in the
air at any given time, but how fast it changes. Two hundred years for
a change that big — that’s incredible.
Second alien (thoughtfully): Yes, I see. If carbon dioxide levels are
indeed changing as fast as you say, that’s bound to have consequences.
Fourth alien (sounding nervous): Like what?
Third alien (sounding jolly): For the bipeds, it will be bad news.
Islands will disappear as sea levels rise; glaciers will melt; deserts
will spread; storms will get bigger; fresh water will become scarcer;
diseases will become rampant. The retreating glaciers will lead to
more volcanic eruptions. Many of the places where the bipeds now live
will become uninhabitable. It will be harder for the bipeds to grow
their crops, and many of them will starve. Many other species will go
extinct.
First alien: No, no, it won’t be so bad. That’s an absolutely worst
case scenario; it assumes they won’t get things under control and stop
the carbon dioxide levels from rising more.
Third alien: They won’t.
First alien: Oh, I think they will. I think they’ll sort it out at
this big meeting they’re having.
Third alien (in disbelief): Which planet are you from? Don’t you see —
the bipeds are in denial. I mean, some of them still think they can
add as much carbon dioxide to the atmosphere as they want, and have no
effect. It’s like thinking you can eat as much as you like of whatever
you like whenever you like, never take exercise, and still lose
weight! It’s ridiculous!
First alien: For their level of intelligence, they’re unusually
cooperative and empathic. Capable of atrocious violence, of course;
but actually quite nice creatures. I think they’ll pull together.
Third alien: You want to bet on that? I mean — do you realize how
poorly they’ve done so far? They keep underestimating the planet, and
overestimating themselves.
Second alien (waving the book): Listen to this: “During the past eight
years, the bipeds increased their carbon dioxide emissions above their
own worst case projections — and this during a period when they had
pledged to bring them down!”
Third alien: Sea levels are rising faster than they expected; ice is
melting faster; the oceans are absorbing less carbon dioxide than
before. I tell you, the place is a mess and going to get messier.
Fourth alien: What can they do about it?
Third alien: Well, they’d have to completely reorganize their society
to stop emitting carbon dioxide, and they’re running out of time.
Second alien: Do you think they’ll try and paint the clouds whiter,
like the quoozles we saw on Niwrad?
First alien: If they do, I hope it works out better for them—the
quoozles miscalculated badly, poor things! But I still don’t think
it’ll come to that here.
Third alien: Like I said, want to bet?
First alien (pauses, then speaks): O.K. I’ll bet 40,000 galactic
dollars.
Fourth alien whistles, impressed.
Third alien: Done.
For a moment, they all fall silent, and stand contemplating the Earth.
Notes:
The Intragalactic Council got its current estimate of carbon dioxide
levels in the atmosphere from NASA. The estimate of carbon dioxide
levels 200 years ago comes from Etheridge, D. M. et al. 1996. “Natural
and anthropogenic changes in atmospheric CO2 over the last 1000 years
from air in Antarctic ice and firn.” Journal of Geophysical Research
101: 4115-4128. The claim that it’s been 15 million years since carbon
dioxide levels are as high as they are now comes from Tripati, A. K.,
Roberts, C. D. and Eagle, R. A. 2009. “Coupling of CO2 and ice sheet
stability over major climate transitions of the last 20 million
years.” Science, early online publication in Science Express, DOI:
10.1126/science.1178296.
The third alien’s account of factors that affect the Earth’s climate
is largely drawn from pages 281-283 of Morton, O. 2007. “Eating the
Sun: How Plants Power the Planet.” Fourth Estate. See also Zachos, J.
et al. 2001. “Trends, rhythms, and aberrations in global climate 65 Ma
to present.” Science 292: 686-693; this paper also describes wide-
spread species extinctions in the wake of the more rapid changes in
climate.
The idea that carbon dioxide levels have been higher for much of the
past 600 million years appears to be widely accepted. The third
alien’s apocalyptic view of the Earth’s future is inspired by Lynas,
M. 2008. “Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet.” Harper
Perennial; by Walker, G. and King, D. 2008. “The Hot Topic: How to
Tackle Global Warming and Still Keep the Lights on.” Bloomsbury; and
Lovelock, J. 2006. “The Revenge of Gaia: Why the Earth is Fighting
Back, and How we can Still Save Humanity.” Allen Lane. See also this.
The idea that retreating glaciers could cause more volcanic eruptions
comes from Huybers, P. and Langmuir, C. 2009. “Feedback between
deglaciation, volcanism, and atmospheric CO2.” Earth and Planetary
Science Letters 286: 479-491.
The first alien’s belief that humans are unusually cooperative appears
to have come from Fehr, E. and Fischbacher, U. 2003. “The nature of
human altruism.” Nature 425: 785-791.
The second alien’s statement that human carbon dioxide emissions have
risen faster than the worst case projections of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change comes from here; for faster melting sea ice
and the other problems described by the third alien, see the full
report of the Copenhagen Diagnosis, which you can read here. The idea
that it would require great efforts, as well as social reorganization,
to change human carbon dioxide emissions is agreed on by climate
change deniers and climate change proponents alike; what is disagreed
on is whether it is pressing, or necessary at all.
The second alien’s suggestion about painting the clouds whiter was
inspired by the Royal Society of London’s recent report on
geoengineering.
Many thanks to Dan Haydon and Gideon Lichfield for insights, comments
and suggestions.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/betting-on-copenhagen/?ref=opinion
bademiyansubhanallah
Before the Climate Conference, a Weather Report
By HANNE-VIBEKE HOLST, ZAKES MDA, EDGARD TELLES RIBEIRO and YOKO
TAWADA.
Published: November 28, 2009
President Obama and other world leaders will gather in Copenhagen next
week to discuss climate change. Though this is a global issue, it’s
also a profoundly local one. For this reason, the Op-Ed editors asked
writers from four different continents to report on the climate
changes they’ve experienced close to home. Here are their dispatches.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/opinion/29climate.html?ref=opinion
Op-Ed Contributor
Denmark in the Wind
By HANNE-VIBEKE HOLST
Published: November 28, 2009
Copenhagen
Times Topics: Copenhagen Climate Talks (UNFCC)MY husband wants a wind
turbine for Christmas. Just a small one, to be erected alongside our
summer cabin at the coast. “We could have it out back!” he said. Good
idea, I admit. In Denmark, we get our share of moderate-to-fresh
winds, as the weather guys say. More often, it seems, we have storms.
In the city we don’t notice them that much, but at the cabin we listen
uneasily to the howling of the wind in the vents. We sit on edge at
the windows and watch the wind tearing at the fir trees. We’ve cut
down the tallest and most imposing tree in our garden so it won’t
topple over in a storm and smash the roof to smithereens.
Our cabin is by the ocean. Not in the first row, but drawn back some,
and on a hill. When I go for a walk in the dunes, I imagine myself
inside the cabins in the first row, sitting there in the late light of
a Scandinavian summer evening, smoking (even though I’m a nonsmoker),
drinking sundowners (gin and tonic) and thinking poetic thoughts with
a hint of blue. My husband, who built our cabin on the hill long
before I knew him, is slightly jealous about my flirting with the
first row. So now we’ve been on Google Earth and discovered that in 50
years all my dream cabins will be claimed by the rising sea! In fact,
most of the point where our cabin lies will have disappeared. The hill
and our house will remain, an island reachable only by boat, but
still. “At least you’ll be able to see the ocean,” my husband says
smugly, forgetting that we’ll both be dust by then.
“You’re the ones who will have to live with the effects of climate
change,” we caution our youngest as he consumes yet another burger. As
a 12-year-old, he has yet to comprehend that at some point he may have
to choose between beef and rain forests, plane journeys or glaciers,
rationing or perishing. He has no idea that insurance premiums are
already rising fast (too fast!), due to the kind of climate-induced
flooding that has been filling many a Danish basement. On the other
hand, he knows Denmark will have vineyards, and by then he’ll be able
to swim with dolphins! Pretty cool, yeah?
I haven’t the heart to mention the plagues of malaria mosquitoes, the
risks of contracting West Nile virus and cholera. Neither have I
troubled him with forecasts of the cod disappearing from Danish
waters, or with the gloomy prospects for growing Christmas trees here.
I did, though, (mis)appropriate the climate angle in the course of a
discussion about pets. “A medium-sized dog pollutes as much as a 4.6-
liter Toyota Land Cruiser clocking more than 6,000 miles a year!” I
tell him, reading out of the newspaper. “Yeah, sure,” he says, and
rolls his eyes. As if.
He’ll shake his head the same way this Christmas, when he finds out
his father’s got a wind turbine. Daddy gets what Daddy wants. Maybe
not a whole turbine, maybe just part of one. In Denmark, there are
more than 100 wind turbine cooperatives, and special exchanges where
you can buy shares in them. Our Christmas will be a peaceful one:
we’ll talk about the wind and the weather, but in the nice way, so
we’ll forget that this year once again Christmas wasn’t white. The
snow is going, too.
Hanne-Vibeke Holst is a novelist. This essay was translated by Martin
Aitken from the Danish.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/opinion/29holst.html
Op-Ed Contributor
South Africa’s Fire Kingdom
By ZAKES MDA
Published: November 28, 2009
Weltevredenpark, South Africa
Times Topics: Copenhagen Climate Talks (UNFCC)NOT long ago, in Cape
Town, I watched smoke billow from the hills facing the city. The
flames were so ferocious that within a half-hour the smoke could be
mistaken for rain clouds. Sirens wailed and in no time helicopters
were hovering in the sky, dousing the flames with some pink
substance.
At Greenmarket Square in the center of the city, an old man exclaimed:
“They are very quick to put out the fire when the mountain is burning,
but when our shacks burn you never see them. They care about the birds
and the tortoises and the antelopes more than they care about human
beings.” Two flower sellers in voluminous Cape Malay robes quickly
admonished him, “They’ve got to protect our proteas, old man!”
To South Africans, the protea is not just a flower. It is a symbol
that is carried with pride by the national sports teams. The flower
inspires awe because its sturdy shape and defiant demeanor speak of
mysteries that date back 300 million years, long before humans roamed
the earth. Proteas bloom mostly in the rains of the Southern
Hemisphere winter and are fynbos species, a term given to the
vegetation found in the southern part of the Western Cape, covering
about 36,000 square miles — roughly the size of Indiana.
This region is known as the Cape Floral Kingdom, and it’s home to
thousands of plant species found nowhere else in the world. Of the
world’s 112 protea genera, roughly three-quarters are found only here.
That is why South Africans jealously guard this area. This, after all,
is the home of the artichoke-shaped King Protea, the national flower
of South Africa.
But now there are signs that this ecosystem is in danger. Weather
patterns are changing so much that no one knows what to expect
anymore. “When we were young,” the old man in Greenmarket Square
observed, “seasons came and went in a predictable rhythm. Now seasons
have gone amok.”
Only a few decades ago the firefighters would not have bothered with
the flames. Fires were a good thing, and had to be allowed to take
their course. But in those days fires followed a predictable rhythm.
They flared up in the hills every 15 years or so. It was a rhythm that
served the fynbos well because the plants need fire, just as they need
the winter rains. In the Cape Floral Kingdom, species store their
fruit in cones that are split open by the flames; the burned plants
also release seeds that are then buried by ants for food security. Not
only does the heat from the fire break the seed casings and set off
growth, but the ethylene and ammonia in the smoke also prompt some
seeds to germinate. Without fire the fynbos would most likely become
senescent and die out.
Too much fire, however, has the potential to lead to the same result.
Fires in the floral kingdom are now more frequent and more ferocious.
They are devastating the area by denying the fynbos the opportunity to
be fruitful and multiply. And the effects are widespread. In some
parts of the kingdom, the rasping notes of the sugarbird can no longer
be heard. The bird, driven away by rising temperatures, is leaving the
protea unpollinated.
Though the old man watching the flames seems outwardly unconcerned
with the protea and the sugarbird, they have more in common than he
might think. His home village, Lower Telle in the Eastern Cape, no
longer gets its customary thunderous downpours. His strip of land has
been parched for a long time, he told me, driving him to seek work in
the city.
Like the sugarbird, he has been forced into an unfortunate migration.
Zakes Mda is a playwright and the author of the novels “Cion” and
“Black Diamond.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/opinion/29mda.html
Op-Ed Contributor
The Penguins of Brazil
By EDGARD TELLES RIBEIRO
Published: November 28, 2009
RIO DE JANEIRO — I had set my umbrella and chair near the water in the
early hours of what would soon become a perfect summer day. Like most
people, I prefer the beach when it is deserted, and I had the place
all to myself, no vendors to be seen, parading their sunglasses and
suntan oils; no drinks, sandwiches or sweets offered in singing
voices. Above all, no kids kicking balls or sand in my face. I held a
book and was intent on doing some serious reading.
