Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Climate change panel more feels than science- UN review suggests



(World Tainted Green)

Article by Marc Aupiais

For source quotes and analysis see

SACNS Quotes Analysis

Climate (gate) panel needs serious changes- review states the obvious:MONDAY, AUGUST 30, 2010

Feel free to discuss this article at our environmental service's forum at our interactive service:

http://wiki.portal.scripturelink.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=2



The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which controversially shared the Nobel Prize, with former US Vice President Al Gore, has been slapped with an UN requested review. Al Gore whose climate change documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" has since been found to hold faulty science, such as in the Hockey Stick Graph, has also recently come under heavy scrutiny, causing two major sources of press releases and information on Climate Change theories to have been called into question. An in-house United Nations (UN) review of practices of the IPCC, has called for clear procedures, shorter terms, a formal structure, more scientific methods, and other procedural and structural changes. It especially asked for strict procedures on conflicts of interest.

Scholarly concerns about vagueness of guidelines on source materials were also cited.

Investigations by the British press, have found that the IPCC:


  • - has cited an unpublished study to claim that natural disasters were caused by alleged climate change, the study changed its finding before being published, under peer review.
  • - cited an article on deforestation, to claim that climate change would affect forest growth, when the paper dealt clearly with direct deforestation and not the affect of climate on trees.
  • - Quoted a press release by the WWF (World Wildlife Fund), an environmental special interests promotion group, as a source.
  • - Quoted a hiking magazine on glaciers.
  • - Referenced a local Indian magazine, which quoted a scientist as saying that the glaciers of the Himalayas which support one billion people, would disappear by the year 2035:
    • -- an incorrect statistic, but reportedly correctly attributed to the scientist,
    • --however, the IPCC, attributed the article to American magazine New Scientist, instead of local Indian press.
      • ---The given scientist seemingly has an interesting monetary relationship to the climate change enriched IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri.
  • - Admitted in response to them that the Himalayas glaciers will not disappear by 2035, according to scientists, the Himalayas ice won't even disappear by 2350.

While the University of East Anglia, at the centre of what media labelled Climate Gate for lack of imagination:


  • - has admitted, in response to an Access to Information request that its temperature data, which through years of study is said to show an increase in global temperatures, does not exist: rather, the original data was tossed years ago when the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) moved building decades ago. The data from around the world, was homogenized: adapted due to how it was collected, in accordance with the bias of those homogenizing it.

    • --Thus, the greatest body of proof of rising temperatures, correlating with carbon levels in ice caps, cannot be verified by independent review.
  • - has come under fire, along with global scientists connected with the IPCC, for emails, which the Daily Mail alleges were likely hacked by Chinese government hackers, which reportedly show conspiracy to skew the peer review process, and prevent any scientific scepticism from being published.

One estimate has about 75% of scientific papers supporting the theory that climate change is majority caused by greenhouse gas emissions, while about 25% cite other possible alternative causes.

Some sceptics cite the theory of natural causes, relying on historic records, to claim that during the Middle ages, Europe was much hotter than today. Others link rises in temperature to the sun. When Galileo Galilei, first spotted "sun spots", this was followed by a period when there were none for years, and by a reduction in global temperature by about 2 percent, causing some to fear that astronomical or solar events may be partially responsible for claimed rises in temperatures. Other sceptics have pointed to a lack in rises in temperatures over recent years.

Sceptics, in comparison to deniers, are scientific in nature, these are mostly the sort who would prefer additional research be done both into the claims of a strong Greenhouse Effect, and into alternative theories, to strengthen or show false the currently weakened case that certain gases have a greenhouse effect on a planetary scale.


Another possible cause cited is urbanization, which upsets natural soil environments, which have different claimed effects on local temperatures, as well as the effect of concrete and steel and glass on temperatures. While the effects on carbon dioxide in the lab on a small scale are indisputable, it is still not confirmed what effect slight additions to the carbon dioxide on the global scale have.

It is this bundle of questions, which have caused politicians to shy away from any drastic action on climate change, accompanied with the secretiveness and political language of the climate change movement. The politicization of climate change, as a platform for the far left, including those supporting reductions in human population, and those advocating taxes on rich nations to support poorer nations, has also given those who choose not to act further ammunition.

