20071015 Marc Morano’s Round Up - October 15, 2007
Renowned French Scientist & Socialist Slams Gore’s Nobel
(Note: Allegre was a former believer now skeptic see:
Excerpt: In France, a sour note was sounded by a leading French climate sceptic,
former Socialist education minister and award-winning geochemist Claude Allegre. He brushed off Friday's announcement as "a political gimmick", saying: "The amount of nonsense in Al Gore's film! It's all politics, it's designed to intervene in
American politics. It's scandalous. There's a presidential election upcoming in the
United States, and it's well known that Gore wants to run."
Fmr. Fed Reserve Greenspan has 'grave doubts' that international cap-and-trade is 'feasible' roundup manifesto
Excerpt: But even the highly-respected former Federal Reserve chairman and economist Alan Greenspan questioned in his book, “The Age of Turbulence,” the validity of a cap and trade system’s impact as an effective means to fight global warming.
“Yet as an economist, I have grave doubts that international agreements imposing a
globalized so-called cap-and-trade system on CO2 emissions will prove feasible,”
Greenspan wrote. “There is no effective way to meaningfully reduce emissions
without negatively impacting a large part of an economy,” Greenspan wrote. “Net,
it is a tax. If the cap is low enough to make a meaningful inroad into CO2
emissions, permits will become expensive and large numbers of companies will
experience cost increases that make them less competitive. Jobs will be lost and
real incomes of workers constrained.”
UN Scientist calls for abolition of IPCC
(Dr. Vincent Gray shares Nobel as one of IPCC's "2000 scientists" – he has been a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception)
Excerpt: The whole process is a swindle, The IPCC from the beginning was given the
licence to use whatever methods would be necessary to provide "evidence" that carbon dioxide increases are harming the climate, even if this involves manipulation of dubious data and using peoples' opinions instead of science to "prove" their case.
The disappearance of the IPCC in disgrace is not only desirable but inevitable. The
reason is, that the world will slowly realise that the "predictions" emanating from
the IPCC will not happen. The absence of any "global warming" for the past eight
years is just the beginning. Sooner or later all of us will come to realise that
this organisation, and the thinking behind it, is phony. Unfortunately severe
economic damage is likely to be done by its influence before that happens.
I have been an "Expert Reviewer" for the IPCC right from the start and I have
submitted a very large number of comments on their drafts. It has recently been
revealed that I submitted 1,898 comments on the Final Draft of the current Report.
Over the period I have made an intensive study of the data and procedures used by
IPCC contributors throughout their whole study range. I have a large library of
reprints, books and comments and have published many comments of my own in published
papers, a book, and in my occasional newsletter, the current number being 157. I
began with a belief in scientific ethics, that scientists would answer queries
honestly, that scientific argument would take place purely on the basis of facts,
logic and established scientific and mathematical principles.
Right from the beginning I have had difficulty with this procedure. Penetrating questions often ended without any answer. Comments on the IPCC drafts were rejected without
explanation, and attempts to pursue the matter were frustrated indefinitely. Over
the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC I have
found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been
forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the
data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all
efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal
scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is
endemic, and was part of the organization from the very beginning. I therefore
consider that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only "reform" I could envisage,
would be its abolition. < > The two main "scientific" claims of the IPCC are the
claim that "the globe is warming" and "Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are
responsible". Evidence for both of these claims is fatally flawed.
ABC Touts Gore Friend & Teresa Heinz foundation activist Robert Corel without
disclosing partisan affiliation
(Also note Corell has been embarrassing himself recently with error ridden Greenland claims, For Corell’s errors see:
Excerpt: ABC News correspondent Bill Blakemore: “This award has eminent scientists
everywhere excited. We caught up with climatologist Robert Corell in a Massachusetts
diner.” Robert Corell: “When Nancy called me and screamed in the telephone the
message, that Al and IPCC, I mean it was really hard for me not to pull over to the
side of the road and just get out and yell, ‘Yay!’
RFK Claims National Academy of Sciences Study found no dissent
(What study is he talking about?!)
Excerpt: The National Academy of Sciences did a study an inventory, three years ago,
of all of the scientific documents that had -- the peer reviewed, refereed
scientific documents that had been published in the previous decade, over 10,000
documents, 10,000 scientific studies. All of them agreed on the basics: that global
warming exists; that human beings are causing it; that it's upon us now; and that
its impacts are going to be catastrophic. In the scientific community, there was
literally zero dissent.
