Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Soon after my post on Webmasterworld came a post with tips on writing; I added the following:
Good list, Nomis5. Perhaps best advice I ever came across – in book How to Write Like a Pro, By Barry Tarshis [seemed daft title to me; but recommended to me and excellent; lost my copy] concerned focus control. About having some idea of what’s in your reader’s head, keeping them focused, following your article. Seems obvious but my goodness is that an elephant over there… but if you’re clumsy, can lose reader, break chain of thought, and perhaps lose reader for good. Which isn’t to say that have to write one continuous article, a to b to c. But when start para, end should follow from first sentence; next para should follow on too. It’s also good to use "chapters", even within short articles.
To write, also have to read, and read plenty. Try to be aware of techniques writers are using in good articles. For web, those short paragraphs seem to me more important than in print: text may look daunting on screen.
Lately read book by Joe Sugarman, on writing copy to sell, and he used lots of headings: also worth considering; I’ve increased numbers of headings (tho only one h1 per page). Well, not really answering first question here, but maybe of some relevance and use. More on topic: I mentioned writing articles for print. Later, providing I own copyright, can put them on my site(s). [Or, ask copyright owner if ok to use.]
Here on this site, I earlier did an article: Advice on Writing for Print and for the Web
From CNN:
Quote:Ice cover in the Arctic Ocean, long held to be an early warning of a changing climate, has shattered the all-time low record this summer, scientists say. Additionally, the European Space Agency said nearly 200 satellite photos this month taken together showed an ice-free passage along northern Canada, Alaska and Greenland, according to news reports. … Mark Serreze, senior research scientist at NSIDC, termed the decline "astounding." "It’s almost an exclamation point on the pronounced ice loss we’ve seen in the past 30 years," he said. Most researchers had anticipated the complete disappearance of the Arctic ice pack during summer months would happen after the year 2070, he said, but now, "losing summer sea ice cover by 2030 is not unreasonable."Ice loss ‘opens Northwest Passage’
Read a little re global warming, and you soon find that the skeptics aka denialists include only few actual scientists – one of the most prominent being Fed Singer, a professor of environment in US.
Back in 2003, Singer was such a sceptic that he announced:
“there is no convincing evidence that the global climate is actually warming.”Yet lately, with non-scientist Avery, he has co-authored a book:
Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years– so gone from no warming, to unstoppable warming!
This book, of course, seems to be music to the ears of righties who wanna keep on burning up our oil and so forth, believing or kidding themselves this can’t have any impact, never mind the weight of scientific evidence (haven’t seen the Unstoppable book, but seems it appears weighty, yet I’ve read of authors only considering summaries of papers, cherry picking info, and even ignoring fact that at least one paper concludes anthropogenic warming is significant).
Realclimate has post rebutting some of key points made by Avery in talk he gave about the book:
Avery and Singer: Unstoppable hot airYou can read about Prof Singer, and his links to ExxonMobil money, on ExxoSecrets.org:
S. Fred Singer
while there’s more on Fred on DeSmogBlog:
S. Fred Singer – notes recent report that “Singer is affiliated with no less than 11 think tanks and associations that have received funding from ExxonMobil,” adding. “Singer’s own “Science and Environmental Policy Project” (SEPP) has recieved $20,000 from ExxonMobil.”From Daily Telegraph – showing even Bush surely having to change views, though highly unlikely that he’ll take any real action.
Quote:George Bush’s top scientific advisor has delivered the strongest statement yet from within the US administration that greenhouse gas emissions caused by human activity are to blame for climate change.Professor John Marburger said it was more than 90 per cent likely that mankind was causing global warming and that the earth may become “unlivable” without reductions in CO2 output.
“I think there is widespread agreement on certain basics, and one of the most important is that we are producing far more CO2 from fossil fuels than we ought to be,” he told the BBC.
“And it’s going to lead to trouble unless we can begin to reduce the amount of fossil fuels we are burning and using in our economies.”
Another long, informed article – on US Council on Foreign Relations website.