Projects such as one by the European Union, seemingly to study global temperatures and ice bodies, and other more modern projects, may start to rebuild the case for anthropological climate change theory. However, the damage done by the IPCC, and by individuals such as Al Gore, is very serious. Links between the head of the IPCC, which really is an informal committee set up to aid climate treaties; and his massive consulting business ventures have also not helped. That Al Gore, whose Inconvenient Truth movie was widely publicized by enviromentalists, inconvenient: was his movie's incorrect portrayal of climate data, has also been substantially enriched by his views.

While climate change research has been pushed back to its infancy by revelations of lost data, and of politicization, if the new UN recommendations are implemented, and implicated scientists replaced, much can be done to encourage action on possible climate ramifications.

The UN review, which focussed on procedure not function, according to French Government service AFP, called the IPCC largely successful.







South African Catholic News Service: Twitter|Facebook|Facebook Discuss|CAF|YouTube|UStream News|UStream Editorial | Email



As an internationally collaborative: initiative to provide a more transparent, accurate view of the world: This service is brought to you by the Scripturelink Search Engine (quotations, or confers in this service/initiative, are provided to give perspective independently, or reference some external sources: and do not imply collaboration, or any kind of affiliation, or co-operation with other services, or initiatives, which are quoted or noted in articles)



Check the accuracy, and perspectives of our contents via the above listed search engine: against other "Catholic" services

Monday, August 30, 2010

Nobel Prize winner, Barack Obama defends environmentally shameful oil policies

Article by Marc Aupiais


Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Speaking to NBC Nightly News, in the occasion of a speech he gave to New Orleans, commemorating the disastrous response of George W. Bush to the Katrina hurricane disaster, Barack Obama took the opportunity, to justify his response to the Oil leak, noting: that the burning of oil, etc had prevented it from coming ashore, and fully defending his and BP's response.

According to British service Reuters, and those concerned with oceanography:

"The Exxon Valdez accident in Alaska in 1989 spilled around 10 million gallons.

Simon Boxall, an expert at Britain's National Oceanography Center who has helped analyze various major oil spill cleanups, said several detailed experiments had been conducted since the Exxon Valdez spill, looking at areas that were left alone, as well as at areas cleaned up chemically or mechanically.

"The chemically cleaned up areas have taken the longest to recover and they are still damaged," Boxall said. "The areas that were left alone actually recovered much quicker."

Some 10,000 people were flown in to deal with the Exxon Valdez spill, and Boxall said scientists now wondered whether the "cleanup town" that grew up around it caused more environmental damage than the oil itself.

Christoph Gertler of Bangor University, who has been studying various potential bacterial remedies for oil spills, said reports by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration suggested that dispersants were "changing the nature of the oil in a very unfavorable way," making it more difficult for naturally occurring marine bacteria to break it down.

Boxall said it was important to remember that oil coming from the BP well was a light crude that would break down and evaporate fairly quickly when it came to the surface.

He said there were three golden rules of oil spills:

"The first is don't spill it in the first place: the second is, if you do spill it, try and pick it up as quickly and easily as possible," he said. "And the third is that in the open ocean, the best thing to do is leave well alone. Unfortunately, politically that always looks like a cop-out."

Scientists agreed that the wetlands of Louisiana were the most sensitive areas at risk, but said that here again a light touch might be the safest solution.

"The more delicate an area is -- and many of these areas around the Gulf coast are very delicate -- the more significant is the risk of making things worse by acting," said Preston. "A rather gung-ho attitude to the cleanup could end up doing more damage than if it had simply been left alone.""
Kate Kelland, Health and Science Correspondent of Reuters (British Based; Independent of the government; Secular/general interests coverage) Editing by Maggie Fox and Tim Pearce of the same service
28 / 06 | June / 2010

Obama shelved regulations which would have insured stricter control of drilling. BP, was not itself responsible for the oil spill, although legally it likely is, rather, a foreign firm it sublet to was the one which was in control of the vessel at the time of the disaster. The US president then attempted seemingly unsuccessfully for a moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, despite the local economy being reliant on the oil industry, the other major industry of fishing, having been destroyed by the oil spill and human interventions.






South African Catholic News Service: Twitter|Facebook|Facebook Discuss|CAF|YouTube|UStream News|UStream Editorial | Email



As an internationally collaborative: initiative to provide a more transparent, accurate view of the world: This service is brought to you by the Scripturelink Search Engine (quotations, or confers in this service/initiative, are provided to give perspective independently, or reference some external sources: and do not imply collaboration, or any kind of affiliation, or co-operation with other services, or initiatives, which are quoted or noted in articles)



Check the accuracy, and perspectives of our contents via the above listed search engine: against other "Catholic" services

SACNS News Service

Scripturelink Latest!