Debunking man-made warming logic
"I often tell my friends that when you really flay away all the bullshit,
the main argument by climate catastrophists for anthropogenic origins of climate
change is that scientists "can't think of anything else it can be." In other words,
having exhausted all the natural causes the current state of the science knows
about, they assume the cause must be man. My friends never believe me when I say
this, but here is a climate scientist in his own words: "Natural variability in climate just can't explain this moisture change. The most plausible explanation is that it's due to the human-caused increase in greenhouse gases," Santer says.
His study also discounted influences from solar activity and the 1991
eruption of Mount Pinatubo. This is the heart of the "link" trumpeted in
the article's headline -- that scientists can't imagine that the cause is natural
variability and that it is plausible man is the cause. Wow, that's good science.
And by the way, can you imagine if, say, astrophysics took the same approach? "We
don't know of any natural phenomenon that would cause pulsars so they must be
No one can accurately come up with an empirical proof of how much of
the warming from 1973-99 was due to man's activities and how much was due to natural
effects (the best you can find are studies that say "most" or "a lot of" or "some".
Therefore, it is impossible that anyone was able to attribute a humidity rise just
to the man-made portion of the warming, since we don't know how much that was.
Both studies relied primarily on computer models of the Earth's climate
system to reach their conclusions. Great. For years I have called these
computer models scientific money-laundering. They take unproven assumptions, plug
them into something they call a model, and then get results they claim to be proven.
They are washing garbage unproven assumptions through these black boxes and then
calling them clean results on the back end. Garbage In - Scientific Proof Out. It
is crazy. The models are built on the assumption that anthropogenic effects drive
the climate, and so they therefore spit out the results that... anthropogenic
effects drive the climate.
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist at the University of Alabama-Huntsville, says, "The main thing they're trying to show is that the recent warming and moistening in the last 30 years is outside the range of natural variability, and that man is causing the warming. The use of climate models to do this is not convincing. … The idea that you can use climate models as a surrogate for reality is circular reasoning.
Frigid Southern Hemisphere Winter A Preview Of A Cold Winter Coming In The Northern
By Eugenio Hackbart Chief Meteorologist For MetSul Weather Center
Excerpt: It was an outstanding winter for us in part of South America. Buenos Aires
in Argentina had its first snow since 1918. Southern Brazil experienced 4
consecutive months of cold and below average temperature with daily and all-time
records.” “Our winter here in the southern hemisphere raised serious questions
among people concerned on global warming. Scientists were predicting warmer winters.
So, what happened, people asked. I believe questions will be raised in the next
months also in the US. The climate behavior here is this part of the Southern
Hemisphere is somewhat connected to the trend in the Midwest and Northeast United
States year after year and may anticipate the trend from season to season. So, first
of all, NOAA released this week its winter outlook… …but I don’t’ buy it. No
way !! I strongly suspect this marked cooling trend in the Pacific will result in
below average temperature months in larger areas of the US.”
By the way, much of Australia, too had a cold winter, with a record cold June.
SKEPTIC'S ICE FACTSHEET DEBUNKS MISINFORMATION
(latest science on Greenland, Arctic and Antarctica)
Excerpt: Ivy League Geologist Explains that Earth is currently in one of coldest
periods in History.
Excerpt: Ivy League geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack is a professor of earth and
environmental science at the University of Pennsylvania. Giegengack noted that the
history the last one billion years on the planet reveals "only about 5% of that time
has been characterized by conditions on Earth that were so cold that the poles could
support masses of permanent ice." Giegengack also noted "for most of Earth's
history, the globe has been warmer than it has been for the last 200 years. It has
rarely been cooler."
Reuters: UN IPCC Chair Pachauri vs Morano
Excerpt: "Pass me the microphone when he's finished, please," Rajendra Pachauri
leant over and asked this correspondent after a U.S. skeptic accused his U.N.
climate panel of exaggerating the threat of global warming. Pachauri, an Indian
scientist who heads the panel awarded the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday with ex-U.S.
