ENVIRONMENT/NATURE

 November - December 2011

 

COP 17 - A Conference of Parties, A World of Disparities

 

COP 17 AT DURBAN

The left is perpetually seeking a way to seize more control of the economy and derail capitalist industrialization. Global warming appeared to be such a convenience, which is why they seized hold of it so quickly and firmly, and sought a rush to judgement before the facts were in.

Who can forget that pompous, sanctimonious, scientifically illiterate, blowhard Al Gore declaring "the science is settled?" At that moment, even though I wasn't then that versed in climate science, I was certain that it wasn't, just by the way he insisted. "Methinks he doth protest too much." It must be disconcerting for him to look in a mirror (while applying his makeup) and see a fool; he was used by environmental radicals for their own ends.

Fortunately, the "deniers" (read: properly skeptical scientific literates) delayed massive, expensive government interactions while the science was further explored. With the recent abandonment of the "consensus" by many scientists, the whole scheme is unraveling.

Don't let down your guard, though. In a couple of years, the left will be predicting some other catastrophe as an excuse to kill the energy industry, tax the Internet, repress free speech, or something 

Read the article  WALL STREET JOURNAL/The Great Global Warming Fizzle

<>

No,no,no! Global warming is real! So what if a few facts and figures were fudged? Man is raping the planet with his quest for riches, and stuff (except my iPad). So how could it be anything but true? The seriousness of the charges warrants spending this kind of money on these good scientists so that they can keep their studies, livelihood, and prestige going. There, I feel so much better having got that off my chest. Who's up for a Starbucks? We can take my Suburban.

Read the article  WALL STREET JOURNAL/The Great Global Warming Fizzle

<>

Funny that everyone wants to throw "science" under the bus and this article somehow infers that global warming alarmist act like it is religion. Religion is based on faith and not science. Global warming denial is also based on faith and not science. At least be honest and call global warming an issue not worth the money to address no matter what the consequences. If you are right and and we waste 1% of gdp what a shame. If you are wrong then explain to your grandkids about how it was all worth getting to drive that Suburban to Starbucks.

Read the article  WALL STREET JOURNAL/The Great Global Warming Fizzle

 

Mr. Stephens promotes a view, not an argument. He prefers to focus on a few email notes, some inconsistent facts, and a small minority of scientist that believe otherwise. He prefer make grand statements out of minor comments such as "Himalayan glaciers, it turned out, weren't going to melt in 30 years" even through he ignores that it was a single quote in a large volume of work (that most did not believe when it was published, and as it turned out was a quote from a magazine interview of a scientist opinion) and forgets to mention that they are melting anyway.

His argument is the same as those used to discounted Galileo. There is simply a range of people that will not accept contradictions to their beliefs until evidence is overwhelming. The science of climate change will continue to evolve and get better, and its data will be reinterpreted as the knowledge grows greater. But Mr. Stephens promotes a view to ignore the all because of some inconsistencies (which become fewer as the science evolves) or because some conclusions turn out unfounded as new information is found.

I cannot say if the current conclusions of climate science will be the one left standing. But I can say I support their approach to continued efforts to collect and interpret data, and I reject Mr. Stephens "it's all wrong unless it's all right" thinking. It's a worthless opinion piece that can be viewed in the last paragraph of comparing science and religion. That in itself shows how silly his argument is

Read the article  WALL STREET JOURNAL/The Great Global Warming Fizzl

<>

The knowledge of climate change can be understood by sixth grade students using simple observation and analysis by the same computers that predict that airplanes will fly.

Go to a laboratory. Burn some oil and test for release of a gas called carbon dioxide (CO2). Watch how CO2 in a tube absorbs heat from a candle.

Look up measurements of how much oil, coal and natural gas man has burned, and records of the rise in the amount of CO2 in air over the past century. Compare those figures to the rise in average Earth temperatures during the same time. Notice how they correlate.

Now make a prediction. The oceans are huge; it takes longer for water to warm up than air. So the warmer air will continue to make the oceans and land warmer for decades after we increase the CO2 in air. The CO2 we emit now will keep temperatures rising over many decades and keep them high for centuries.

Why is this bad? Warmer air makes water evaporate more, so the land dries out more in the summer, causing tree stress, fires, and drought. More water vapor in the air means we get more rain and snow in the winter, so flooding. Polar caps and glaciers melt and the ocean gets too acid for shellfish. Sixth grade science.
History tells us that denialism is more expensive.

If Neville Chamberlain had persuaded England to arm earlier and intervene before the German war machine scaled up would that not have saved much expense and many lives?

Now, ironically, Germany has been leading the way to help the world fight global warming by subsidizing clean energy so that it can scale up and its costs plummet to where they are now competitive.