Summary:Quote:China’s environmental woes are mounting, and the country is fast becoming one of the leading polluters in the world. The situation continues to deteriorate because even when Beijing sets ambitious targets to protect the environment, local officials generally ignore them, preferring to concentrate on further advancing economic growth. Really improving the environment in China will require revolutionary bottom-up political and economic reforms.Elizabeth C. Economy is C. V. Starr Senior Fellow and Director for Asia Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of The River Runs Black: The Environmental Challenges to China’s Future.
includes:
Quote:China has become a world leader in air and water pollution and land degradation and a top contributor to some of the world’s most vexing global environmental problems, such as the illegal timber trade, marine pollution, and climate change. As China’s pollution woes increase, so, too, do the risks to its economy, public health, social stability, and international reputation. As Pan Yue, a vice minister of China’s State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA), warned in 2005, “The [economic] miracle will end soon because the environment can no longer keep pace.”
…
The country is home to 16 of the world’s 20 most polluted cities, and four of the worst off among them are in the coal-rich province of Shanxi, in northeastern China. As much as 90 percent of China’s sulfur dioxide emissions and 50 percent of its particulate emissions are the result of coal use.
…
Yet coal use may soon be the least of China’s air-quality problems. The transportation boom poses a growing challenge to China’s air quality.
…
The Gobi Desert, which now engulfs much of western and northern China, is spreading by about 1,900 square miles annually; some reports say that despite Beijing’s aggressive reforestation efforts, one-quarter of the entire country is now desert.
…
As Liu Quangfeng, an adviser to the National People’s Congress, put it, “Almost no river that flows into the Bo Hai [a sea along China’s northern coast] is clean.” China releases about 2.8 billion tons of contaminated water into the Bo Hai annually, and the content of heavy metal in the mud at the bottom of it is now 2,000 times as high as China’s own official safety standard. … More than 80 percent of the East China Sea, one of the world’s largest fisheries, is now rated unsuitable for fishing, up from 53 percent in 2000.
…
China is already the largest importer of illegally logged timber in the world: an estimated 50 percent of its timber imports are reportedly illegal.
…
China’s Ministry of Public Health is also sounding the alarm with increasing urgency. In a survey of 30 cities and 78 counties released in the spring, the ministry blamed worsening air and water pollution for dramatic increases in the incidence of cancer throughout the country
…
Why is China unable to get its environmental house in order? Its top officials want what the United States, Europe, and Japan have: thriving economies with manageable environmental problems. But they are unwilling to pay the political and economic price to get there. Beijing’s message to local officials continues to be that economic growth cannot be sacrificed to environmental protection — that the two objectives must go hand in hand.Not real surprising to anyone familiar with global warming issue. From Food and Agriculture Organisation:
Quote:Climate change is emerging as one of the main challenges humankind will have to face for many years to come. It could become a major threat to world food security, as it has a strong impact on food production, access and distribution.Abnormal changes in air temperature and rainfall and the increasing frequency and intensity of drought and floods have long-term implications for the viability and productivity of world agro-ecosystems.
This was the main message delivered today by Alexander Müller, FAO Assistant Director General, to over 140 world experts convened in Rome for a workshop on “Adaptation Planning and Strategies.”
…
Agriculture is the sector most affected by changes in climate patterns and will be increasingly vulnerable in the future. Especially at risk are developing countries, which are highly dependent on agriculture and have fewer resources and options to combat damage from climate change.In the short term, as the global average temperature rises 1-3º C, industrialized countries may well gain in food production potential. However, in lower latitudes — especially in subsistence sectors, marginal, semi-arid and sub-humid regions, where rain fed agriculture is the norm — even with a minimal rise in global temperature crop potential will most probably decline.