Vice President Al Gore, had just been accused at U.N. talks in Nairobi of failing to
reply to a letter from U.S. Republican Sen. James Inhofe. Pachauri often runs into
sharp questioning and gives patient, meticulous replies that may have helped widen
acceptance for IPCC conclusions that humanity is "very likely" to blame for climate
change and that urgent action is needed. But the attack by Inhofe's spokesman Marc
Morano in November 2006 was one of the toughest I had heard, especially the
allegation of not replying to a hand-delivered letter. So I passed Pachauri the
microphone -- I was sitting beside him as mediator at a debate among scientists and
other experts -- and thought that he seemed remarkably unflustered. Even Pachauri,
who lists two doctorates on his business card and was busy preparing mammoth
scientific reports based on the work of 2,500 people published this year, might have
problems talking his way out of this one, I thought. "But I did reply," Pachauri
said to Morano. "If you give me your e-mail I will send you it again." Inhofe, who
once famously said the threat of catastrophic climate change was "the greatest hoax
every perpetrated on the American people," has been sharply critical of the IPCC. He
was at the time the outgoing chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public
Works. A few days later Pachauri sent an e-mail to Morano, which he also copied to
me and to Paal Prestrud, a Norwegian climate scientist who arranged the debate, and
attached a letter replying to Inhofe dated December 24, 2005.
Paper: Gore's prize: A fraud on the people (Manchester Union Leader)
Excerpt: Five Norwegians gave a prize to Al Gore, and all the world is supposed to
heed his counsel henceforth. No, thanks. Alfred Nobel felt horrible about the uses
to which his invention -- dynamite -- was put. So he endowed the Nobel Peace Prize
and instructed that it go "to the person who shall have done the most or the best
work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing
armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." Al Gore has done
exactly none of those things. Gore, however, did write a book and make a film about
global warming. He has become the second environmental activist to win the peace
prize in the past four years. Wangari Muta Maathai won it in 2004 for planting
trees. Thus we have indisputable confirmation that the Nobel Peace Prize is no
longer a serious international award. In 1994 the five Norwegian politicians who
award the prize gave it to the murdering thug Yasser Arafat. Two years before that
they gave it to literary fraud Rigoberta Menchu, whose autobiography was largely
fabricated. (An example: The brother she supposedly watched die of malnutrition was
later found by a New York Times reporter to be very much alive and well.)On Friday
the prize was given to Al Gore and the International Panel on Climate Change. Two
days before, a British judge ruled that Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth,"
contained so many errors (read: lies) that it could be shown in British public
schools only if accompanied by a fact sheet correcting the errors. The Nobel Peace
Prize is worse than a joke. It's a fraud. It is such a transparent fraud that the
five Norwegian politicians who award it have been reduced to defending their
decision by concocting elaborate rationalizations. This year they laughably claimed
that Gore deserves the prize because, well, global climate change" may induce
large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the Earth's resources,"
and "there may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars."
And Islamic terrorists may give up jihad and sing Kumbaya after listening to
old Cat Stevens records. But that's no basis for distributing the world's formerly
most prestigious prize. If winning this useless medal prompts Al Gore to get into
the presidential race, which we doubt, the irony will be that the American people
will turn a more skeptical eye to His Smugness than the Nobel committee did. The
American public won't accept at face value Gore's self-righteous proclamations or
his self-serving predictions of looming global catastrophy. And Gore has to know
that, which is why he will almost certainly stick to the world of make-believe --
Hollywood and International Do-Goodery -- where he can pretend to be the great sage
and savior he wishes he really were and left-wing Europeans and thespians try to
convince us he is.
CNN's Miles O'Brien Defends Gore Movie, Global Warming Debate Over
Excerpt: As he made several appearances on various CNN shows on Friday, O'Brien
tagged dissenters with such labels as "dead-enders," a "tiny fraction of a
minority," and a "very small fringe," as he linked skeptics to fossil fuel
companies. He also repeatedly declared that the scientific debate on global warming
is over. Notably, on the July 20 "The Situation Room," O'Brien had curtly lectured
former Republican Congressman J.C. Watts with similar comments on the subject.
O'Brien: "You're not paying attention to the science, J.C. You're definitely not
paying attention. ... The scientific debate is over, J.C., we're done."
Critics slam Nobel winner Gore
President Vaclav Klaus cast doubt on Gore's contribution to the cause of peace, the
ostensible purpose of the Norwegian prize. In a statement, the climate change
sceptic said he was "a bit surprised that Al Gore has received a peace prize because
the connection between his activities and world peace are vague and not very clear".
In Norway, the main opposition party expressed its surprise at the decision.
Gjermund Hagesaether, from the far-right Progress Party, said: "We believe it is
strange to give the prize to Al Gore for having made a film on climate that is
subjective, one-sided and full of one-sided assertions."