Can the United States gather the courage to resist the massive campaign by the oil, coal and natural gas industries to sell every last bit of their product? Using the same scientists who proclaimed that tobacco smoke is not dangerous, and that the hole in the ozone layer and acid rain should be ignored, the Petroleum industry has been fighting action to stop climate change. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-br8Yewo9A0&NR=1

Global warming is not a religion. That is an insult to every person of faith. The Creation is a gift. Human intelligence is a gift. The ability to observe, measure, analyze and predict would not have been given to us if we were not intended to use it to show respect for our fellow human and the world that provides for our needs."For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." II Tim. 1:7

Engineers and entrepreneurs have invented technology that allows us to keep our homes warm using tiny amounts of energy, and to make electricity from sunlight. Their work is not religious, but practical.

We need to start today to make every product, building and vehicle as energy efficient as possible and every energy development low carbon clean energy. http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/anti-global-warming-push-also-best-economy

Read the article  WALL STREET JOURNAL/The Great Global Warming Fizzle

<>

There are three, count 'em THREE key elements to the whole climate change debate...

◘ That the earth is in fact 'warming' at all,
◘ That the contribute due to HUMAN BEHAVIOR is effectively being measured, and
◘ That assuming both of the above are true, there is any way to effect a change in human behavior in the countries guilty of the most violations­.

Those are some huge assumptions. The best analysis of this that I've read on global warming was done by Michael Crichton in his extensive appendix to his novel 'State of Fear.' Crichton was anything but stupid; BA Summa in biological anthropology from Harvard (became a travelling Fellow and then taught same at Cambridge)­, then MD from Harvard and residency at the Jonas Salk Institute in LaJolla. ( He published under pseudonyms during this period, and his writing awards are too numerous to list. He ended up a visiting writer at MIT.)

This appendix one of the most brilliant pieces of nonfiction writing I've ever seen: beautifully logical, flawless in catching loose ends, and extensively footnoted with reliable authority. IMHO, pro-GW advocates will have to work very hard to overcome Crichton's brilliant argument, and I haven't seen one that addresses it point by point.

There is, however, no doubt that GW has spawned an entire new industry which pays for regulations and increased engineering specs by the mile, and makes only the richest members of society better off. UK's austerity programs are destroying every socioeconomic class except the very rich, and OAPs have their pensions hit hard by QE inflation and fuel allowance cut, but Cameron's dad is making a fortune off useless wind technology (and annoying his neighbors.) Huhne's in the same position..and now throwing £333 Mn to rich SA to make sure they can handle GW (with of course few strings to make sure they spend it on GW initiatives.)

So whether GW is real or not, the issue is whether the money would be better spent on UK citizens who are vulnerable and in need, or on rich folks in or outside of UK to make them even richer while providing little energy at obscene cost.

Read the article HUFFFINGTON POST/Durban Climate Conference - Crunch Time On Climate Change

<>

So, let's be clear here.

CO2 is a harmless trace gas and plant food, it is not only highly beneficial to life on earth there would be no life without it. More CO2 = more life, its as simple as that. You will notice that the Durban conference has stopped talking about temperature rises, not least because global temperatures are not rising, they have yet to realise that sea levels are now falling faster than they rose in the first place, major storms are well down, storm intensity is well down, rainfall is normal and deserts are receding and worst of all for the CAGW fraud polar ice levels are in fact normal, so much for ice free poles.

Why are these nut cases so utterly determined to cut a harmless trace gas knowing the crippling damage it is inflicting on the world economy, knowing that hundreds of billions of dollars have been squandered in the quest to cut CO2 and it has not even worked, nor will and more importantly nor could it. As the vast majority of CO2 is natural in origin, the tiny human contribution is so small as to be effectively swamped by natural CO2, it isnt even possible to accurately measure the human contribution but is is less than 5% of total atmospheric CO2.

Durban is a fraud, the CAGW insanity is a fraud, the so called science behind it is a fraud. The fraud of the modern age inflicted on a world in crisis brought on in large measure by that fraud. The EU has effectively destroyed itself on the alter of the CAGW fraud, the failure of the EU can be in large part attributed to the CAGW fraud, so its not all bad news then! The irony of the EU destroying itself by its fixation with saving the planet is perhaps the only good thing to come out of the CAGW fraud.

Read the article  DAILY TELEGRAPH/Durban Climate Change Conference 2011 opens in disarray

<>

A lack of belief in MMCC may be one issue for those in Durban to overcome, but there is the rather more significant issue of reality to tackle first of all.

That reality is that the developed world simply does not have enough money to both pay significant climate protection money to developing nations and agree to significant emissions cuts which will do short/medium term damage their own economies. Therefore a decision needs to be made - which one are they going to go for, because they're not going to get both and they might well get neither ?

The reality is also that the representatives of the developed countries know that most of their electorates won't support even some of the moderate renewables schemes. Therefore the greens need to decide what they want - real reductions with shale gas replacing coal and nuclear replacing gas, or flat-lining / ongoing increases in carbon dioxide emissions.