Times Topics: Copenhagen Climate Talks (UNFCC)But then I spotted a
small shape emerging from the water. As it landed, I noticed it was
flapping its wings feebly. Everything about the little fellow, from
the slowness of its movements to its obvious weakness and
vulnerability, told me it was not there by choice.
A penguin? On Ipanema Beach? The creature was just a few feet away
from me and moving in my direction. For a moment, I had the illusion
it was staring back at me. Yes, a penguin. I looked behind me in
search of witnesses, sensing that an event of this sort merited a
wider audience.
A jogger soon appeared, followed by another. They stopped at my side,
amazed, and for a few seconds we remained in silence. The penguin
produced a delicate wheezing sound. The first jogger looked at the sea
and said, “Poor fellow, so far away from home.” The other guy laughed
at this. Our philosopher took offense and, for a while, silence set in
again.
The penguin fell to its side. It had swum 2,000 miles, its normal
pursuit of anchovies possibly confused by shifting ocean currents and
temperatures. It would not survive on the hot sand.
The joggers turned to me, as if waiting for instructions. Then one of
them muttered: “I live nearby. I can call for help.”
When the firemen arrived, I felt relieved that the episode would soon
be over. To my surprise, however, parting was somewhat painful. The
discomfort came from a perception that something out of the ordinary,
as yet difficult to grasp, had happened on that beach. “You can come
visit it in the zoo,” one of the firemen joked as he noticed my sullen
air. That frail, helpless, displaced being had made me suddenly
understand our impact on the planet.
This happened some time ago, and it turned out to be only the
beginning of an unprecedented penguin migration to Brazil. In the
years that followed, dozens and then hundreds of gray-and-white
Magellanic penguins appeared on our coasts, coming all the way from
Patagonia and the Straits of Magellan. They landed on our sands,
exhausted and starving, and were immediately surrounded by children
and bikini-clad women. Subjects of curiosity and affection, they often
died at the hands of those who tried to help by putting them in
refrigerators or walking them on leashes.
But this troubling story doesn’t end there: some of these penguins
have since been shipped or even flown back to colder waters further
south. And, as I wonder how they feel about this journey, I keep
hoping that their plight will help us understand ours.
Edgard Telles Ribeiro is the author of “I Would Have Loved Him if I
Had Not Killed Him.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/opinion/29ribeiro.html
Op-Ed Contributor
In Japan, Concerns Blossom
By YOKO TAWADA
Published: November 28, 2009
Times Topics: Copenhagen Climate Talks (UNFCC)IT’S autumn, and the
people on the Chuo Line are all bundled up, just as they are in the
spring. When I was a student, a friend from Hokkaido, in the north,
told me she couldn’t stand the winter cold in Tokyo. Although the
temperature is lower in northern Japan, in Tokyo there is no moisture
in the winter air; the dry winds bounce off the buildings, picking up
speed until they seem to cut into your skin, making the cold
intolerable.
When I was in elementary school in the mid-1960s, there were still
paddy fields and vegetable patches on the outskirts of Tokyo. On
frosty winter mornings spears of frozen grass crunched under my shoes
as I walked to school, and it often snowed. Winters were harsher than
they are now, but the face of spring was more clearly defined, boldly
announcing its arrival. Summers were so hot and humid that even if I
sat perfectly still the sweat rolled down my forehead, and when I
walked through the rank grass on my way to the air-conditioned
library, bugs used to jump up from the weeds around my feet.
I liked summer back then. But since the 1980s, the trees and grass
have disappeared. The earth is now covered with asphalt and buildings,
and the smell of parking lots mingled with oppressively hot gusts of
air blown out from apartment air-conditioners hangs over the city; it
seems this depressing heat will never go away. The gingko trees don’t
turn yellow until December. In place of the snow that used to fall in
winter, the dry, cold blasts of wind come back, followed almost
immediately by the unbearable heat of summer.
It’s said that the suicide rate rises as the number of trees
decreases. For some reason, only cherry trees seem to increase year by
year. Many are of the type called somei-yoshino. A while ago I read
that somei-yoshino is a cultivar that was artificially bred about a
century ago and has since spread throughout the country.
If the conditions are the same, all the flowers on trees of this type
bloom at once, and several days later, with no regrets for the brevity
of their lives, the blossoms all fall together; thus embodying
nationalistic ideology, they came to be regarded as a symbol of Japan
even though they don’t appear in ancient literary works or paintings.
The flowers bloom at the same time because the trees are clones, bred
from cuttings.
From March through May, the progress of the “cherry blossom front” is
reported nightly on the weather report as it makes its way north
through the archipelago. The TV meteorologist, who usually looks
worried as she explains the lines that show the ominous movements of
high and low pressure areas, becomes oddly cheerful when the topic
switches to the “cherry blossom front,” and she announces
enthusiastically, “In just two weeks the cherries in the Kanto area
will be in full bloom!”
Because of climate change, the weather always betrays our
expectations, making us wonder if the earth isn’t in its last days.
Yet the “cherry blossom front” always follows the same course from
south to north, which gives us a sense of relief. There are scores of
varieties of cherry trees; if types other than somei-yoshino were
planted, the “cherry blossom front” wouldn’t be so predictable, and
the weather report would cause more anxiety, I thought one day last
spring as I left the train station and walked down the street lined
with cherry trees. Beneath the trees people were sitting, eating box
lunches and drinking sake or beer.
When I looked up, the somei-yoshino cherries were in full bloom,
blanketing the sky; in the chill air, they looked like snow. Perhaps
these white blossoms are the ghosts of snowflakes that no longer fall.
Yoko Tawada is the author of “The Naked Eye” and “Facing the Bridge.”
This essay was translated by Margaret Mitsutani from the Japanese.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/opinion/29tawada.html
chhotemianinshallah
www.chinaview.cn 2009-12-04 10:53:56
BRASILIA, Dec. 3 (Xinhua) -- President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva
and German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Thursday played down people's
hopes for the upcoming UN climate change conference in Copenhagen,
saying a "perfect" agreement might not be reached.
Reports reaching here from Berlin said both leaders stressed the
necessity for the summit to produce "robust, balanced and fair
results" to curb global warming.
"I think we will not make the agreement of our dreams," President
Lula da Silva told a joint conference with Merkel in Berlin.
He added that the targets provided by countries depend on
respective domestic policies.
Carbon emissions reduction is a new theme, he explained, and that
till now, the international community has not reached a consensus on
the issue. But he was confident that participants of the summit will
take an important step forward.
Following Lula, Merkel said she hoped the conference in Copenhagen
could make crucial progress on climate change, though "it won't be
ideal."
The two leaders also exchanged views on who should do more to
fight climate change.
Lula insisted on technology transfer and financial assistance from
developed nations.
"There must be an understanding of the necessity of technology
transfer and financing so that poorer countries can grow without
polluting the earth as we had done," he said.
For her part, Chancellor Merkel called for greater involvement of
emerging countries and pledged that European Union countries would
help big emerging economies "financially and technologically."
Editor: Anne Tang
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-12/04/content_12587372.htm
chhotemianinshallah
Nepali cabinet meeting on top of world concludes with Everest
Declaration
www.chinaview.cn 2009-12-04 15:50:23
Nepali Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal (C) waves as he attends the
cabinet meeting at the foothills of Mt. Qomolangma (Mt. Everest) Base
Camp at Kalapatthar which is approximately 5,164 meters high above the
sea level on Dec. 3, 2009. The Nepali Government's historical high-
altitude cabinet meeting, attended by altogether 24 ministers, is held
on the base to draw the global community's attention toward climate
change and its impact on melting Himalayas. (Xinhua/Bimal Gautam)
Photo Gallery>>>
KATHMANDU, Dec. 4 (Xinhua) -- The historic high-altitude cabinet
meeting of Nepali government held to draw the global community's
attention toward climate change and its impact on melting Himalayas
has come up with a 10-point "Everest Declaration" Friday.
The cabinet meeting presided by Nepali Prime Minister Madhav Kumar
Nepal was held at Kalapatthar, the Base Camp of Mt. Everest
(Qomolangma) at a height of approximately 5,164 meters.
"We have successfully conducted our historic cabinet meeting. We
would like to thank all the people who have assisted us, supported us
and given us help and support to make this event a grand success,"
said Prime Minister Nepal in a press conference organized at
Syangboche near Everest Base Camp after cabinet meeting.
"Mt. Everest (Qomolangma) is an icon of world environment. The
2,700-km East-West range of Himalayas and 1.3 billion people's
civilization, their culture and tradition, natural heritage and
tourist development has contribution."
He added that he would urge the developed countries to look at the
impact of the climate change on the poor countries while attending the
Climate Change summit in Copenhagen.
Global issue of climate change has negative impact not only on
Himalayas and millions of lives living in this arena but also the
environment, social-economic development, natural vegetation and
tourist development sector, said Nepal addressing the press
conference.
Due to climate change, threat of natural calamities like drought,
flood, landslide, famine, and glacial outburst is increasing, he
added.
"Through Everest Declaration-2009, we would like to express our
collective commitment to climate change and open the financial support
sector," Nepal said.
To protect the Mt. Everest (Qomolangma) and rest of the Himalayan
range from melting down due to the global warming, Nepali government
has declared "Everest Declaration-2009".
To conserve the vulnerable Himalayas form climate change, to draw
the attention of global community, Nepal will cooperate with South
Asian nations and the rest of the world, the prime minister said
reading the first point of "Everest Declaration-2009".
To launch a public awareness campaign in the national level to
highlight the adverse impact of climate change on local habitants and
life style, especially the marginalized people.
The cabinet also decided to extend the territories of Api-Nampa
conservation area in Darchula district, Gauri Shankar conservationarea
in Ramechhap and Dolakha districts as well as to extend Bardiya
National Park.
With the Everest Declaration, the government has committed to
increasing the conservation areas in the country from 20 percent to 25
percent and consolidating 40 percent forest area. It also focuses on
raising awareness on climate change issues and seeking international
commitment and support to address the issues.
The cabinet also decided to add the Banke National Park as a new
national park.
A team of around 110 people comprising the 24 Nepali ministers
including Prime Minister Nepal, national and international
journalists, health and technical teams attended the event.
Nepali Ministers wave after the cabinet meeting at the foothills of
Mt.Qomolangma (Mt.Everest) Base Camp at Kalapatthar which is
approximately 5,164 meters high above the sea level on Dec. 3, 2009.
(Xinhua/Bimal Gautam)
Photo Gallery>>>
Nepali Ministers attend the cabinet meeting at the foothills of Mt.
Qomolangma (Mt. Everest) Base Camp at Kalapatthar which is
approximately 5,164 meters high above the sea level on Dec. 3, 2009.
(Xinhua/Bimal Gautam)
Photo Gallery>>>
Nepali Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal waves as he attends the
cabinet meeting at the foothills of Mt. Qomolangma (Mt. Everest) Base
Camp at Kalapatthar which is approximately 5,164 meters high above the
sea level on Dec. 3, 2009. (Xinhua/Bimal Gautam)
Photo Gallery>>>
Nepali Ministers attend the cabinet meeting at the foothills of Mt.
Qomolangma (Mt. Everest) Base Camp at Kalapatthar which is
approximately 5,164 meters high above the sea level on Dec. 3, 2009.
(Xinhua/Bimal Gautam)
Photo Gallery>>>
Editor: Han Jingjing
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-12/04/content_12588821.htm
chhotemianinshallah
Obama changes plans on talks, will attend at critical juncture
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 5, 2009
President Obama will attend the high-level portion of international
climate talks in Copenhagen on Dec. 18, the White House announced
Friday, ratcheting up expectations that the United Nations-sponsored
negotiations could produce a significant deal on global warming.
Obama had planned to stop in Copenhagen on Wednesday, on his way to
Oslo to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. Instead, the president will be
there during the critical period when more than 80 heads of government
convene to try to finalize an agreement.
In a statement, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama has
determined that "there is progress being made towards a meaningful
Copenhagen accord" now that both China and India have announced
nationwide energy-efficiency targets in the last week.
Indian announced Thursday that it will lower its carbon emissions
relative to the size of its economy by 20 percent by 2020, and China
announced a week earlier that it would lower its emissions relative to
its economy's size by up to 45 percent over the same period.
Obama's aides have said for weeks that he would attend the closing
hours of the world meeting only if he thought his presence could help
secure an accord.
In the statement, Gibbs indicated that the United States would be
willing to support a short-term financial package to help poorer
nations curb their emissions and cope with climate change, an
initiative that could cost the United States several billion dollars.
Gibbs said: "There appears to be an emerging consensus that a core
element of the Copenhagen accord should be to mobilize $10 billion a
year by 2012 to support adaptation and mitigation in developing
countries, particularly the most vulnerable and least developed
countries that could be destabilized by the impacts of climate change.