Bjorn Lomborg, author of A Sceptical Environmentalist, said: "The Nobel Prize
committee should have focused on the other great forgotten problems like
malnourishment, malaria, the lack of free trade in farming, rather than climate
change." And one of the world's foremost meteorologists called the theory that
helped Al Gore win a share of the Nobel prize the product of "people who don't
understand how the atmosphere works".
Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, spoke to
a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina and said humans were not
responsible for global warming. "We're brainwashing our children," said Gray, 78, a
longtime professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie
and being fed all this. It's ridiculous." AFP
Lindzen weighs in on Gore
Excerpt: MIT atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen, who has argued that global
warming will not be catastrophic, said the award, along with the Oscar earned by "An
Inconvenient Truth," demonstrates "that this issue has become more of a political
and fashion issue than a scientific one."
An IgNobel Prize (Biogeographer Philip Stott emeritus professor of the University of
Excerpt: The joint-award of the Nobel Prize for Peace to US failed-Presidential
candidate, Al Gore, is a dangerous disgrace, although one entirely to have been
expected. As Samuel Johnson said when questioned by James Boswell about
‘predestination’ and the Book of Common Prayer, ‘global warming’ is now the
PC “clamour of the times”, especially in Old Europe - and Norway is Very Old
Europe. The temptation to give George W a kicking just can’t be resisted.
Moreover, this new secular religion of the liberal elites must have its saints to
carry the Green Flag, however questionable their qualifications. The names of recent
Nobel Peace laureates read like a list of bien pensant characters from the political
Top Hurricane Expert Mocks Gore:
‘We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was’
Excerpt: Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts,
told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not
responsible for the warming of the earth. His comments came on the same day that the
Nobel committee honoured Mr Gore for his work in support of the link between humans
and global warming. "We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time
professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie [An
Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous." At his first
appearance since the award was announced in Oslo, Mr Gore said: "We have to quickly
find a way to change the world's consciousness about exactly what we're facing." < >
But Dr Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes
are widely publicised, said a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to
the amount of salt in ocean water - was responsible for the global warming that he
acknowledges has taken place. However, he said, that same cycle meant a period of
cooling would begin soon and last for several years. "We'll look back on all of this
in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Dr Gray said.
Nobel committee 'embraced the charlatan Gore to endorse his falsification of reality'
Excerpt: For aficionados of irony, last week was a deeply satisfying experience. To
see the humbugs of the Nobel committee embracing the charlatan Gore to endorse his
falsification of reality in what has become, globally, the flagship politically
correct cause was as morally illuminating as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. So-called
anthropogenic climate change has nothing to do with science and everything to do
with political control of mass populations. In this edifying work, the primary
instrument is the lie. That is why, in deference to the Orwellian principle, the
word "truth" has been conscripted to propagate one of the great untruths of our
time. If you doubt for one moment that global warming is a political, rather than a
scientific, phenomenon, ask yourself why a failed American presidential candidate is
leading the charge. Tony Blair must be beside himself to see this role already
spoken for. The Nobel charade has long been one of the best comic turns on the
planet. Hypocrisy was built into its origins. Albert Nobel spent the last decade of
his life developing weapons technology: cannon, progressive powder and rockets. If
not actually the father, he was at least the grandfather of the V1 and the
great-grandfather of the ICBM. Yet he is remembered for his Peace Prize. T
Czech President questions: 'Relationship between Gore's activities and world peace
Excerpt: Czech President Vaclav Klaus, a rare vocal global- warming sceptic among
heads of state, is "somewhat surprised" that former US vice president Al Gore
received the Nobel Peace Prize, the president's spokesman Petr Hajek said in a
"The relationship between his activities and world peace is unclear and indistinct,"
the statement said. "It rather seems that Gore's doubting of basic cornerstones of
the current civilization does not contribute to peace." Klaus said in a recent
speech that environmentalists' efforts to halt global warming "fatally endanger our
freedom and prosperity."
Paper: Selection of Gore reveals Nobel committee's 'hopes for a Democratic victory
in the 2008'
Excerpt: The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to former Vice President Al Gore is a
political statement by the European bourgeoisie about the policies of the Bush
administration and the politics of the United States. Rarely has there been such an
open intervention by the European ruling elite in the internal politics of America.
The political significance of Gore’s selection is clear, given that he is
still an active figure in American politics, widely mentioned as a potential
presidential candidate, who has on occasions attacked both the foreign and domestic
policies of the Bush administration. At the very least, the award can be taken as a
signal from the Norwegian political establishment—from which the selection
committee is chosen—that it hopes for a Democratic victory in the 2008
Et tu, Gorus?