Living with climate change
Adaptation strategies needed to build resilienceAnother astonishing godwit flight, revealed by satellite tracking; indeed, showing amazing travelling by one godwit, during spring and autumn migrations this year. From Asia-Pacific Shorebird Network:
Quote:E7 – a female Bar-tailed Godwit fitted with a satellite transmitter at Miranda, Firth of Thames in New Zealand on 6th February returned to the place of tagging on the evening of Friday 7 September (local time) after a logged flight of 29,181 km (about 500 hours of flying). During that time she flew to the Yellow Sea, where she stayed for five weeks before flying to Alaska to breed, then flew 11,570 km back to her regular non-breeding site in New Zealand in about 8 days 12 hours.Bar-tailed Godwit E7 returns after a marathon flight
From long article in the Independent, showing grim things are happening up north:
Quote:Polar bears – the very symbol of the Arctic’s looming environmental disaster – are crashing towards extinction as a result of global warming, the US government has found. The admission, the result of a massive investigation by the Bush administration, could force the President finally to take action against climate change. The development comes at the end of the most momentous week in the human history of the Arctic, which is warming faster than anywhere else in the world. Satellite observations have revealed that its ice has shrunk to much its lowest ever level, raising fears that it had reached a "tipping point" where it would melt irreversibly, disappearing altogether in summer in less than 25 years, with incalculable global consequences, And a separate Independent on Sunday investigation has found that polar bears are being shot in alarming numbers by rich trophy hunters … The speed of the melting has taken everyone by surprise; computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predict sea ice should not retreat so far until around 2050. Traditionally the ice reaches its annual minimum in the first week of September, so it should soon start increasing again for the winter. But another record low is expected for next summer. Dr Mark Serreze of the Snow and Ice Data Centre describes the ice as being in a "death spiral… If this is not at or near a tipping point right now, then I’d hate to see what that looks like." A couple of years ago he would not have expected the Arctic to lose all its ice until the end of the century; now he expects it by 2030. This is predicted to have massive global consequences, disrupting the monsoon and bringing prolonged drought to the American midwest, which helps to feed 100 nations.Quote:Wildfires are flaring bigger and hotter in Alaska, the northern Rockies and the Sierra Nevada. Bighorn sheep, mountain goats and grizzly bears in Glacier National Park, along with deer and marsh rabbits in the Florida Keys, face a housing crisis.Glacier’s alpine meadows are disappearing, sea levels are rising in the Keys and other federal lands are feeling the heat from global warming — and the government is not doing much about it, congressional investigators said in a report Thursday.
Climate change, however, does have things looking up for heat-loving pests like beetles, grasshoppers and fungi.
…
After more than three years of study, the Government Accountability Office, an arm of Congress, harshly faulted the Bush administration for doing little to deal with the far-reaching effects of climate change rapidly taking place in national parks, forests, marine sanctuaries and other federal lands and waters — almost 30 percent of the United States.GAO Faults Agencies Over Global Warming
Summary – and link to download pdf of the report – at:
Climate Change: Agencies Should Develop Guidance for Addressing the Effects on Federal Land and Water ResourcesQuote:"If it really is a few degrees warmer in the next 50 years, we could definitely have more cardiovascular disease," said Dr. Karin Schenck-Gustafsson, of the department of cardiology at Sweden’s Karolinska Institute. On the sidelines of the European Society of Cardiology’s annual meeting in Vienna this week, some experts said the issue deserves more attention. It’s well-known that people have more heart problems when it’s hot. … The hardening of the heart’s arteries is like rust developing on a car, said Dr. Gordon Tomaselli, chief of cardiology at Johns Hopkins University. "Rust develops much more quickly at warm temperatures and so does atherosclerosis," said Tomaselli, who is program chair at the American Heart Association. In higher temperatures, we sweat to get rid of heat. During that process, blood is sent to the skin where temperatures are cooler, which opens up the blood vessels. In turn, the heart rate rises and blood pressure drops. That combination can be dangerous for older people and those with weakened cardiovascular systems.Global Warming May Pose Threat to Heart
Another email from Ecological Internet (Sept 07): It is gravely unethical and ecologically devastating to expand production of biofuels at the expense of ancient primary rainforests, biodiverse grasslands, local communities and their food sovereignty
The Colombian government is embarking on a massive expansion of oil palms, sugar cane and other monocultures for agrofuels and other markets at the expense of rainforests, biodiverse grasslands and local communities… Palm oil expansion is linked to large-scale rainforest destruction and to serious violence and human rights abuses.
NGOs have documented 113 killings in the river basin of Curvaradó and Jiguamiandó, in Chocó region at the hands of paramilitaries who are working with plantation companies to take over land which legally belongs to Afro-Colombian communities… The Chocó forests which are being destroyed by palm oil expansion are some of the largest remaining coastal lowland rainforests on the Earth and are amongst the most biodiverse forests on Earth. They are home to 7,000 to 8,000 species, including 2,000 endemic plant species and 100 endemic bird species. Even before the current palm oil and agrofuel expansion, 66% had been destroyed.