The United States will pay its fair share of that amount and other
countries will make substantial commitments as well."
Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy for the Union of
Concerned Scientists, said in an interview from Copenhagen that
Obama's decision to go suggests that "he'll be here at the end to help
seal the deal."
Even conservative critics of the president such as Kenneth P. Green of
the American Enterprise Institute said Obama's switch in timing
"changes the game." He wrote in an e-mail: "It suggests that a 'deal'
is already in the bag, and Obama's expecting that he'll get to bask in
the glow of a new global agreement, flagrantly repudiating the
position of the Bush administration in previous climate
negotiations."
Staff writer Michael D. Shear contributed to this report.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/04/AR2009120404515.html
chhotemianinshallah
Stolen files of 'Climate-gate' suggest some viewpoints on change are
disregarded
By David A. Fahrenthold and Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 5, 2009
It began with an anonymous Internet posting, and a link to a wonky set
of e-mails and files. Stolen, apparently, from a research center in
Britain, the files showed the leaders of climate-change science
discussing flaws in their own data, and seemingly scheming to muzzle
their critics.
Now it has mushroomed into what is being called "Climate-gate," a
scandal that has done what many slide shows and public-service ads
could not: focus public attention on the science of a warming planet.
Except now, much of that attention is focused on the science's flaws.
Leaked just before international climate talks begin in Copenhagen --
the culmination of years of work by scientists to raise alarms about
greenhouse-gas emissions -- the e-mails have cast those scientists in
a political light and given new energy to others who think the issue
of climate change is all overblown.
The e-mails don't say that: They don't provide proof that human-caused
climate change is a lie or a swindle.
But they do raise hard questions. In an effort to control what the
public hears, did prominent scientists who link climate change to
human behavior try to squelch a back-and-forth that is central to the
scientific method? Is the science of global warming messier than they
have admitted?
The stolen electronic files include more than 1,000 e-mails and 3,000
documents, all taken from servers at the Climatic Research Unit, a
world-famous center at the University of East Anglia in Britain.
Phil Jones, the unit's director, wrote a colleague that he would
"hide" a problem with data from Siberian tree rings with more accurate
local air temperature measurements. In another message, Jones talks
about keeping research he disagrees with out of a U.N. report, "even
if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
Since then, Jones has stepped down temporarily. And Pennsylvania State
University is exploring whether the e-mails, some of which were
written by one of its professors, Michael Mann, warrant an
investigation. In an interview, Mann said he is confident that neither
he nor any of the other researchers whose e-mails were pirated "did
anything improper."
But recent debate -- some scientists say the Earth hasn't warmed as
predicted over the past 10 years -- show that climate science is still
science, with researchers drawing different lessons from the same
data. The problem is that it plays out before an audience that won't
wait for certainty.
Politicians say, " 'We need to reduce the uncertainty,' and I think
that's contributed to a certain mind-set where [climate scientists]
try to reduce the uncertainty" when they talk about their research,
said Judith Curry, chair of the school of Earth and atmospheric
sciences at Georgia Tech. "I'm a little bit worried about that
political pressure," she said.
But the climate establishment -- including the U.S. government's top
scientists on the subject -- say that nothing in the e-mails disproves
their bedrock ideas. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are
still gathering in the atmosphere and trapping more of the sun's heat,
and the consequences of that will still be dire in the long run, they
say.
"Our collective understanding of how the Earth is warming . . . rests
on a wealth of scientific information that is very diverse and comes
from multiple sources and multiple groups," said Jane Lubchenco, who
heads the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "Regardless
of what happened in one place, it doesn't undermine the totality of
what we know."
For a few, however, the stolen files were confirmation that the
climate establishment was trying to keep them out of the debate.
These include the familiar kind of climate skeptics, those who think
that the climate isn't changing or that it isn't a crisis. But they
also include a handful of researchers who think climate change is
happening, but -- for various reasons -- are skeptical that mainstream
science fully understands the phenomenon.
"To me, it's unambiguous . . . humans are altering the climate
system," said Roger Pielke Sr., a research scientist at the University
of Colorado. "It's just that, it's much more than CO2."
Pielke said his research shows that, in addition to carbon dioxide and
other factors, Earth's warming is affected by how people alter the
land. When a forest becomes a farm, or a farm becomes a suburb, that
changes the amount of heat and moisture coming off the ground, he
said.
But Pielke said he has seen some papers rejected and has felt so
marginalized that he quit a U.S. panel summing up climate change a few
years ago. One of the stolen e-mails seems to confirm the idea that he
was being excluded: In 2005, Jones wrote to colleagues about some of
Pielke's complaints, "Maybe you'll be able to ignore them?"
"These individuals, who are very sincere in their beliefs, have
presumed that that gives them permission to exclude viewpoints that
are different from their own," Pielke said.
Mainstream climate scientists say they have kept an open mind but have
rejected papers that lack proper evidence. In Pielke's case, "the
literature doesn't show" his ideas about the importance of land use
are correct, said Tom Karl, head of the NOAA's National Climatic Data
Center.
Top climate scientists say that in recent years most of the new,
worthy research has only made the threat of climate change seem bigger
and faster.
But the current debate over what's happening to global temperatures
shows the noisy, confusing disagreement of scientists trying to make
nature make sense.
These are the facts: After an increase in 1998, the world has been
historically warm, but its average temperatures have not climbed
steadily. Does that mean climate change has stopped?
Many mainstream scientists say no: This is just a tic of nature, as
cycles of currents in the Pacific Ocean and a decrease in heat coming
off the sun have temporarily dampened warming. Some researchers,
though, have said the models -- and, by extension, the human
researchers that built them -- could be missing something about how
the climate works. That point was made in one stolen e-mail, in which
climate researcher Kevin Trenberth wrote it was a "travesty" that
models could not explain why the Earth hadn't warmed more.
"We're simply not tracking where the heat is going," said Trenberth,
who heads the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for
Atmospheric Research in Boulder.
The diversity of opinion on this topic, however, wasn't evident late
last month, when a group of 26 climate researchers issued a report
called "The Copenhagen Diagnosis," summarizing scientific advances
since the last major U.N. climate report in 2007.
"Has global warming recently slowed down or paused?" the report said.
"No."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/04/AR2009120404511.html
chhotemianinshallah
Scientists' e-mails deriding skeptics of warming become public
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Hackers broke into the electronic files of one of the world's foremost
climate research centers this week and posted an array of e-mails in
which prominent scientists engaged in a blunt discussion of global
warming research and disparaged climate-change skeptics.
The skeptics have seized upon e-mails stolen from the Climatic
Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Britain as evidence
that scientific data have been rigged to make it appear as if humans
are causing global warming. The researchers, however, say the e-mails
have been taken out of context and merely reflect an honest exchange
of ideas.
University officials confirmed the data breach, which involves more
than 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents, but said they could not say
how many of the stolen items were authentic.
"We are aware that information from a server in one area of the
university has been made available on public websites," the statement
says. "We are extremely concerned that personal information about
individuals may have been compromised. Because of the volume of this
information we cannot currently confirm what proportion of this
material is genuine."
Michael E. Mann, who directs the Earth System Science Center at
Pennsylvania State University, said in a telephone interview from
Paris that skeptics are "taking these words totally out of context to
make something trivial appear nefarious."
In one e-mail from 1999, the center's director, Phil Jones, alludes to
one of Mann's articles in the journal Nature and writes, "I've just
completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each
series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961
for Keith's to hide the decline."
Mann said the "trick" Jones referred to was placing a chart of proxy
temperature records, which ended in 1980, next to a line showing the
temperature record collected by instruments from that time onward.
"It's hardly anything you would call a trick," Mann said, adding that
both charts were differentiated and clearly marked.
But Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy for the
Competitive Enterprise Institute, said this and other exchanges show
researchers have colluded to establish the scientific consensus that
humans are causing climate change.
"It is clear that some of the 'world's leading climate scientists,' as
they are always described, are more dedicated to promoting the
alarmist political agenda than in scientific research," said Ebell,
whose group is funded in part by energy companies. "Some of the e-
mails that I have read are blatant displays of personal pettiness,
unethical conniving, and twisting the science to support their
political position."
In one e-mail, Ben Santer, a scientist at Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, offered to beat up skeptic Pat Michaels, a senior fellow
at the libertarian Cato Institute, out of sympathy for Jones.
Neither Jones nor Santer could be reached for comment.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR2009112004093.html
chhotemianinshallah
Stolen e-mails reveal venomous feelings toward skeptics
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Electronic files that were stolen from a prominent climate research
center and made public last week provide a rare glimpse into the
behind-the-scenes battle to shape the public perception of global
warming.
While few U.S. politicians bother to question whether humans are
changing the world's climate -- nearly three years ago the U.N.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded the evidence was
unequivocal -- public debate persists. And the newly disclosed private
exchanges among climate scientists at Britain's Climate Research Unit
of the University of East Anglia reveal an intellectual circle that
appears to feel very much under attack, and eager to punish its
enemies.
In one e-mail, the center's director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania
State University's Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of
academics that question the link between human activities and global
warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which
represents the global consensus view on climate science.
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,"
Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we
have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic
journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they
disagree. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate
research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this
journal," Mann writes.
"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more
to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor,"
Jones replies.
Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute
who comes under fire in the e-mails, said these same academics
repeatedly criticized him for not having published more peer-reviewed
papers.
"There's an egregious problem here, their intimidation of journal
editors," he said. "They're saying, 'If you print anything by this
group, we won't send you any papers.' "
Mann, who directs Penn State's Earth System Science Center, said the e-
mails reflected the sort of "vigorous debate" researchers engage in
before reaching scientific conclusions. "We shouldn't expect the sort
of refined statements that scientists make when they're speaking in
public," he said.
Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the libertarian Competitive
Enterprise Institute who has questioned whether climate change is
human-caused, blogged that the e-mails have "the makings of a very
big" scandal. "Imagine this sort of news coming in the field of AIDS
research," he added.
The story of the hacking has ranked among the most popular on Web
sites ranging from The Washington Post's to that of London's Daily
Telegraph. And it has spurred a flood of e-mails from climate skeptics
to U.S. news organizations, some likening the disclosure to the
release of the Pentagon Papers during Vietnam.
Kevin Trenberth, who heads the Climate Analysis Section at the
National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., and wrote
some of the pirated e-mails, said it is the implications rather than
the content of climate research that make some people uncomfortable.
"It is incontrovertible" that the world is warming as a result of
human actions, Trenberth said. "The question to me is what to do."
"It's certainly a legitimate question," he added. "Unfortunately one
of the side effects of this is the messengers get attacked."
In his new book, "Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to
Save the Earth's Climate," Stanford University climate scientist
Stephen H. Schneider details the intense debate over warming, arguing
that it has helped slow the nation's public policy response.
"I've been here on the ground, in the trenches, for my entire career,"
writes Schneider, who was copied on one of the controversial e-mails.
"I'm still at it, and the battle, while looking more winnable these
days, is still not a done deal."
chhotemianinshallah
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/11/22/ST2009112200901.html
...and I am Sid Harth
chhotemianinshallah
Rick Edmund is a United Methodist church pastor in Maryland. He
resides on Smith Island, which has been impacted by rising sea-level
and in 2007 testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on the
Environment about climate change and the Chesapeake Bay.
Science calls for us to be open minded
Q: Given the furor surrounding the pirated e-mails coming out of the
University of East Anglia, what's the real takeaway lesson? Does it
say more about the way renowned climate scientists work, or how
climate skeptics have operated in shaping the public debate over
global warming?
The scientists at the University of East Anglia who sought to curtail
opposing thoughts were acting out of selfish reasons, seeking to
justify their own positions on climate change. The same can be said
for those who have used this forum to make personal attacks on members
of this Planet Panel. The same can also be said for any of us who are
not open to changing our minds on this terribly complex issue of world
wide climate that we are just beginning to unravel.
The idea behind science as I see it is to examine what we know and to
find out what we don't know. It follows then that all of us should be
"skeptics" who are ready to question the data presented, but also
ready to question our own positions and possibly change our minds if
we see enough evidence that counters our current beliefs. Until we
stop using selective science to back our own point of view, we will
wallow in a quagmire of statistics delaying any actions that may need
to be taken to reduce the impact that we are having on our planet.
Science and our understanding of why we exist should drive our beliefs
on this issue -- not the other way around.
The real lesson to be learned concerning these pirated emails is
whether or not we as members of the human species are willing to lay
aside any selfish actions of our own for the good of future
generations.
By Rick Edmund | November 26, 2009; 9:19 AM ET
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slTkJY-cTWY
Posted by: umterps_no1 | December 3, 2009 12:35 PM
Scientific beliefs can be warped by chicanery.
Scientists can be gullible and can follow the herd mentality.