Excerpt: Why would a committee award such a prestigious prize right on the heels of
his documentary being proven inaccurate and prone to exaggerations? Coming in the
same week that Marion Jones is asked to return medals to the Olympics, one has to
wonder if such a fate will befall gore in the future. Al Gore’s documentary, An
Inconvenient Truth, is being shown in schools in England. But a recent High Court
ruling stated the film must be distributed with caveats to prevent “promoting
partisan political views”, citing 9 inaccuracies: Claims of 20 feet sea level rise
from Greenland and Antarctica - Evidence is that will not melt for millennia.
Rising sea levels causing inundation of Pacific islands - Court observed that this
was a false claim. Gore claims global warming will “shut down the Ocean
Conveyor” - the judge said this was “very unlikely”. Graphs showing CO2 versus
temperature over 650,000 years were claimed to be an exact fit - The judge said
that, “the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts”. Snowmelt on Mount
Kilimanjaro evidenced global warming – deforestation reducing moisture into
upslope winds is the cause. The film showed drying Lake Chad, claiming caused by
global warming - Court determined that this was false. Hurricane Katrina was caused
by global warming - Court determined it was “not possible” to attribute singular
events to global warming. Polar bears drowned due to disappearing arctic ice - Gore
misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned due to a particularly violent
storm. Global warming caused species losses including coral reef bleaching - Court
found this claim difficult to support. In light of these inaccuracies, there are now
calls emerging for the producers of Gore’s film to return the Oscar for “best
Editorial: Nobel does not make Gore 'any less a liar'
(Waterbury Republican-American Newspaper)
Excerpt: Al Gore now has a Nobel Peace Prize to pair with his Academy Award for "An
Inconvenient Truth." But neither accolade makes him any less a liar. As it did when
it gave the prize to Jimmy Carter in 2002, the Norwegian Nobel Committee honored Mr.
Gore and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to make a left-wing
political statement. Though it did not mention "An Inconvenient Truth" by name, the
committee spoke glowingly of Mr. Gore's political activity, lectures, films and
books for reducing the "danger of violent conflicts and wars." The film details Mr.
Gore's arguments on global warming, but his arguments are a tissue of lies. Justice
Michael Burton of the High Court of London used "exaggeration," "apocalyptic
vision," "distinctly alarmist" and "one-sided" to describe the film. If teachers
show it to students without disclosing those lies or presenting contrary viewpoints,
they could be charged under British law with the crime of political indoctrination.
Climate experts admitted in court no evidence supports Mr. Gore's assertions that
warming caused Hurricane Katrina, the melting snows of Mount Kilimanjaro and the
bleaching of coral reefs. In the case of drowning polar bears and the evacuation of
some Pacific atolls, they couldn't even document those phenomena occurred. < > By
endorsing Mr. Gore and his lies, the Nobel committee will not further its goal of
contributing to "a sharper focus on the processes and decisions that appear to be
necessary to protect the world's future climate." Rather, it will preclude
objective, rational debate on climate change, and the world will be more dangerous
Be wary of climate process Osama endorses, climatologist argues
Excerpt: Osama bin Laden's recent endorsement of the international Kyoto Protocol on
climate change is proof that government policies to slash greenhouse gas emissions
could be more dangerous for industrialized countries than terrorism itself, says a
well-known Canadian global warming skeptic. "What's going on with the whole global
warming issue, and particularly the focus on CO2 (carbon dioxide emissions) is that
it's undermining the economies of the western world in particular, but the world in
general, and ultimately could do far more damage than what Osama bin Laden is
doing," Dr. Tim Ball said in an interview.
MetSul Special Report: Al Gore’s Inconvenient Mistake
By Alexandre Aguiar of MetSul Weather Center and the weatherman for Ulbra TV in Porto Alegre, Brazil
Excerpt: According to the RSS MSU satellite data, September 2007 was the 7th coldest
month among 81 months since January 2001. It has made it to the 9% of the coolest
months of the 21st century so far, ICECAP reported. The Southern hemisphere was
0.015 Celsius degrees cooler than the long-term average, fifth coldest month since
January 2001. Brazil’s MetSul Weather Center chief-meteorologist says this is
clear evidence that Joe D’Aleo and other scientists claim that the higher
frequency of El Niño events promoted global warming and not the contrary is
correct. “Al Gore declared ten years ago that El Niño episodes were a consequence
of global warming while historic data prior and after that claim shows El Niño is
in fact a cause of warming since the Great Pacific Shift in the 70’s”, said
meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart. MetSul Meteorologia expert also stated there is no
coincidence that this La Niña of 2007 is taking place right during the 11-year
solar minimum cycle. “Major La Niña events were recorded around the solar minima
in the last decades”, said Eugenio Hackbart. It will take some more years to
“Mother Nature” to dismiss some or all of Gore forecasts, but earlier
predictions made by him are already proving to be an inconvenient mistake. See The
story at METSUL here.
