a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment
(14) (1) (2) (6) (116) (10) (3) (1) (15) (2) (1970) (1) (2) (5) (7) (4) (9) (104) (9) (483) (1) (4) (15) (3) (1) (8) (1) (1)Methane Leak
Scientists have discovered the Arctic ocean seabed is leaking huge amounts of methane into the atmosphere. The research published in the journal Science shows the permafrost under the East Siberian Arctic shelf, which was thought to be a barrier sealing methane, is perforated. Read more here. (1)
NYT: Pachauri Faces Credibility Siege
The New York Times is reporting that: Dr. Pachauri and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are now under intense scrutiny, facing accusations of scientific sloppiness and potential financial conflicts of interest from climate skeptics, right-leaning politicians and even some mainstream scientists. More here. (1)
Phil Jones Guilty, But
The university at the centre of the climate change row over stolen e-mails broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny. B ut… Read more here. (0)
Banks Leave Carbon Market
Banks and investors are pulling out of the carbon market after the failure to make progress at Copenhagen on reaching new emissions targets after 2012. Read more here. (0)
UK Met Office Can't Forecast Weather
The UK Met Office is debating what to do with its long-term and seasonal forecasting after criticism for failing to predict extreme weather. It was predicted that this winter would be warmer than average – yet it has been unusually cold. Read more here. (2)
Disclaimer: The inclusion of a blog or website in this list should not be taken as an endorsement of its contents by me.
Posted by Charlotte Ramotswe, January 7th, 2009 - under News, Opinion.
Tags: Climate & Climate Change
This is absured, but true: Australia’s use of coal and carbon emissions policies are guaranteeing the “destruction of much of the life on the planet”, a leading NASA scientist has written in a letter to Barack Obama. Read more here.
Actually Hansen referes to Australia as one of the “greenenst” nations, and simply points out the failiures of Kyoto and carbon trading to adequately address emissions. Is he wrong that coal use needs to be significantly reduced? Is he wrong that our proposed targets are not stringent enough?
Well that depends on whether or not you believe in AGW. As the Chair of the AEF, a science based environmental organisation, my assumption is that you strongly back the science.
As I said at 3.36am SydSummer time today
http://talbyv.blogspot.com/2009/01/australia-destroying-earth.html
Hey, Hansen! You’ve had years and billions to prove CO2 the villain and so far have proven zilch. What about some proof before your END of the WORLD proclamations.
Unfortunately Hansen let his socialist cat out of the bag with his wealth distribution rhetoric. – science be dammed
I also covered Hansen’s socialist distribution on my blog on Sunday 4/1/09
http://talbyv.blogspot.com/2009/01/james-hansen-communist-or-robbing-hood.html
As I said there:
“Whoppee, the man is a new Robbing Hood taking from the carbon rich and giving to the carbon poor.
Or is it a new form of communism?
Does Mr Hansen know that it would require a new bureaucracy to manage the tax.
Would this bureaucracy be funded from current income? I don’t think so.
Not all the money would go out.
What’s his degree again…does Ph.D. stand for Pipehype dreams?”
If 30 years of science had discovered something I would go with the science also. Alas as it stands now the models need to be reworked and the theory revamped and both retested. it is a pity we have spent so much to prove so little. If the climate people had talked to the geologists this would not have happened. It seems that the geologists already knew that climate changed naturally but the climatologists seem to have forgotten about nature.
Mike Davis
It would be interesting finding out just when and whom started the CO2 global warming hypothesis – I think it was Thatcher who hatched the idea politically to thwart the coal mining unions in the UK, and it would also be useful to work out when Hansen started to publicise this issue as well.
I think you will find that many climate scientists won’t talk willingly with geologists. When I was doing postgrad at Macquarie during the 1970’s Earth Sciences was a combination of the geology and geography schools – chalk and cheese basically. Undergrads were forced to do some humanities and non geological studies (I did pyschology 101, English, and a geography strand) and from that experience it is clear how the science got mangled when the social science people started to involve themselves with some of the physical sciences.
I went to a Mining Industry Group coffee and gossip session this morning in Perth, and AGW is unaminously rejected as a crock – but the AGW movement has been hijacked by the environmental movement who wish the mining industry enormous ill-will and love to see us exterminated. Hence the targetting of coal and oil, and now natural gas, reading between the lines what the WWF is proposing.
It’s interesting – AGW is pedalled by mathematicians, software engineers, astronomers, and the occasional geologist, but the scientists who are deeply involved in trying to work out the past geological climates are ignored.
All par for the course because AGW is not supported by science despite what many believe.
Changes in the chemistry of the earth’s atmosphere by trace components are supposed to alter the thermal balance of the earth’s surface??????
MattB
“Well that depends on whether or not you believe in AGW. As the Chair of the AEF, a science based environmental organisation, my assumption is that you strongly back the science.”
We are a little confused? Jennifer did not post this thread, Charlotte did, and if the science is a crock, why support it?