It took 40 years to thoroughly debunk The Piltdown Man hoax which was
based on cobbled-together "evidence."
Thanks to the internet, the sway of Al Gore, the "Meltdown Man," will
be limited to a mere 20 years.
Posted by: dumbreddown | November 29, 2009 3:40 AM
chhotemianinshallah
David F. Hales is the president of the College of the Atlantic in
Maine, which in 2007 became the first U.S. higher education
institution to achieve carbon neutrality. He has represented the U.S.
in intergovernmental negotiations, including the Framework Convention
on Climate Change, the Convention on Biodiversity, the Convention to
Prevent Desertification, the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species, Rio Plus 5 and Habitat II.
An admission that the science is sound
Q: Given the furor surrounding the pirated e-mails coming out of the
University of East Anglia, what's the real takeaway lesson? Does it
say more about the way renowned climate scientists work, or how
climate skeptics have operated in shaping the public debate over
global warming?
The fulminations of climate skeptics in the wake of the release of
electronic documents stolen from the University of east Anglia
demonstrates more clearly than ever that the skeptics don't understand
either climate science or the scientific method.
As reputable scientific findings continue to underscore the magnitude
of the challenge we face, and the role of human activities in causing
this crisis, the desperation of the "skeptics" grows, and the latest
furor is little more than one of the last gasps of those who, paid or
otherwise, want to deny reality.
A few of the e-mails released -- if they are accurate and not
manufactured -- should embarrass the authors of those e-mails. But
they have nothing to do with the soundness of the basic science.
Taken as a whole, the stolen material strengthens the scientific basis
for concern, and emphasizes the need for urgent and decisive action -
far more than the pallid measures being considered by the United
States Congress.
By David F. Hales | November 25, 2009; 12:43 PM ET
Comments
Sir, the pro-global warming "scientists" acted in a most unscientific
manner. Squelching FOIA requests is not only criminal, it runs counter
to the ethic of science - that results and methods should be shared as
freely as possible.
If this were the only revelation, you might have a point. Here are
several reasons to doubt the doomsayers.
1) There hasn't been any global warming in over a decade.
2) The "hockey stick graph" was based on only a singly proxy (tree
rings) and cannot account for historically recorded events such as the
medieval warm period (ever wonder how greenland got its name?)and the
little ice age (the Thames froze over many years up through the 19th
century.
3) The climate models that predict these doomsday scenarios cannot
accurately predict the temperature even 10 years out (using historical
data). If the models can't tell us what the mean surface temperature
is today, why would you expect that they could predict the future?
The solution to a bad model is to produce a better one. It is
unscientific to base extravagant claims on unsound models.
The supposed "consensus" has become an excuse to be ignorant. Rather
than learning something and then stating facts in support of their
theory, AGW supporters in the general population just say "it is
settled science". Science is a process and abhors statements from
authority. When and if it becomes clear that CO2 is considerably
warming the atmosphere, it won't be necessary to silence skeptics as
the authors of these emails attempted to do. Shame on Mann and Jones
et al.
Posted by: groberts0429 | November 29, 2009 5:37 PM
Well funded, very sound science based on the efforts of thousands of
real scientists of the last 2000 years or so still cannot accurately
tell me if it's going to rain tomorrow. How or why would anyone
continue to believe in the myth of global warming. Emails or not,
there's no science behind it anymore. None of the models pan out and
the data does not support the conclusion. If that is inconsistant with
the scientific method please explain to me what it is.
Posted by: jgmiller500 | November 28, 2009 12:12 PM
Dude...not one supporting comment. You're a joke, but I'm not
laughing. I want my money back. you should be pissed at what some of
your fellow scientist/propagandist have done to science, but you're
not. Sad day to say the least.
Posted by: kgrubb2 | November 28, 2009 2:58 AM
Hales opening polemic that the e-mail revelations, "more clearly than
ever that the skeptics don't understand either climate science or the
scientific method" proves that he misses the point. He assumes that
the average lay person has the background, inclination, or expertise
to see something that is allegedly self-apparent. This is often the
attitude of intellectual arrogance. Yes, Dr. Hales, climate science is
too esoteric for most of us; that is why TRUST is all the more
important. Something the e-mail revelations and your patronizing
comments undermine. Here is what us ignorant people do know: we know
that politics and ideology trumps honest science. We know that so-
called scientists are asking us to make draconian changes to our
society based on computer models. We know that people like you have
worked tirelessly at squashing legitimate scientific dissent. You,
sir, have fallen from your pedestal. We unscientific commoners have
the audacity to no longer accept your word as if proclaimed from Mount
Sinai. Ours is the great suspicion that you know far less that you
think you do, and if you were really honest, you would admit it.
Posted by: vanhook99 | November 27, 2009 11:21 PM
Dr. Hales's statements indicate that he too is an ideologically driven
scientist, along the lines of the renowned email authors. These people
have abandoned scientific objectivity in favor of their cause. The
real problem is that they have tremendous scientific power. Not only
do they control what goes into the IPCC reports and the peer reviewed
journals, they control the billions of dollars of climate research
funding. Given this power it is no surprise that published results
often support their ideological views. It is a self fulfilling
prophesy, a rigged game.
Posted by: DavidWojickPhD | November 26, 2009 6:36 AM
You, sir, have obviously not read the emails. Nor have you examined
the code and data contained in that "data dump". I would strongly
suggest that you do so.
I have wandered through the junkyard that CRU claims to be
"scientifically sound" - and anyone who would trust the data/results
from that abomination is obviously biased beyond reason.
Posted by: Ginny11 | November 25, 2009 4:40 PM
thanks for your two cents buddy, whoever you are. unfortunately, this
defense you give is a load of horsesh!t.
im tired of giving tax payer money so "scientists" can use worthless
models to predict the tempature 50 years from now and, convienently,
come back with numbers which only fuels the money they will be given
to engage in this pseudo science.
you dont have an ivy league education to make basic public policies
decisions, you cant just be sucker.
Posted by: dummypants | November 25, 2009 4:20 PM
Science is all about falsification. When the evidence falsifies your
theories, you need better theories. It is completely unethical to wage
a jihad against scientists who provide evidence against your pet
theories. The domestic scientists in this scandal should be prosecuted
to the fullest extent of the law.
Posted by: mbc7 | November 25, 2009 4:07 PM
"How does the "scientific method" deal with decade-long cooling when
CO2 levels are increasing?"
You are simply stating a false premise there. Anyone honest who has
the slightest concept of measurement science (i.e., statistics or
signal processing) looks at a smoothed trace of the data. The
temperature has been going up all throughout the last decade. It only
goes "down" if you cherry pick citing 1998 (which was a noisy positive
spike) to last year (which was a noisy spike down). See either
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
or
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
You people who keep pretending the last decade has "cooled" are either
deliberately cherry-picking or sincerely but errantly repeating
something some talk radio/Fox hack has told you, without actually
looking at the data.
97% of actively working climate scientists have concluded that the
earth is warming, and that we are primarily driving it.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119210532.htm
Posted by: B2O2 | November 25, 2009 4:06 PM
Mr Hales says that based on the released email and documents, climate
skeptics don't understand either climate science or the scientific
method.
Apparently in Mr Hales worldview, the purpose of science and its
method is to prevent other researchers with opposing views to publish
articles, deliberate falsifying data to fulfil a preconceived idea or
to hide or delete data to avoid others to confirm the findings.
Mr Hales is correct, I think most of us do not understand that type of
“science” or scientific method, and for the all of us I hope we never
will.
Posted by: wahlberg | November 25, 2009 3:19 PM
David F. Hales, did you take the time to read some of the EMails?
Posted by: mike83631 | November 25, 2009 3:16 PM
I should know better, but I'm surprised that I find myself embarrassed
that WaPo published this tripe from an unabashed fraud and deceiver...
an abandoner of scientific principles who turned his back on science
for a cause he wished the facts would support. His explanation rings
as hollow as a bank robber caught in the act attempting to wriggle out
of the jam by claiming that he's acting as a concerned citizen simply
to test the security of his grandmother's life savings.
The liars at East Anglia were busted. Plain and simple.
Posted by: dbsinOakRidge | November 25, 2009 2:51 PM
Professor Hales, You can fool all of the people some of the time, and
some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the
people all of the time. Nice, try, but did you actually read any of
those emails? How does the "scientific method" deal with decade-long
cooling when CO2 levels are increasing? What finacial interests do you
have in the carbon credit racket?
Posted by: ccwatson-CraigSmith | November 25, 2009 2:29 PM
chhotemianinshallah
William O'Keefe is CEO at the George C. Marshall Institute, a think
tank that promotes better use of science in public policy. He is a
former COO at the American Petroleum Institute. ALL
Potential impact on public's integreity of science
Q: Given the furor surrounding the pirated e-mails coming out of the
University of East Anglia, what's the real takeaway lesson? Does it
say more about the way renowned climate scientists work, or how
climate skeptics have operated in shaping the public debate over
global warming?
It would be a mistake in my opinion to address this issue along the
lines of the question. It is larger and more important than so called
"renowned scientists" and skeptics.
While it would be tempting to assert that these e-mails prove that so
called "skeptics" have been right about efforts to suppress their work
and the weak scientific basis for claims that humans are mainly
responsible for warming, that would be a rush to judgment. Having said
that, some of the released e-mails, if they are accurate, are very
damning. It is it one thing to blow off steam with a comment about
wanting to beat the crap out of someone. It is something else to
discuss destroying e-mails and data, influencing the peer review
process, and non compliance with the UK's freedom of information act.
Whether this was the work of a hacker or whistle blower is secondary
to the over riding issue of whether there was an organized campaign to
promote an ideology and discredit any one who challenged it. Science
is supposed to be about challenge; not suppression.
The release of these e-mails makes it essential that a thorough and
transparent investigation be conducted by an independent group whose
integrity is beyond question. All of the files from the parties
involved and the CRU should be examined so that it can be determined
whether the released e-mails are being taken out of context or whether
they reveal a campaign to mislead and discredit. Billions of dollars
have been spent on climate research. If some of that research was
structured and conducted to support an ideology and not advance our
state of knowledge, those involved have done great damage to the
institution of science as well as having taken funds under false
pretext. It is now up to the scientific establishment to act promptly
to correct any wrong and to censure any who have damaged it.
Science has brought society enormous benefits and people in general
hold it in high regard. If the public losses faith in the integrity of
science and the honesty of scientists we will all be worse off.
By William O'Keefe | November 24, 2009; 1:24 PM ET
Mr. O'Keefe, I'm glad the WP decided to include a heretic to response
to climategate, admidst a chorus of Kool Aid drinkers covering their
behinds. I hope you will join with Senator James Inhofe in urging a
criminal investigation of those who have misused taxpayer money,and
testified for legislation that will destroy our economy and end our
sovereignty.
Posted by: ccwatson-CraigSmith | November 25, 2009 3:35 PM
Nice measured response from one of the gang who have been funding
numerous disinformation websites and "think tanks" over the past
decade designed to confuse the public and stall action on this issue.
Posted by: B2O2 | November 25, 2009 3:15 PM
Well said...
"Science has brought society enormous benefits and people in general
hold it in high regard. If the public losses faith in the integrity of
science and the honesty of scientists we will all be worse off."
The temptation to distort realities and parade falsehoods and personal
opinions (or even strong personal beliefs) under the guise of science
harms us all... now and into the future.
The power of authentic scientific principles will in time prove
greater and more enduring than the purported power of the mob... even
when the mob includes men and women of science ... acting with a
different, and lesser set of principles than the great scientists on
who's shoulders they stand, and who's gifts and legacies they've
trampled.
Posted by: dbsinOakRidge | November 25, 2009 3:13 PM
chhotemianinshallah
Robert Shapiro, Under Secretary of Commerce in the Clinton
administration, is chairman of the U.S. Climate Task Force and
Sonecon, an economic advisory group.
A minor tempest
Q: Given the furor surrounding the pirated e-mails coming out of the
University of East Anglia, what's the real takeaway lesson? Does it
say more about the way renowned climate scientists work, or how
climate skeptics have operated in shaping the public debate over
global warming?
This little tempest should remind us that like the rest of us,
renowned climate scientists are people with a normal quotient of
character failings. Albert Einstein reportedly treated his first wife
badly, but that certainly has no bearing on the genius of his
scientific achievements -- any more than Pablo Picasso's private
behavior devalues his astonishing art.
To be sure, the missteps here involve the presentation of the views of
climate-change skeptics; but in the end, those missteps all come down
to instances of overkill, driven presumably by the sense of urgency
felt by the misbehaving scientists. At worst, they mildly
misrepresented some of the evidence offered by the skeptics. And
ultimately, it's all irrelevant scientifically, since the real science
so strongly supports the essential findings that dictate strong
measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
However flawed the private character of these fellows may be, that
doesn't change the following four scientific conclusions: 1)
atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are increasing the
quantity of solar energy striking the earth (or actually, re-striking
the planet) the earth; 2) those increases are slowly raising
temperatures of water and land masses; 3) these temperature increases
affect climate patterns and behavior, with potentially enormous
adverse effects; and 4) the only way we know of to reduce the risks of
those effects is to dramatically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions,
especially through fossil fuel combustion.