How to Create and Protect a Consensus
Excerpt: We are all aware of a claimed consensus on climate science, although what
the consensus actually is and how far it goes has yet to be defined, in my view.
That is not the issue raised here. A book authored by Janis, I. L. & Mann, L. (1977)
Decision-making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment (New
York Free Press), explores the concept of ‘Group Think,’ which shows a
remarkable parallel with the way the climate science consensus is operated and
protected. Eight symptoms of Group Think are listed below: 1. Illusion of
Invulnerability: Members ignore obvious danger, take extreme risk, and are overly
optimistic. 2. Collective Rationalization: Members discredit and explain away
warning contrary to group thinking. 3. Illusion of Morality: Members believe their
decisions are morally correct, ignoring the ethical consequences of their decisions.
Inconvenient truths about the UN’s global warming panel.
Professor David Henderson(in the Wall Street Journal, 11 October 2007)
Excerpt: there is good reason to question the advice on which governments are basing
their policies.This advice is brought together through an elaborate process which
governments have themselves created. The process is managed by the U.N.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), established in 1988. This panel is
made up of government officials, not all of whom are scientists.The IPCC process has
since produced four massive Assessment Reports, designed to provide the basis for
climate-change policy. These cover the whole range of issues, including economic,
scientific and technical aspects. The latest in the series, AR4, will be completed
next month. It will run to more than 3,000 pages, and its preparation has involved a
network of some 2,500 experts.Because of this extensive and structured expert
participation, the IPCC process and its findings are widely taken to be
professionally above reproach. Yet the expert network is only one of three main
groups of participants in the process. The Panel itself, at the center of the
process, is a separate body from the network. Third are the national-level
agencies—the policy makers—that it reports to.Governments have formally laid
down, in the “principles governing IPCC work,” that Panel reports “should be
neutral with respect to policy.” < > there is good reason to question the advice
on which governments are basing their policies.This advice is brought together
through an elaborate process which governments have themselves created. The process
is managed by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), established
in 1988. This panel is made up of government officials, not all of whom are
scientists.The IPCC process has since produced four massive Assessment Reports,
designed to provide the basis for climate-change policy. These cover the whole range
of issues, including economic, scientific and technical aspects. The latest in the
series, AR4, will be completed next month. It will run to more than 3,000 pages, and
its preparation has involved a network of some 2,500 experts.Because of this
extensive and structured expert participation, the IPCC process and its findings are
widely taken to be professionally above reproach. Yet the expert network is only one
of three main groups of participants in the process. The Panel itself, at the center
of the process, is a separate body from the network. Third are the national-level
agencies—the policy makers—that it reports to.Governments have formally laid
down, in the “principles governing IPCC work,” that Panel reports “should be
neutral with respect to policy.” < > One is to improve the IPCC process, by making
it more professionally representative and watertight. The other is to go beyond the
process, by providing for alternative sources of information and advice. An
independent expert review of AR4 would be a good place to start.
Obesity crisis ‘on the same scale as global warming’
Excerpt: Obesity crisis ‘on the same scale as global warming’ Staff Ministers
are drawing up plans for a concerted fight against obesity as they believe that
there is a looming public health crisis to rival that of climate change. Alan
Johnson, the Health Secretary, said that efforts to promote exercise and healthy
eating had to go “further and faster” in response to the stark findings of a new
Amazon tribe hits back at green 'colonialism'
Excerpt: It's one of the most fashionable ideas to save the planet from global
warming: buying up tropical rainforest to save it from destruction. Gordon Brown has
even appointed the millionaire founder of one such charity, Johan Eliasch, as his
special adviser on deforestation. But like all big ideas it is controversial, and
this week a leading Amazonian campaigner will visit Britain to protest that this
latest trend is linked to a health and social crisis among indigenous people,
including sickness, depression, suicide, obesity and drug addiction. Davi Kopenawa,
a shaman of the Yanomami tribe, will help launch a report that, says Survival
International, the charity behind it, claims separation from the land is directly
linked to the 'physical and mental breakdown' of indigenous communities, whose
lifestyle and culture is already under threat from mining, logging and resettlement
away from traditional lands.