Some tough decisions there. People may not like that message, but flying to Durban, protesting in a skull mask and demanding everything now, including the end of capitalism and the emancipation of women, isn't going to make a useful contribution.

Read the article  GUARDIAN/Durban and the climate change deniers

<>

We should be doing the same, defending our interests rather than trying to become a martyr for no reason. The UK contributes less than 1% of the total emissions in the world, even if we culled all of them, it would make no difference.

The reality is that even if the worst predictions of climate change are true (a dubious assessment, since the climate change models are not falsifiable) it's going to happen anyway. We might as well enjoy the years we have got, and invest in technology to offset the damage (geoengineering), build dams, etc. We must put our national interest first. The idea that there could ever be a world consensus is ludicrous. We can't even have a consensus in the EU among 27 fairly similar States, imagine the situation among 190+ countries.

The greenies are just deluded idealists which will destroy our economy for no benefit at all.

Read the article  GUARDIAN/Durban and the climate change deniers

<>

Look around you. We are living longer lives than we ever have, our waters are cleaner, as is our air quality than the Victorian era. We have some climate challenges, yes, but we also have a lot of technology to address any problems that climate change could bring.

Let's not waste money on ridiculous mitigation schemes that will have little or no impact. For example, I found it hilarious that Al Gore's film suggested Malaria would become more prevalent with climate change. We could solve Global Malaria right now with far less money than we spend on climate mitigation. But we do not do so. We could solve global hunger right now, but we do not do so.

Lets focus on the real issues that people die from day by day, right now.

This is why all the guff in Durban will not achieve much.

You guys are focussing on the wrong things, in the wrong ways.

Read the article  GUARDIAN/Durban and the climate change deniers

<>

Again with the "climate deniers" label? No one denies climate change. Reasonable and equally qualified scientists looking at the same data draw different conclusions as to what the data says. Some say man impacts climate change. Some say climate predictably changes due to normal cycles that have played out countless times over the centuries. Maybe the real deniers here are those that deny climate change is caused solely by natural cycles man can't begin to influence.

There is money to be made (or not lost) by individuals, corporations and countries no matter which way this thing turns so suggesting greed is at play cuts both ways. For me it is less about greed and more about making damn sure something is absolutely indisputably certain before throwing massive amounts of money at it with no guarantee it will make any difference. Few countries no matter how wealthy they are now can afford to throw good money at bad ideas.

Read the article  GUARDIAN/Durban and the climate change deniers

 

 

 

Western Black Rhino is Officially "Extinct"

 

 

Actually both headlines (link, plus the one here) are not "deceiving": The link headline says the Black rhino is extinct: that means there are NO known captive animals, and none in the wild. Unfortunately, that IS a true statement.

And the other two subspecies mentioned ARE "vanishing from the wild". Sadly, what the article does not explicitly state (and should) is:

- The estimated captive population of Northern Whites is less than seven animals worldwide. Not much of a gene pool or hope for survival.

- There are NO known Javans in captivity. Attempts to breed them in captivity have failed. The last captive Javan died in a zoo in 1907.

We can only hope that small populations have somehow survived (as assumed extinct animals like the coelacanth turned out to have survived), but regular surveys recording the shrinking numbers, and increasingly heavy poaching over the last 20 years of all three subspecies make the outlook VERY bleak.

Read the article CBS NEWS/Rhino subspecies vanishing from the wild

<>

Preservation of species now going extinct or recently extinct is major justification for perfecting cloning techniques and other resurrections via DNA research.

Sad to say, extinction of species at the hands of homo sapiens is nothing new. After all, horses evolved in North America, not Eurasia. but had been gone for many thousands of years when the Spanish arrived here. Passenger pigeons used to darken the skies like thunderstorms, but all of them were killed in record time.

Mammoths in large vanished from America because of human predation. Large birds on various islands in the Indian Ocean were gone within a thousand years of human arrival.

We live at a time when extinctions are greatly accelerated due to our numbers. There have been major die-offs for millions of years, and this is not the first or the last, but it is the first to have a huge human cause.

Read the article CBS NEWS/Rhino subspecies vanishing from the wild

<>

It's just nature.

There are millions of species which became extinct before man had learned to lift his knuckles from the forest floor. And there will be millions of species which look back on the extinction of man without a pang.

While man's effect on the planet has had some impact on a number of precariously balanced species, that dominance has also created a population explosion for other species. Given the choice, cows, pigs, sheep, rats, birds, goldfish, kangaroos, horses, foxes, and pandas would probably put man higher on their list of 'likes' than the black rhino.

Most people who lament extinction are simply displaying an 'oooh ahh' response to some sexy animal or other. I never hear people complaining about the declining number of leeches.