This little furor is precisely the kind of "gotcha-moment" that
President Obama and, for that matter, Sarah Plain, warn us about
repeatedly -- seizing on a misstep that has little to do with anything
important in order to distract us from our real challenges.
By Robert J. Shapiro | November 24, 2009; 11:48 AM ET
Reading the claims that some of the main skeptic websites are making
out of these emails, it reminds me of the emails we saw a few months
ago claiming that the Health Care Bill in the house included all sorts
of nasty things; mostly proven false. However, they were able to drum
up opposition to the democrats.
I find in interesting that web sites such as climatedepot.com show
collections of these files, all claiming to be the hijacked emails.
Looking over these files, you get the distinct impression that these
guys are sending and receiving a handful of emails a day. That is
highly unlikely. Any organization today is swamped with email. Those
who released this info have probably done some careful selection of
what they want public. Who knows if the files are seeded with false
information but as is, I would not doubt that the whole theft was
designed to influence votes.
The skeptics are calling this Climategate, and it may turn out that
the result of this really does help the cause; not necessarily the
cause they support.
Posted by: DavidG3 | November 30, 2009 5:03 PM
Deliberate attempts to defraud are not "a minor tempest."
And now the raw data has been destroyed "accidentally" as well. Is
that a minor tempest too?
Tyranny in the 21st century will come from the left, not the right.
You can count on that.
Posted by: etpietro | November 30, 2009 5:03 PM
Do you have any idea who these scientist/propagandist are? They are
the ones giving us the temperature record. Therefore any scientist
using this record makes their conclusions wrong. I could go on and on,
but I'm not going to. If you can read these emails and come away with
your conclusion, I'd be wasting my time. Get a clue.
Posted by: kgrubb2 | November 28, 2009 3:08 AM
I remember reading in my "Weekly Reader" in primary school about
scientists, saying with the equal fervor, that we were headed for a
global ice age. I'm deeply sorry, but I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid
and supporting your effort to turn our society upside-down because of
your computer models. In philosophy we learned that arguments bases on
dogmatism or authority were fallacious. You knew that we cannot wade
through the mountains of so-called data, and that we would have to
rest our minds in your authority as a "scientist," but what you didn't
count on was our incredulity. Why should I believe you?
Posted by: vanhook99 | November 27, 2009 11:57 PM
Your analysis is severely flawed. Allow me to provide a link to an
alternative - and far more accurate analysis of the situation -
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/global-warminggate-what-does-it-mean/
Note, please, that that was based only on the emails. When some of us
had a chance to examine the code/data that was contained in the
released information ,it became obvious that CRU was not only acting
unethically, they were also manipulating the data. Refer to the
following link for more of the manifold ethical/integrity problems
unearthed in those emails:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html
Posted by: Ginny11 | November 25, 2009 5:02 PM
They often work hard to collect it, and it is sometimes a matter of
ownership that they want to publish papers on it themselves.
*******
right, so you admit that scientists are not neutral abiters as much as
self-interested money grubbers sucking off the fat public tit.
in my book, this is right up there with child molesting in the
catholic church
Posted by: dummypants | November 25, 2009 4:28 PM
Albert Einstein reportedly treated his first wife badly, but that
certainly has no bearing on the genius of his scientific achievements
-- any more than Pablo Picasso's private behavior devalues his
astonishing art.
*******
you must think we're pretty stupid. this is effing insulting.
Posted by: dummypants | November 25, 2009 4:25 PM
And ultimately, it's all irrelevant scientifically, since the real
science so strongly supports the essential findings that dictate
strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
*******
too bad nobody believes the "real science" represents reality or rises
to the level of science.
the global warming hoax is blown and you and every other snake oil
salesman should be prosecuted for the money, stress, and political
energy you tricked this country into wasting over the past 10 years.
the history books are going to demonize you people.
Posted by: dummypants | November 25, 2009 4:24 PM
Faldo,
Manipulate data? You have no evidence of that. You only have your
chronically paranoid, desperately-longing-for-a-smoking-gun
interpretation of a harmless line about a "trick" a scientist used to
accomplish an analysis (and that's assuming the email was not
altered). Of course, you and the rest of the attendees at your rabid
denialist orgy have made ZERO attempt to actually understand what they
were talking about. Here's one attempt by someone with a more
objective viewpoint:
http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2009/11/hacked_emails_tree-ring_proxie.php
Withold data from the public? Not exactly. Reading between the lines,
he was probably specifically trying to keep it out of the hands of
Steven McIntyre, who has been known to do dishonest things with data
to try to rile up the skeptics and maintain his status of folk hero
amongst them. Scientists are routinely jealous with their data anyway,
which you would know implicitly if you worked in science. They often
work hard to collect it, and it is sometimes a matter of ownership
that they want to publish papers on it themselves.
That might not be the ideal from the socialist viewpoint - do what's
best for the good of all - though I must comment that it is ironic
that you all are suddenly screaming about the "greater good" when
you've spent your lives on this issue saying "damn the greater good,
I'm keeping my precious SUV" (and countless other manifestations of
such Ayn Rand-ian impulse).
Posted by: B2O2 | November 25, 2009 3:24 PM
Nice try.
I'll bet a few readers followed you down the detour you hastily tried
to erect. That effort largely failed, representing an entirely new
meaning to the expression erectile disfunction.
But I digress.
Characterizing this massive deceit as being nothing more than or
similar to quirks or curious personal peccadilloes distorts the
seriousness of the orchestrated charade and the scope of the
distortion of reality... let alone the reckless abandonment of
scientific principles.
I wonder if there's a RICO statute under the Laws of Science. If not,
there should be. This would be an excellent test case IMHO.
They lied. They covered it up. They are amassing academic and
financial fortunes by manufacturing and maintaining this AGW lie. And
they've been busted. What will justice demand of them?
Posted by: dbsinOakRidge | November 25, 2009 3:21 PM
Stating that this is like Einstein treating his wife badly is absurd.
Changing & hiding indormation & data you don't like is NOT acceptable
in any Discipline !
Posted by: mct1 | November 25, 2009 10:02 AM
Scientist's personal integrity. Manipulation of data to enlighten/
decieve/understand. Peer review. Process integrity. Naw, none of this
has to do with public response.
Posted by: Tamerack | November 25, 2009 6:39 AM
If this was all so simple and settled as you suggest, then why would
scientists have to manipulate data and withhold data from the public?
Why would they have to marginalize people who have differing views and
journals who publish them? Why would they commit crimes by deleting
data requested under the Freedom of Information Act? You have
completely failed to address the issues raised by the emails in your
piece.
Posted by: Faldo | November 24, 2009 4:39 PM
http://views.washingtonpost.com/climate-change/panelists/robert_shapiro/2009/11/a_minor_tempest.html
chhotemianinshallah
Pam Faggert is vice president and chief environmental officer for
Richmond, Va.-based Dominion, one of the nation’s largest energy
companies. She previously was director for Air Division of the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality.
A passionate debate can bring benefits
Q: Given the furor surrounding the pirated e-mails coming out of the
University of East Anglia, what's the real takeaway lesson? Does it
say more about the way renowned climate scientists work, or how
climate skeptics have operated in shaping the public debate over
global warming?
Passion is a good thing when it drives people to work hard and
overcome obstacles. Passion is a bad thing when it causes you to close
your mind to other points of view, no matter how strongly you disagree
with them.
There are plenty of both kinds of passion on each side of the climate
debate. We just happen to be seeing one side's e-mails in this
instance.
My hope is we never get to a point in a scientific debate where there
isn't a place for the "other side." History is full of instances where
we were absolutely sure of something only to find out the opposite was
true.
Those who hold an opposing point of view may cause us puzzlement,
anger and frustration. But, they also can inspire us, energize us and
cause to us to keep asking questions. We just can't let our passion
blind us to those benefits.
By Pam Faggert | November 24, 2009; 11:27 AM ET
pam..."My hope is we never get to a point in a scientific debate where
there isn't a place for the "other side." History is full of instances
where we were absolutely sure of something only to find out the
opposite was true."
this is such a good point, i want to scream it at the top of my lungs!
asking questions and being open to differing points of view is rarely
the norm in acadamia, as you well know
it is highly political for researchers and professors to attain the
holy grail of 'tenure', and some I fear, will do anything to push an
agenda
science is heated debate, passion as you put it, to allow science to
move forward, not name call (e.g. deniers)
does anyone know what the earths 'optimal' temperature is for ALL
lifeforms?
we may need to adjust our lifestyles and move away from coastal areas
(sorry rich folk), because mankind can control climate and the weather
as much as mankind can control earthquakes or volcanoes
one last point...if CO2 is such an ominous pollutant, why aren't we
GIVING clean technology to the developing world to help stem the rise
of CO2 concentrations and reach stabilization decades earlier than
would be achieved with just empty promises?
anyone?
Posted by: waterguruguy | November 24, 2009 6:00 PM
bademiyansubhanallah
Head Strong: Another layer of confusion regarding climate change
By Michael Smerconish - Inquirer
Inquirer Currents Columnist
Am I the only knucklehead or does the emperor of climate change have
no clothes?
Despite a reasonable effort, I don't have it figured out. And I am
dubious as to how so many other nonprofessionals can claim
comprehension of the debate about global warming, especially in the
aftermath of "Climategate," the hacking of thousands of e-mails and
documents from the Climate Research Unit at Britain's University of
East Anglia.
Global warming makes my head spin. I watched Al Gore's movie and read
his book. Both were compelling. But so is much of what has been
written by debunkers, like the Wall Street Journal op-ed last week in
which MIT meteorologist Richard S. Lindzen called claims of global
warming's acceleration "bizarre."
And what about that chapter in the smash book SuperFreakonomics in
which authors Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner explain how the
eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 cooled the planet and temporarily
offset global warming? The explosion, they wrote, shot sulfuric ash
into the sky so powerfully that it created a haze in the stratosphere.
That haze blocked out some sunlight, effectively offsetting the
planet's warming for a few years. Then again, the authors' conclusion
- that perhaps humans could do the same by purposely pumping sulfuric
ash into the sky - left me dubious.
So what to make of it all? And who has time to sort it out? I have
four kids to help raise and several jobs to hold down. What's a
concerned citizen to do?
Well, how about a public trial? The idea was raised, and ridiculed,
not long ago. But I like it.
In August, William Kovacs, a senior vice president at the U.S. Chamber
of Commerce, told the Los Angeles Times he wanted to put "the science
of climate change on trial" in an on-the-record public hearing like
the Scopes monkey trial of 1925.
The Environmental Protection Agency dismissed the notion as a "waste
of time." Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned
Scientists, called it a "cynical request." Sierra Club executive
director Carl Pope said the chamber was "making a fool of itself."
Too bad Kovacs later backed away from the statement, writing that the
Scopes analogy was "inappropriate." (So gun-shy is Kovacs that he
refused to be quoted in this column.)
Those who could heretofore dismiss global warming skeptics as a "world-
is-flat" crowd can no longer afford to remain above the fray.
"Climategate" has damaged the credibility of man-made global-warming
proponents and provided great fodder for cap-and-trade opponents just
as President Obama heads to Copenhagen.
Among the worst of the hacked e-mails: CRU director Phil Jones, forced
to take a temporary leave last week, apparently considered ways to
keep studies skeptical of climate change out of future assessments by
the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. On this
side of the pond, Michael Mann, a Pennsylvania State University
professor now subject to a university inquiry, suggested to Jones that
they advise colleagues to freeze out journals and editors who gave
attention to skeptics' work.
All this on the heels of a Rasmussen analysis released less than two
weeks before "Climategate" that found that nearly half of American
voters (47 percent) believe global warming is caused by planetary
trends, not human activity (37 percent). In April 2008, those figures
were essentially reversed. The percentage of voters who see global
warming as a "very serious" problem had a similarly steep decline over
the same period.
In other words, the timing couldn't have been worse for the
environmentalists. And the reality is that the politics of how to deal
with climate change are as unforgiving, unrelenting, and unmanageable
as ever.
So where to go from here? A formal, legal, on-the-record examination
of the scientific facts of climate change.
I'm not convinced that the leaked e-mails are evidence of a conspiracy
by environmentalists to cook the global-warming books. Penn State's
Mann was right to note that the correspondence was never meant for
public consumption. "We shouldn't expect the sort of refined
statements that scientists make when they're speaking in public," he
said. It's also unfair that the e-mail senders and recipients have
been outed, but the hackers and leakers remain anonymous.