Gore Wins Thanks to Media's Fever Pitch on Global Warming
Excerpt: Nobel Prize contenders aren’t supposed to campaign for the award. Nobel
Peace Prize winner Al Gore didn’t need to because he had the media doing it for
him for at least a year-and-a-half. The award he shared with the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) put Gore in the ranks of people like President
Theodore Roosevelt, Mother Teresa, Lech Walesa and Martin Luther King. But none of
them had the widespread media campaign Gore enjoyed – portraying him in almost
messianic terms as an “evangelist,” a “preacher,” or a “prophet.”
CBS correspondent Mark Phillips had called the award “the most coveted and
prestigious in the world” during the October 9 “Evening News” and warned Gore
of making any public statement about it. “The Nobel Prize workings may be a
mystery, but the rules are clear,” Phillips said. “No campaigning. Al Gore is
rumored to be a hot tip for this year’s peace prize for his environmental work.
The worst thing he could do is say he wants it.” That didn’t matter. The media
put Gore front and center on a seemingly endless stream of shows and networks.
Scientific errors prompt call for Gore's Oscar to be rescinded
Excerpt: A conservative think-tank in New Zealand has written to the president of
the America's Academy Awards asking that the Oscar awarded to the director of an
Inconvenient Truth be taken back. Former New Zealand MP Dr Muriel Newman, director
of web-based think-tank the New Zealand Centre for Political Research, said she had
taken the measure in response to a British High Court ruling Thursday.
She said she emailed Academy president Sid Ganis and
executive director Bruce Davis with the request on Friday morning. A British judge
ruled an Inconvenient Truth, whose director Davis Guggenheim won an Academy Award
for best documentary feature, contained scientific errors. The judge said the film
could be shown in British schools, although it must have guidance notes to prevent
political indoctrination. The controversial documentary starred former US vice
president Al Gore talking about the perils of global warming." The truth, as
inconvenient as it is to Al Gore, is that his so-called documentary contained
critical distortions that are quite contrary to the principles of good documentary
journalism." Good documentaries should be factually correct. Clearly this
documentary is not," a statement from Newman said." This situation is not unlike
that confronting sports bodies when their sports stars are found to be drug cheats.
In such cases, the sportsmen and women are stripped of their medals and titles, with
the next placegetter elevated." While this is an extremely unpleasant duty, it is
necessary if the integrity of competitive sport is to be protected," she said.
Colorado gets blasted with foot of snow
Excerpt: DENVER — A rambling storm delivered up to a foot of snow in the mountains
and rain at lower elevations Sunday, threatening to swipe at the Colorado Rockies
playoff series as it headed out of the state. The snow caused some fender-bender
vehicle mishaps but no injuries along Interstate 70 at the Eisenhower Tunnel because
motorists were unfamiliar with driving in winter-like weather conditions, Colorado
State Patrol Master Trooper Ron Watkins said. Chain laws were in effect on a number
of mountain passes. The storm brought the first notable snowcover of the season to
Boulder County's higher-elevation communities. Kyle Fredin, a meteorologist with the
National Weather Service in Boulder, said communities like Allenspark and Nederland
ended up with accumulations of around 3 to 6 inches. "It's on," he said of the snow
season. Below 8,000 feet, Fredin said, it mostly rained, with around an inch falling
in Boulder over the weekend.
Eco-friendly plain tap water becomes the surprise food fashion of the year
Excerpt: For those of us who prefer sparkling water to still, it’s not easy
keeping up with the latest trend. Plain tap water has become the surprise food
fashion of the year. A growing number of restaurants are offering it in place of
bottled water, which is much more lucrative and whose popularity had made the
free-flowing kind seem déclassé. On the street, it is not uncommon to see people
toting tap water in refillable Nalgene containers. After reporting on the
environmental impact that disposable water bottles have on landfills, not to mention
the greenhouse gases that are emitted when bottled water travels great distances, I
began to wonder about my own seltzer habit. It’s the only water I drink at home.
In restaurants I order sparkling. It’s not that I’ve fallen for the bottled
water industry’s stellar job of marketing its product as pure, safe and delicious.
It’s just that I like the fizz. You can’t get that from a faucet.
Robert Redford admits to eco-hypocrisy: 'I do like racing’.