Read the article GUARDIAN/The Western Black Rhino has been declared instinct. Does that bother you?

<>

It's nothing to do with nature, it's down to us shooting them all!

There is no reason for this species to be extinct, the habitat is there, the food is there, there are no diseases which have wiped it out. We did it. We shot them until there were none left and that is not natural predation, it's greed, machismo and idiocy.

Read the article GUARDIAN/The Western Black Rhino has been declared instinct. Does that bother you?

<>

No species is an island, and whenever a species disappears, ours is diminished. In small subtle ways, or in ones we cannot imagine in our worst nightmares: we never know before it happens, and to to presume a species is 'dispensable' or 'a luxury on this crowded Earth, don't you know?' is supreme arrogance.

Imagine: one day a religion could spring up that worships extinct megafauna, remembering their beauty and great talents (speed, empathy, etc.). Some people pray to dead people (saints), so why not pray to the panda one day?
Better still, why not try our best to prevent their disappearance in the first place?

Future generations will spit on us now for not learning from the demise of the dodo, passenger pigeon, great auk, etc. And rightly so. As long as we put culture before nature, we will hunt the big species to extinction, and the rest will go thanks to pollution, climate change, and trophic cascade.
Must go a say a few Hail Mammoths....

Read the article GUARDIAN/The Western Black Rhino has been declared instinct. Does that bother you?

 

Fishing for False Fortunes

 

Wow... "menu-speak" has been out of control for years, but this is truly awful. I served Sablefish for years; it sells even without the cute name. The Escolar problem has been well documented for almost 20 years. If the chefs and owners are willing to overtly lie to their guests regarding seafood, can they be trusted with sanitation and safety? As a culinary arts instructor, training the next generation of cooks and chefs, I will be beefing up the ethics portion of my class.

Read the article BOSTON.COM/On the menu, but not on your plate

<>

Long, international supply chains offer far too many opportunities for cheating. Try buying directly from Jordan Brothers Seafood or other local fishmonger, and cook it yourself. It's really best to buy your food from local suppliers whenever possible. Then you can talk directly to the farmer or fish wholesaler. These family businesses have a vested interest in sustainability and responsibility...you also know where your food is coming from, and what is in it, or in the case of fish, what it is.

Industrial fishing, industrial agriculture, and industrial meat production are not good...destructive to the environment, unhealthy to humankind, and often very abusive and cruel

Read the article BOSTON.COM/On the menu, but not on your plate

<>

Thanks for confirming what I have long suspected. When NOAA established the fact that fish stocks have been depleted and New England favorites like Haddock, Halibut and Stripers were becoming scarce I wondered what restaurants would replace those species with.

A few species from southern waters started showing up on menus(mahi,snapper,pompano,Chilean sea bass). Farmed fish like tilapia was viewed as inferior.

As time went on the southern fish species became depleted also. Red Snapper has been restricted. Mahi is really a game fish and not that easy to harvest. Pompano is more seasonal and also not that easy to harvest. So what you're left with is farmed fish and these other species that a lot people have never heard of.

When the waiter at your favorite seafood restaurant is smiling and asking how you want your Mahi prepared and charging you $20 plus for it, pull out your picture array of fish species and ask him to pick out what you're ordering.

Read the article BOSTON.COM/On the menu, but not on your plate

<>

One way to combat the "fraud" in the industry is to adjust the expectations of customers. "Day boat" fish may have been caught by a boat that fishes one day at a time, but that doesn't mean you get to eat it that same day, or the next day, or even the next week. And fish can be extremely fresh without having been caught the same week. Most swordfish, for example, is caught by longliners, some of whom stay out for 40 to 50 days. But because customers won't knowingly accept fish that was caught a month ago, restaurants and fish markets will claim "Oh, our swordfish was harpooned just the other day, in local waters." Well, guess what? There aren't enough harpooners left to provide all the supposedly harpooned swordfish that is listed on menus.

Getting some of these basic truths out would help reduce the pressure on restauranteurs and fishmongers, all of whom are trying to appease the illusion-addled minds of customers

.Read the article BOSTON.COM/On the menu, but not on your plate

READ MORE COMMENTS:   September - October 2011

back to home page

WORLD

   October

   September

   August

   July

   June

   May & earler

NATIONAL

    October

    September

    August

    July

    June

    May & earlier

BUSINESS

   October

   September

   August

   July

   June

   May & earlier

HEALTH/EDUCATION

   October

   September

   August

   July

   June

   May & earlier

SCI/TECH

   October

   September

   August

   July

   June

   May & earlier

ENVIRONMENT/NATURE

   October

   September

   August

   July

   June

   May & earlier

ENTERTAINMENT/SPORTS

    October

    September

    August

    July

    June

    May & earlier

PEOPLE

   October

   September

   August

   July

   June

   May & earlier