Judith Curry, a climate scientist at Georgia Tech, reminded me in an
interview that although 1,000 scientists from 130 countries
contributed to the U.N. assessment report, the scientists "involved in
this who have maybe said something that looks pretty bad" was closer
to 10. That sounds compelling.
As for the notion that Climategate proves that global warming is an
environmentalist conspiracy, Curry said: "I'm chairman of a department
with 25 faculty members, all bright people. You can't get those 25
people to agree on everything. Trying to get 1,000 scientists from 130
different countries to agree on anything at all, let alone trying to
perpetuate some kind of hoax, is, I would have to say, impossible."
Maybe she's right. But why not find out?
If the science behind the climate-change movement is as firm as
environmentalists claim and the scientific consensus as universal,
you'd think an epic, on-the-record hearing would be a welcome chance
to prove the growing number of skeptics unequivocally wrong.
Contact Michael Smerconish via www.smerconish.com.
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/currents/78621097.html
bademiyansubhanallah
White House scientists defend climate data
Lawmakers pointed to leaked e-mail, saying global-warming findings
should be reexamined.
By Seth Borenstein
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - Top White House science officials defended the validity
of global-warming research against repeated Republican attacks
yesterday that cited leaked e-mail from some climate researchers.
The e-mail messages from a British university's climate center were
obtained by computer hackers and released last month. Climate-change
skeptics contend the messages reveal that researchers manipulated and
suppressed data and stifled dissent.
In the first Capitol Hill airing of the issue, House Republicans read
excerpts from at least eight of the e-mail messages, saying they
showed the world needed to reexamine experts' assertions that the
science is settled. One e-mail from 2003 was by John Holdren, then of
Harvard University and now the president's science adviser.
The brewing controversy led to the resignation this week of Phil
Jones, the head of the climate-research unit at the University of East
Anglia, the source of the e-mail exchanges. The university is
investigating the matter. Pennsylvania State University also is
looking into e-mail by its own researcher Michael Mann. House
Republicans asked for a separate hearing or investigation into the
issue but were rebuffed by Democrats.
"These e-mails show a pattern of suppression, manipulation, and
secrecy that was inspired by ideology, condescension, and profit,"
said Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R., Wis.).
The science is proper and this is about a small fraction of research
on the issue, said Holdren, a physicist who has studied climate
change.
"The e-mails do nothing to undermine the very strong scientific
consensus . . . that tells us the Earth is warming, that warming is
largely a result of human activity," said another government
scientist, Jane Lubchenco. A marine biologist and climate researcher,
she heads the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/78395842.html
bademiyansubhanallah
Mark Alan Hughes: Why Copenhagen matters
By Mark Alan Hughes
Philadelphia Daily News
THIS column is about the importance of "what gets built and how" to
life in Philadelphia. It's a topic that applies to everywhere humans
settle, which makes Philadelphia interesting because our neighborhoods
display ways of building carried from every continent.
But buildings also matter to the world as a whole. The energy wasted
in the location, construction and operation of buildings is a
necessary part of avoiding the costs and potential catastrophe of
climate change in the coming decades. Cities that learn how to turn
that waste into value will be the competitive locations of the very
near future.
Next week, more than 190 nations will gather in Copenhagen, Denmark,
to negotiate the next round of an international treaty known as the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), a
clunky name that explains why the treaty is referred to by the cities
in which each round is negotiated: Kyoto, Japan, Bali, Indonesia, and
now Copenhagen.
Besides to the national delegations and, at last count, more than 60
heads of state, about 20,000 scientists, activists and journalists
will also descend on Copenhagen to release their research and exchange
ideas.
John Byrne of the University of Delaware is one of our region's most
prominent climate scientists and public intellectuals. As a member of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), he shared the
2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore. He is the godfather of Delaware's
Sustainable Energy Utility, the model for a new energy authority that
is an essential part of a smart energy future for Philadelphia.
His Center for Energy and Environmental Policy (CEEP) is a U.N.-
designated observer organization for Copenhagen. My Penn colleague Ali
Malkawi and I are joining the CEEP delegation on a U.N. panel called
"Place-based Decarbonization Strategies: Leadership from Cities."
No one invited me to Bali, home of perhaps the world's most beautiful
women. But Copenhagen, in December, near the Arctic Circle? Sure,
there's a spot on the panel.
After months of nay-saying, it looks like real progress may happen in
Copenhagen. The two most important economies in the world are China
(the largest emitter of greenhouse gases (GHG) and the U.S. (almost
the highest per capita emitter of GHG, Australia just edges us). Much
of China's emissions come from stuff they make for the U.S. market.
In the days before Thanksgiving, both nations announced opening offers
for emission reductions to be negotiated at the talks. While both are
just politically comfortable opening moves, it's significant that all
of the world's largest emitters except India are in the game with
specific reduction offers.
The U.S. offered to commit to reducing its 2020 emissions by 17
percent from 2005 levels. The next day, China offered to reduce its
"carbon intensity" by 45 percent by 2020. That compares with the offer
by the European Union in October to reduce its 2020 levels by 20
percent from 1990s.
These reductions matter because these nations produce 60 percent of
the world's emissions. The International Energy Agency estimates that
China's offer alone would provide a fourth of the reduction needed to
limit the planet's projected temperature rise to 3.6 degrees, the most
widely accepted threshold on where climate change gets dangerous.
So what, how and where we build matters decisively to all this because
that's where the carbon is. According to McKinsey and Co., 60 percent
of the investment needed between now and 2030 to stay under the 3.6-
degree limit is in buildings and transportation, the two things that,
combined with people, create cities.
Buildings are where the fight for energy security, economic advantage
and climate change will be won or lost. Copenhagen is a critical round
in that fight.
Mark Hughes teaches at PennDesign and the TC Chan Center for Energy
Studies.
E- mail mahu...@design.upenn.edu.
He will be blogging live on FLIP video from Copenhagen Dec. 13-18
about issues that most affect Philly: www.planphilly.com.
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/opinion/20091202_Mark_Alan_Hughes__Why_Copenhagen_matters.html'''
bademiyansubhanallah
No: U.S. economic pain, without environmental gain
Ben Lieberman
is a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation
A new global-warming treaty would be all economic pain and little
environmental gain for America even if China and other fast-developing
nations sign on. But if developing nations remain exempted, it would
be all economic pain and no environmental gain. Either way, America
should stay out!
At the United Nations' Conference on Climate Change in Copenhagen this
week, proponents of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol - which expires in 2012 -
will try to hash out a new agreement for lowering carbon dioxide and
other greenhouse-gas emissions. In other words, a new global energy
tax may be in the works.
The United States did not ratify Kyoto, and for good reason. Its
provisions would have cost American consumers trillions, while having
virtually no impact on world temperatures.
Nonetheless, many in the international community want to complete
stringent new post-2012 provisions at Copenhagen, or at least initiate
the process that would lead to such measures. They have also expressed
optimism that the Obama administration would join such an agreement.
However, the United States should follow the policy set out in the
Senate's 1997 Byrd-Hagel resolution and not enter into any global-
warming treaty that harms the American economy or leaves out major
developing nations. The resolution passed, 95-0.
Despite that eminently reasonable resolution, then-Vice President Al
Gore led the U.S. delegation to Kyoto and agreed to a treaty that
violated both provisions.
President Bill Clinton never submitted it for Senate ratification,
knowing that he could not get the two-thirds support needed for a
treaty that so unambiguously flouted Byrd-Hagel. Neither did President
George W. Bush. Nor, for that matter, has President Obama.
The Byrd-Hagel resolution remains in effect and still provides sound
advice as we head into discussions about a post-Kyoto treaty.
A U.S. Energy Information Administration study projected costs of U.S.
compliance with the Kyoto treaty of $100 billion to $397 billion
annually. Any serious attempt to create a new agreement in Copenhagen
would likely be far more expensive.
Proponents of Kyoto described its 5 percent greenhouse-gas emissions
reduction targets as a "modest" step. Now, they say, much tougher -
and costlier - provisions are necessary. Thus the Byrd-Hagel provision
prohibiting economic harm would clearly be violated.
The other provision - that China and other developing nations must
commit to emissions reductions - is also very important. The Byrd-
Hagel resolution warned that "greenhouse gas emissions of developing
country parties are rapidly increasing and are expected to surpass
emissions of the United States and other [developed] countries as
early as 2015." Turns out, that was a Pollyannaish projection.
Emerging nations' emissions began to outpace the developed world's
emissions in 2005. They are projected to continue increasing seven
times faster than in the developed world.
China alone now out-emits the United States. Its emissions growth
through 2030 has been projected to be nine times higher than ours.
In effect, any reduction in emissions from developed nations would be
swamped by growing emissions from developing nations - even more so if
developed-nation constraints shift economic activity to exempted
nations.
With or without America or China, any proposed solution to global
warming makes sense only to the extent global warming is a serious
problem in the first place, and there is growing reason for doubt.
Indeed, since 1997 - the year of Kyoto - world temperatures have been
remarkably flat.
The lack of global warming won't stop global-warming activists in
Copenhagen, but it should stop the U.S. government from embracing an
ineffective solution to an overstated problem.
Contact the writer
at www.heritage.org.
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/currents/78621077.html
chhotemianinshallah
ROW
CLIMATE CHANGE: British scientists face inquiry
Saturday December 5,2009
By Martyn Brown BRITISH scientists are to be investigated by the
United Nations over claims that they manipulated data to support the
theory of global warming, officials said yesterday.
The controversy, which has been dubbed “climategate” or “warmergate”,
was sparked by the publication of hundreds of emails obtained by
hackers from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit.
Sceptics took the emails as proof of a conspiracy to prove climate
change is man-made.
Green campaigners say the row was contrived to undermine negotiations
on reducing carbon emissions due to start in Copenhagen next week.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN body responsible
for reaching a scientific consensus on global warming, initially
defended its procedures in the face of the leaked emails.
But panel chairman Rajendra Pachauri said yesterday: “We will
certainly go into the whole lot and then we will take a position on
it. We certainly don’t want to brush anything under the carpet.”
Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband welcomed the UN’s investigation
but warned against listening to “flat Earth-ers”.
He said: “We need maximum transparency including about all the data
but it’s also very important to say one chain of emails, potentially
misrepresented, does not undo the global science.” He warned that in
the run-up to the talks in Copenhagen there had been attempts to
“throw dust” in people’s eyes over the issue.
He said: “We must resist that and keep listening to the science and
not subscribe to people who are frankly flat Earth-ers.”
The University of East Anglia yesterday announced its own independent
investigation, to be headed by Scottish civil servant Sir Muir
Russell, who is a former vice-chancellor of Glasgow University.
The report will be published by spring next year.
The Climatic Research Unit’s director, Professor Phil Jones, will
stand down while the inquiry takes place but said he “absolutely”
stood by the research the unit has produced.
He labelled suggestions of a conspiracy to alter evidence as “complete
rubbish”.
Norfolk Police are investigating the theft of more than 1,000 emails
sent from or to members of the unit, while threatening emails sent to
Professor Jones in the wake of the leak have also been passed to
detectives.
chhotemianinshallah
The PM has answered questions from young people ahead of the climate
conference
Friday December 4,2009
The Prime Minister has described the climate change challenge as "one
of the great human endeavours of our time".
Gordon Brown joined Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband and UN
Minister Baroness Kinnock to answer questions from young people just
three days before crunch UN climate talks kick off in Copenhagen.
Mr Brown warned the panel of 16 to 25 year-olds that the world was
"only halfway there" in getting agreement on both intermediate targets
and finance for the poorest countries.
He said: "This is perhaps the greatest challenge that we face as a
world. And this is the turning point that can either work for us or it
can fail.
"This is one of the great human endeavours of our time - to bring the
world together to deal with the problem that has been caused
essentially by the richest countries but is now affecting some of the
poorest countries in the world. If we do not act, all of us are going
to be worse off as a result."
The event at the Natural History Museum in London involved around 50
young people from organisations including ActionAid, the National
Union of Students and the UK Youth Climate Coalition.
Action taken unilaterally around the globe is already projected to
take five billion tonnes of greenhouse gasses out of the atmosphere by
2020, he said.
"At the moment all the offers that we've got take us down from the
projected 54 billion tonnes in 2020 to 49 billion.
"So we have got to get down from 49 billion to 44 billion.
"So we are looking for countries in the next few days to make offers
that will get us this extra five billion or five giga-tonnes of
greenhouse gas emissions - and that's a real challenge."
"FLAWED SCIENCE, WHICH THREATENS FUTURE PROSPERITY"
04.12.09, 6:31pm
Note how the left and the green lobby no longer uses the term 'global
warming'. This is due to the not widely publicised fact global
temperatures despite the hysterical and doom-laden predictions,
actually stopped rising at the end of the last century. Current dogma
is based on flawed science, which not only threatens future
prosperity, but also condemn both us and our children to a lower
standard of living.