Excerpt: In an interview with Playboy Magazine, actor and all-around cool guy Robert
Redford says he drives a hybrid but - guilty pleasure alert - he enjoys speedy
sports cars. Robert admits that's hypocritical but I think we are all still shocked
and upset to find out Playboy actually has articles. Here are the quotes. "I drive
hybrid cars. I've had passive solar heating and wind generation in my Utah home
since 1975. But I must say, I do like racing fast cars. It's a hypocritical, weak
move on my part. But I've always loved speed."
"I love finding a good stretch of road and cutting loose in my Porsche. That's all I
want to say about that."
Clooney admits eco-hypocrisy:
‘I also have a big weak spot because I've flown on private jets’
Excerpt: Do you think celebrity activism has become cliché? David Barry, Armidale,
Australia - Clooney: You don't want to be a spokesperson unless you are absolutely
committed to a cause because you can hurt it. I've been asked to help represent
environmental groups. I'm a big proponent of cleaning up the environment. I have two
electric cars. But I also have a big weak spot because I've flown on private jets.
However, I welcome any of these dumb pundits who make celebrities out to be bad guys
to a discussion about Darfur. Because I've been there and I've met all the players,
and I guarantee you, the pundits haven't."
Gore complains Britney, OJ and Paris are distracting media from global warming
Excerpt: Al Gore thinks Britney Spears, Paris Hilton and O.J. Simpson are getting in
the way of saving the earth. The former vice president was honored on Friday night
at the Oceana Partners Awards Gala in Los Angeles. After being presented with his
award by Anjelica Huston, Gore complained that the media didn’t give enough
coverage to the recent release of a study that warns the polar ice caps could melt
in just a few years, a galagoer tells me. “Gore said there should be a huge alarm
going off all over, and it should be front-page news,” the galagoer reports.
“But when he looked in the paper, all he saw was Britney Spears losing custody of
her kids, O.J. in trouble with the law again and Paris Hilton on the Late Show. He
said he didn’t know what else to do anymore to get this message across.”
Hot World? Blame Cities
Excerpt: Urban heat islands may not explain global warming, but they do bear
profound environmental, social, economic and health consequences that reach beyond
city boundaries. A study of Athens that appeared this year in the journal Climatic
Change suggested that the ecological footprint of the urban heat island is 1 1/2 to
two times larger than the city's political borders.
Further, urban heat islands increase the need for air conditioning, which has
alarming consequences for energy consumption in our cities. Since air conditioning
systems themselves generate heat, this produces a vicious cycle. Some estimate that
the annual cost of the energy consumption caused by the urban heat island could
exceed $1 billion. This is not to say that big buildings can't be made more energy
efficient by using new techniques, such as high-tech skin designs, special
construction materials to reduce energy consumption, green roofs and passive
cooling. But one big problem is that making large buildings green also makes them
much more expensive, so that they're less and less affordable for middle-class and
working-class families. Low-density areas, on the other hand, lend themselves to
much less expensive and more environmentally friendly ways of reducing heat. It
often takes nothing more than double-paned windows to reduce the energy consumption
of a two- or three-story house. Shade can bring it down even further: A nice maple
can cool a two-story house, but it can't quite do the same for a 10-story apartment
building. Focusing on the suburbs has the added virtue of bringing change to where
the action is. Over the past 40 years, the percentage of people opting to live in
cities has held steady at 10 to 15 percent. And since 2000, more than 90 percent of
all metropolitan growth -- even in a legendary new planners' paradise such as
Portland, Ore. -- has taken place in the suburbs.
Eco-business offers to plant ashes of deceased in tree roots to create 'living
Excerpt: The expression "living memorial" has never been so literal.
Start-up EcoEternity is launching an unusual twist on cremation interment in
Middleburg. Trees, not burial plots, are the final resting places for the ashes of
the deceased. For a price, the Centreville-based company will plant cremated remains
in a biodegradable urn, or without any container at all, beside a mature tree to be
soaked up by the root system. The idea is that over time the deceased will become
one with their personal trees. The concept isn't that far fetched. Terry Clark,
associate director of science and education for the Society of American Foresters,
said ashes do mix into a tree's soil, much like fertilizer. "Though I don't know
what nutrients are in human ash," Clark said. EcoEternity is one of several
companies nationwide trying to stir interest in back-to-nature funerals. In some
cases, these green alternatives are just new labels for cremations in which people
sprinkle the ashes of, say, a scuba diver over a coral reef. Some firms are trying
to institutionalize such practices by offering memorial grounds and special