'Climate Change' is simply an invention to enable central government
can impose new taxes, new surveillance and a further level of
bureaucracy to suit a Socialist totalitarianism of control, repression
and government inferance in every aspect of our lives.
• Posted by: Bill_of_Rights_1689 • Report Comment
"A LOAD OF HOT AIR UNDERPINNED BY FRAUD"
04.12.09, 6:21pm
The respected Professor, Ian Plimer has called the claim that the
planet is threatened by man-made climate change, a “” and condemned
the climate change lobby as “climate comrades” keeping the “gravy
train” going.
Prof Plimer has echoed BNP leader Nick Griffin’s speech to the
European Parliament in Strasbourg last week, claiming that Governments
were treating the public like “fools” and using climate change to
increase taxes.
He said carbon dioxide has had no impact on temperature and that
recent warming was part of the natural cycle of climate stretching
over billions of years.
In a speech in London, Prof Plimer told his audience:
“Climates always change. They always have and they always will. They
are driven by a number of factors that are random and cyclical.”
His comments came days after it emerged, through the leak of emails
from the world-leading research unit at the University of East Anglia,
that scientists had been massaging data to prove that global warming
was taking place.
The Climate Research Unit admitted getting rid of much of its raw
climate data, which means other scientists cannot check the subsequent
research, and the head of the CRU Professor Phil Jones, has since
stood down.
• Posted by: Bill_of_Rights_1689 • Report Comment
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/144106/Climate-change-greatest-challenge-
Sid Harth
By TOM ZELLER Jr.
Published: December 6, 2009
COPENHAGEN — At an abandoned beer warehouse in this city’s Valby
district, law enforcement officials have constructed an elaborate
holding facility with three dozen steel cages to accommodate over 350
potential troublemakers during a United Nations climate conference
that gets under way here on Monday.
Critics call the holding pens — and a range of other security
preparations made as thousands of government officials, heads of
state, environmental groups and assorted anarchists descend on the
Danish capital — over the top. The police say the detractors’
reactions are overheated, if predictable.
"This is surely the biggest police action we have ever had in Danish
history," said Per Larsen, the chief coordinating officer for the
Copenhagen police force. "But I think the complaints are the kind we
are very used to hearing in this country."
Officials have made it clear that they aim to keep the peace during
the 12-day conference, organized under United Nations’ auspices. From
new laws rushed through Parliament allowing stiffer fines and extended
detentions for those deemed unruly, to public displays of newly
acquired anti-riot and emergency equipment, leaders here say they are
preparing for the worst while hoping for the best. Meanwhile, a
variety of protest and advocacy groups — some with obscure political
lineage — have signaled in online postings and other public statements
that they will not be cooperating.
Mr. Larsen said that about $122 million was being spent to secure the
city and to fortify the Bella Center, a sprawling site southeast of
central Copenhagen where more than 15,000 negotiators and onlookers
will gather to forge the framework for an agreement to address climate
change.
High steel fences atop concrete barricades surround the Bella Center,
and vehicles can enter only through a couple of well-armed police
checkpoints. The southern reaches of the Inderhavnen, or inner harbor,
canal, which runs just west of the Bella Center, are embroidered with
concertina wire to prevent access by water.
Germany and Sweden have contributed support in the form of vehicles
and bomb-sniffing dogs, and Denmark has received permission from the
European Commission, the executive body for the European Union
countries, to re-introduce border checkpoints should it be necessary
on roads entering the country.
On Thursday, police set a car ablaze in a dramatic demonstration of a
newly acquired water cannon that is also capable of dispersing crowds.
Police officers from various parts of Denmark have been reassigned to
Copenhagen, bringing the force here to somewhere in the vicinity of
6,500 officers, or more than half of the nation’s police corps.
In a reflection of security concerns, the police briefly restricted
access to the Bella Center on Sunday as journalists arrived for a news
conference. An officer who would not give his name said the police
were scrutinizing a suspicious object to make sure it was not a bomb.
It proved to be a suitcase filled with clothes.
Members of some human rights and environmental groups have complained
that the show of force could keep peaceful demonstrators at home.
"Obviously, the police have to be ready for whatever might occur,"
said Lene Vennits, general secretary for People’s Climate Action, an
umbrella organization representing dozens of Danish environmental and
advocacy groups planning activities, including a long march from the
city center to the United Nations meeting venue on Dec. 12.
"On the other hand," Ms. Vennits said, "we think the rhetoric with
pictures of the new water cannon and the fires is too much, and we are
afraid that the ordinary Danish demonstrator will be frightened
away."
Demonstrations like the Dec. 12 march are permitted by the police and
will unfold at pre-approved sites or along specified routes. More
spontaneous gatherings will also be tolerated, although the police
issued a statement in August effectively banning open-air meetings
that "may constitute a danger to the public order."
The memo also stipulated that participants in public demonstrations
"are not allowed to conceal their faces in whole or in part with a
hood, a mask, paint, or similar in a manner which is likely to prevent
identification."
Despite the strict rules, several organizations are promising to test
Copenhagen’s definition of law and order. An organization called
Climate Justice Action has announced plans to penetrate the Bella
Center and "take over the conference for one day and transform it into
a Peoples Assembly," according to a statement on the group’s Web
site.
Another, murkier organization called Never Trust a COP — a reference
to the 15th Conference of the Parties, or COP15, the official name of
the United Nations meeting — promises at its Web site that members
will "consciously attack the structures supporting the COP15" and
"break through the lines of their police."
Mr. Larsen said his officers would have low tolerance for behavior
that deviates from "Danish society as we prefer it to be."
Police will be helped in that regard by new laws that let them arrest
and hold people charged with "hindering the police" for up to 40 days.
Other protesters deemed to be a problem can be held for 12 hours
without a formal charge, up from six hours before the new law was
passed.
"The law is too harsh," said Karen Hækkerup, a Social Democrat who
serves in the Danish parliament. "It will impact a lot of innocent
people."
Most short-term detainees will pass through the holding facility at
the former Carlsberg beer depot, designed to process up to 1,000
people over a 24-hour period. Ida Thuesen, a spokeswoman for the human
rights group Amnesty Denmark, called that plan inhumane.
"International standards require that people being arrested are not
humiliated, that they should have room to lie down and sleep and go to
the toilet," Ms. Thuesen said. "These cages are not good enough."
Mr. Larsen said that each of the 10-person holding pens, while not
luxurious, was in keeping with all international conventions.
He emphasized that the police would allow all comers to express
themselves peacefully on the issue of climate change — or whatever
else is on their minds — during what is likely be a political circus
over the next two weeks.
But those looking to stir discord on the streets or to commandeer the
United Nations proceedings should think twice, Mr. Larsen warned.
"If you listen to their announcements, they say they want to enter the
Bella Center on the 16th to make a speech on the negotiation floor,"
he said. "I can only say that they will not be able to enter the Bella
Center."
Lars Kroldrup contributed reporting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/science/earth/07security.html?hp
Sid Harth
Will Big Business Save the Earth?
By JARED DIAMOND
Published: December 5, 2009
Los Angeles
THERE is a widespread view, particularly among environmentalists and
liberals, that big businesses are environmentally destructive, greedy,
evil and driven by short-term profits. I know — because I used to
share that view.
But today I have more nuanced feelings. Over the years I’ve joined the
boards of two environmental groups, the World Wildlife Fund and
Conservation International, serving alongside many business
executives.
As part of my board work, I have been asked to assess the environments
in oil fields, and have had frank discussions with oil company
employees at all levels. I’ve also worked with executives of mining,
retail, logging and financial services companies. I’ve discovered that
while some businesses are indeed as destructive as many suspect,
others are among the world’s strongest positive forces for
environmental sustainability.
The embrace of environmental concerns by chief executives has
accelerated recently for several reasons. Lower consumption of
environmental resources saves money in the short run. Maintaining
sustainable resource levels and not polluting saves money in the long
run. And a clean image — one attained by, say, avoiding oil spills and
other environmental disasters — reduces criticism from employees,
consumers and government.
What’s my evidence for this? Here are a few examples involving three
corporations — Wal-Mart, Coca-Cola and Chevron — that many critics of
business love to hate, in my opinion, unjustly.
Let’s start with Wal-Mart. Obviously, a business can save money by
finding ways to spend less while maintaining sales. This is what Wal-
Mart did with fuel costs, which the company reduced by $26 million per
year simply by changing the way it managed its enormous truck fleet.
Instead of running a truck’s engine all night to heat or cool the cab
during mandatory 10-hour rest stops, the company installed small
auxiliary power units to do the job. In addition to lowering fuel
costs, the move eliminated the carbon dioxide emissions equivalent to
taking 18,300 passenger vehicles off the road.
Wal-Mart is also working to double the fuel efficiency of its truck
fleet by 2015, thereby saving more than $200 million a year at the
pump. Among the efficient prototypes now being tested are trucks that
burn biofuels generated from waste grease at Wal-Mart’s delis.
Similarly, as the country’s biggest private user of electricity, Wal-
Mart is saving money by decreasing store energy use.
Another Wal-Mart example involves lowering costs associated with
packaging materials. Wal-Mart now sells only concentrated liquid
laundry detergents in North America, which has reduced the size of
packaging by up to 50 percent. Wal-Mart stores also have machines
called bailers that recycle plastics that once would have been
discarded. Wal-Mart’s eventual goal is to end up with no packaging
waste.
One last Wal-Mart example shows how a company can save money in the
long run by buying from sustainably managed sources. Because most wild
fisheries are managed unsustainably, prices for Chilean sea bass and
Atlantic tuna have been soaring. To my pleasant astonishment, in 2006
Wal-Mart decided to switch, within five years, all its purchases of
wild-caught seafood to fisheries certified as sustainable.
Coca-Cola’s problems are different from Wal-Mart’s in that they are
largely long-term. The key ingredient in Coke products is water. The
company produces its beverages in about 200 countries through local
franchises, all of which require a reliable local supply of clean
fresh water.
But water supplies are under severe pressure around the world, with
most already allocated for human use. The little remaining unallocated
fresh water is in remote areas unsuitable for beverage factories, like
Arctic Russia and northwestern Australia.
Coca-Cola can’t meet its water needs just by desalinizing seawater,
because that requires energy, which is also increasingly expensive.
Global climate change is making water scarcer, especially in the
densely populated temperate-zone countries, like the United States,
that are Coca-Cola’s main customers. Most competing water use around
the world is for agriculture, which presents sustainability problems
of its own.
Hence Coca-Cola’s survival compels it to be deeply concerned with
problems of water scarcity, energy, climate change and agriculture.
One company goal is to make its plants water-neutral, returning to the
environment water in quantities equal to the amount used in beverages
and their production. Another goal is to work on the conservation of
seven of the world’s river basins, including the Rio Grande, Yangtze,
Mekong and Danube — all of them sites of major environmental concerns
besides supplying water for Coca-Cola.
These long-term goals are in addition to Coca-Cola’s short-term cost-
saving environmental practices, like recycling plastic bottles,
replacing petroleum-based plastic in bottles with organic material,
reducing energy consumption and increasing sales volume while
decreasing water use.
The third company is Chevron. Not even in any national park have I
seen such rigorous environmental protection as I encountered in five
visits to new Chevron-managed oil fields in Papua New Guinea. (Chevron
has since sold its stake in these properties to a New Guinea-based oil
company.) When I asked how a publicly traded company could justify to
its shareholders its expenditures on the environment, Chevron
employees and executives gave me at least five reasons.
First, oil spills can be horribly expensive: it is far cheaper to
prevent them than to clean them up. Second, clean practices reduce the
risk that New Guinean landowners become angry, sue for damages and
close the fields. (The company has been sued for problems in Ecuador
that Chevron inherited when it merged with Texaco in 2001.) Next,
environmental standards are becoming stricter around the world, so
building clean facilities now minimizes having to do expensive
retrofitting later.
Also, clean operations in one country give a company an advantage in
bidding on leases in other countries. Finally, environmental practices
of which employees are proud improve morale, help with recruitment and
increase the length of time employees are likely to remain at the
company.
In view of all those advantages that businesses gain from
environmentally sustainable policies, why do such policies face
resistance from some businesses and many politicians? The objections
often take the form of one-liners.
• We have to balance the environment against the economy. The
assumption underlying this statement is that measures promoting
environmental sustainability inevitably yield a net economic cost
rather than a profit. This line of thinking turns the truth upside
down. Economic reasons furnish the strongest motives for
sustainability, because in the long run (and often in the short run as
well) it is much more expensive and difficult to try to fix problems,
environmental or otherwise, than to avoid them at the outset.
Americans learned that lesson from Hurricane Katrina in August 2005,
when, as a result of government agencies balking for a decade at
spending several hundred million dollars to fix New Orleans’s
defenses, we suffered hundreds of billions of dollars in damage — not
to mention thousands of dead Americans. Likewise, John Holdren, the
top White House science adviser, estimates that solving problems of
climate change would cost the United States 2 percent of our gross
domestic product by the year 2050, but that not solving those problems
would damage the economy by 20 percent to 30 percent of G.D.P.
• Technology will solve our problems. Yes, technology can contribute
to solving problems. But major technological advances require years to
develop and put in place, and regularly turn out to have unanticipated
side effects — consider the destruction of the atmosphere’s ozone
layer by the nontoxic, nonflammable chlorofluorocarbons initially
hailed for replacing poisonous refrigerant gases.
• World population growth is leveling off and won’t be the problem
that we used to fear. It’s true that the rate of world population
growth has been decreasing. However, the real problem isn’t people
themselves, but the resources that people consume and the waste that
they produce. Per-person average consumption rates and waste
production rates, now 32 times higher in rich countries than in poor
ones, are rising steeply around the world, as developing countries
emulate industrialized nations’ lifestyles.
• It’s futile to preach to us Americans about lowering our standard of
living: we will never sacrifice just so other people can raise their
standard of living. This conflates consumption rates with standards of
living: they are only loosely correlated, because so much of our
consumption is wasteful and doesn’t contribute to our quality of life.
Once basic needs are met, increasing consumption often doesn’t
increase happiness.
Replacing a car that gets 15 miles per gallon with a more efficient
model wouldn’t lower one’s standard of living, but would help improve
all of our lives by reducing the political and military consequences
of our dependence on imported oil. Western Europeans have lower per-
capita consumption rates than Americans, but enjoy a higher standard
of living as measured by access to medical care, financial security
after retirement, infant mortality, life expectancy, literacy and
public transport.
NOT surprisingly, the problem of climate change has attracted its own
particular crop of objections.
• Even experts disagree about the reality of climate change. That was
true 30 years ago, and some experts still disagreed a decade ago.
Today, virtually every climatologist agrees that average global
temperatures, warming rates and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are
higher than at any time in the earth’s recent past, and that the main
cause is greenhouse gas emissions by humans. Instead, the questions
still being debated concern whether average global temperatures will
increase by 13 degrees or “only” by 4 degrees Fahrenheit by 2050, and
whether humans account for 90 percent or “only” 85 percent of the
global warming trend.
• The magnitude and cause of global climate change are uncertain. We
shouldn’t adopt expensive countermeasures until we have certainty. In
other spheres of life — picking a spouse, educating our children,
buying life insurance and stocks, avoiding cancer and so on — we admit
that certainty is unattainable, and that we must decide as best we can
on the basis of available evidence. Why should the impossible quest
for certainty paralyze us solely about acting on climate change? As
Mr. Holdren, the White House adviser, expressed it, not acting on
climate change would be like being “in a car with bad brakes driving
toward a cliff in the fog.”
• Global warming will be good for us, by letting us grow crops in
places formerly too cold for agriculture. The term “global warming” is
a misnomer; we should instead talk about global climate change, which
isn’t uniform. The global average temperature is indeed rising, but
many areas are becoming drier, and frequencies of droughts, floods and
other extreme weather events are increasing. Some areas will be
winners, while others will be losers. Most of us will be losers,
because the temperate zones where most people live are becoming drier.
•It’s useless for the United States to act on climate change, when we
don’t know what China will do. Actually, China will arrive at this
week’s Copenhagen climate change negotiations with a whole package of
measures to reduce its “carbon intensity.”
While the United States is dithering about long-distance energy
transmission from our rural areas with the highest potential for wind
energy generation to our urban areas with the highest need for energy,
China is far ahead of us. It is developing ultra-high-voltage
transmission lines from wind and solar generation sites in rural
western China to cities in eastern China. If America doesn’t act to
develop innovative energy technology, we will lose the green jobs
competition not only to Finland and Germany (as we are now) but also
to China.
On each of these issues, American businesses are going to play as much
or more of a role in our progress as the government. And this isn’t a
bad thing, as corporations know they have a lot to gain by
establishing environmentally friendly business practices.
My friends in the business world keep telling me that Washington can
help on two fronts: by investing in green research, offering tax
incentives and passing cap-and-trade legislation; and by setting and
enforcing tough standards to ensure that companies with cheap, dirty
standards don’t have a competitive advantage over those businesses
protecting the environment. As for the rest of us, we should get over
the misimpression that American business cares only about immediate
profits, and we should reward companies that work to keep the planet
healthy.
Jared Diamond, a professor of geography at the University of
California at Los Angeles, is the author of “Guns, Germs and Steel”
and “Collapse.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/opinion/06diamond.html?em=&pagewanted=all
Sid Harth
U.N. Environment Chief Calls on China and U.S. to Raise Offers
By JAMES KANTER
James Kanter/IHT
Achim Steiner, the executive director of the United Nations
Environment Program, and Satinder Bindra, the director of
communications for the organization, aboard the Climate Express to
Copenhagen on Saturday.
Achim Steiner, the head of the United Nations Environment Program,
warned on Saturday that the United States was among countries that
needed to make additional commitments at the Copenhagen climate
conference that kicks-off on Monday. Otherwise, he said, momentum to
agree a new deal to curb climate change could falter.
In an interview on board the Climate Express, a special train service
that delivered a variety of European officials and environmental
groups from Brussels to Copenhagen, Mr. Steiner said the decision by
President Barack Obama to attend the conference during its closing
days had definitively turned the event into “a heads-of-state summit
and perhaps the largest of its kind on the environment.”
He said an offer by Brazil had been “inspiring” and he praised a
commitment by Indonesia. But he said that offers by China and India
showed that negotiators from those countries remained “more guarded.”
Commenting on the United States and China, he said: “I still think the
numbers put forward by some countries are not the ceiling, they are
more like the floor, of what they can offer.”
Mr. Steiner also warned wealthy industrialized countries to come up
with an adequate financing package for poorer countries or risk a
public backlash in Copenhagen. “Developing countries cannot end up
with obligations and no support,” he said.
A failure by rich world nations to help poor nations adapt to climate
change and finance a transition to cleaner energy would “create a very
emotional context for Copenhagen that if not handled with sensitivity
could derail the summit as well,” he said.
Mr. Steiner said the European Union could play an instrumental role in
helping to prevent that scenario in coming days by putting a figure on
the table for the amount of money the bloc would be willing to
contribute to a global climate fund totaling about 100 billion euros.
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/un-environment-chief-calls-on-china-us-to-raise-offers/
Sid Harth
By TOM ZELLER Jr.
Published: December 5, 2009
With the scientific consensus more or less settled that human activity
— the burning of fossil fuels, torching of forests, and so forth — is
contributing to a warmer and less hospitable planet, one might
reasonably ask, why is it so hard to agree on a plan to curb those
activities?
The answer lies with the many fault lines that cut through the debate
over climate change. Those deep divisions will be on display beginning
this week as representatives of 192 nations gather in Copenhagen for a
United Nations conference on the issue.
Organizers had hoped to emerge with an international compact to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and help countries most threatened by rising
sea waters and temperatures. But the divisions between nations are
such that world leaders agreed last month to put off resolving the
most contentious issues until next year. They will try instead to
reach a nonbinding interim agreement in Copenhagen, then work toward a
binding treaty in 2010.
Just what will happen, of course, remains to be seen. Here’s a primer
on some of the major themes and fissures:
RICH NATIONS VS. POOR NATIONS
Who should pay whom for what — and how much?
The Bolivias and Chads and Mauritanias of the world argue that they
are more vulnerable to changes in temperature, and have little or no
resources to adapt to changes in the growing seasons or increased
rainfall or — worst case — to relocate large numbers of people.
They want the rich world to commit to far deeper emissions cuts than
they already have, and to provide them with cash and technology so
they can prepare for the worst and develop a clean energy
infrastructure for themselves.
The rich world, meanwhile, is busy trying to figure out just how to
calculate the cost of all this (estimates run into the trillions of
dollars), and how to divvy up the bill.
DEVELOPED VS. DEVELOPING ECONOMIES
This is where postindustrial economies like the United States and
Europe, which became prosperous by burning carbon-dioxide-spewing
fossil fuels, face off against industrializing economies like China,
Brazil and India, which resent pressure to decarbonize their energy
systems now that they are growing.
The standoff between China and the United States underscores the
issues. The global trade rivals were reluctant to commit to emissions
targets until each had an idea of what the other planned. The two
countries together are responsible for 40 percent of the world’s
greenhouse gas emissions. But all players have been eyeing each other
warily.
In recent weeks, bidding has begun, with Brazil, then the United
States, followed by China and, last week, India, offering up
individual emissions goals. But they have used different baselines
against which to measure their reductions, making it difficult to
determine whether there is parity.
ISLAND AND COASTAL NATIONS VS. THE CLOCK
In mid-October, ministers of the government of the Maldives, a low-
lying island nation in the Indian Ocean, donned scuba gear and held a
30-minute cabinet meeting underwater off the coast of the capital,
Malé.
The stunt was designed to highlight the nation’s plight — and that of
three-dozen or so other small island and coastal countries — should
global warming raise sea levels in the coming decades. Even a modest
increase could leave a number of low-lying nations uninhabitable.
As a bloc, these countries have been lobbying for an international
agreement to keep average temperatures from rising beyond 1.5 degrees
Celsius — or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit. They also want global emissions
scaled back by as much as 85 percent by midcentury.
The bloc, which includes a wide range of economies, from relatively
well-to-do Singapore to strugglers like Haiti, wins points for being
at the front lines of a planetary problem, but its political clout at
the negotiating table is uncertain.
EUROPE VS. EUROPE
Even though the European Union has been at the vanguard of renewable
energy development and emissions reduction through its carbon trading
scheme, it is struggling internally over each nation’s carbon quotas,
assistance to developing countries and fidelity to the emissions
reductions agreed to in 1997 under the Kyoto Protocol.
While Europe as a whole is on track to meet its goal of an 8 percent
reduction over 1990 emissions levels by 2012, not every country has
pulled its weight. Nations unlikely to meet their individual Kyoto
targets include Italy, Spain and, yes, Denmark, host of the Copenhagen
talks.
Poland and Estonia, meanwhile, have been bickering with the European
Commission over the amount of carbon dioxide the two countries should
be allowed to emit. Both rely heavily on coal for electricity.
OPEC VS. CLEAN TECH
Oil-producing nations are worried about the impact of a global climate
deal, and they have increasingly argued that any agreement that would
reduce reliance on fossil fuels should include compensation for their
lost revenues.
Saudi Arabia has spearheaded this argument, and while environmental
groups and other stakeholders have dismissed the notion as a stunt,
oil producers are not without the ability to muddle negotiations if
push comes to shove.
Meanwhile, developers of wind, solar and other renewable technologies
anticipate a windfall if the community of nations — including mega-
polluters like the United States — agree to a binding climate treaty.
So, too, do global banks, which would presumably do handsomely through
an expanded carbon trading market.
Lobbyists from all sides will be wining and dining delegates over the
next two weeks.
CARBON TAXERS VS. CARBON TRADERS
Many experts argue that the only way to tackle climate change is to
put a price on carbon. Some say the best way to do that is to create a
cap-and-trade system, in which industries are issued permits to emit
carbon dioxide up to a certain level, or cap. Companies that emit
below the cap can then sell their permits on a carbon market, where
companies exceeding the cap will, presumably, buy them so they can
continue to pollute. The total number of permits would not exceed an
overall emissions target.
Europe has had an emissions trading scheme since 2005. Some critics
argue, however, that such systems are unnecessarily complicated and
prone to manipulation. A simpler solution would be a tax on carbon,
they say.
But with a cap-and-trade scheme forming the bedrock of negotiations in
Copenhagen, and among legislators in Congress seeking to pass national
climate legislation, the carbon-tax camp has been increasingly
marginalized.
EMERGENCY VS. WE’LL FIGURE IT OUT
The idea that human beings are nudging the planet’s thermostat upward
is widely accepted among climatologists. But just how rapidly things
are changing, to what extent and where — and at what threshold, if
any, should we abandon all hope — are far less settled questions.
In 2008, the NASA scientist and global warming guru James Hansen
identified 350 parts per million as the upper limit for safe
atmospheric carbon concentration. Current levels are approaching 390
parts per million.
Others argue that there is no reason for panic — nor for what they say
is an economy-crushing global climate treaty. They are putting their
faith in human ingenuity, arguing that planetary-scale engineering
projects like blasting seawater into the atmosphere to increase the
heat reflectivity of certain clouds (yes, that’s a real idea), will
eventually solve the problem.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/weekinreview/06zeller.html?hp=&pagewanted=all