Please write to the Colombian government and ask them to protect the rights of indigenous, Afro- Colombian and peasant communities affected by large-scale monoculture plantations, to stop further deforestation for oil palm plantations, impose a moratorium on further palm oil expansion and on the country’s biofuel programme, which is a major cause of monoculture expansion, and to protect the land rights, the food sovereignty and the environment on which local communities depend. This email alert is supported by the Inter-Church Commission for Justice and Peace (Comisión Intereclesial de Justicia y Paz) in Colombia.
Must admit I’d never heard of Larry Craig till his resignation over soliciting an undercover cop in a public toilet.
But, noting the ex senator’s a Democrat, and – shall we say – has shown huge capacity for being economical with the truth (blabbering about doing nothing wrong save admit guilt – so, soliciting sex from a man in a toilet’s ok is it? Then denying being gay; perhaps because for his public image he has be be a fine upstanding ‘murcan), just had look for him and position re global warming.And, looks like he’s a fudger or even a hypocrite on this issue; been among those favouring situational science as mentioned above (this, of course, is not science at all).
Here’s a waffly quote showing he was happily aligned with the ranks of the Idiots:
Quote:For example, in 1998, with Bill Clinton in the White House, Sen. Larry Craig said, “As more and more American scientists review the available data on global warming, it is becoming increasingly clear that the vast majority believe the commitments for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions made by the administration in the Kyoto Protocol are an unnecessary response to an exaggerated threat the vice president himself [i.e., Al Gore] is caught up in making.”Certainty of Catastrophic Global Warming is a Hoax
His website has page re him doing stuff re warming for several years, but seems he’s still a fuzzy-headed about it:Quote:there isn’t even a consensus that a problem exists, let alone what to do about it.The science appears to be clear that we do have a changing climate. But how much is it changing–and why–and is it important? Environmental changes are still largely a mystery. We don’t know how much man contributes to climate variability compared to nature, and we don’t know how much we need to curtail emissions.
I have been engaged on this issue for several years now. It’s mind boggling to contemplate how our economy–and that of the world–could be affected by policy proposals addressing climate change.
Why, we might wonder, doesn’t he admit it’s even more mind boggling to contemplate how entire ecosystems – not just economy – could be transformed if global warming predictions come true; as several already proving true (see another thread here). And not that some economists have suggested that moves to counter global warming might cost only a few percent of GDP – Why not wonder just why people are so opposed to taking action?
So, ex senator Craig, I salute your downfall. Hip hip, Hooray!
Hope you might now stand up and be a man, be true.I mentioned Dilbert above.
Just been sent Doonesbury cartoon, with student scientist puzzled by finding that research results don’t fit the supposed story.
Happily, the White House Situational Science Advisor is there to put him right, inc by saying:Quote:Situational science is about respecting both sides of an argument, not just the one supported by facts.
That’s why I always teach the controversy! Like the evolution controversy, or the global warming controversy…http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20070114
From CNN:
Quote:As the world warms, the United States will face more severe thunderstorms with deadly lightning, damaging hail and the potential for tornadoes, a trailblazing study by NASA scientists suggests. While other research has warned of broad weather changes on a large scale, like more extreme hurricanes and droughts, the new study predicts even smaller events like thunderstorms will be more dangerous because of global warming. The basic ingredients for whopper U.S. inland storms are likely to be more plentiful in a warmer, moister world, said lead author Tony Del Genio, a NASA research scientist. And when that happens, watch out."The strongest thunderstorms, the strongest severe storms and tornadoes are likely to happen more often and be stronger," Del Genio said in an interview Thursday from his office at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. The paper he co-authored was published online this month in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. Other scientists caution that this area of climate research is too difficult and new for this study to be definitive. But some upcoming studies also point in the same direction.
Study: Global warming could bring more severe U.S. storms
Presumably, similar scenarios can be expected for other places – inc China, say, which this year has experienced several major thunderstorms associated with summer flooding.
From Reuters:
Quote:Greenhouse gas emissions — not El Nino or other natural phenomena — pushed U.S. temperatures for 2006 close to a record high, government climate scientists reported on Tuesday.The annual average U.S. temperature in 2006 was 2.1 degrees F (1.16C) above the 20th century average and the ninth consecutive year of above-normal U.S. temperatures, researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration wrote.
…“What we found was a very strong footprint of the observed warming, consistent with the greenhouse gas effect,” [Martin Hoerling of the U.S. climate administration] said in a telephone interview.
…
For most states, 2006 ranked among the 10 hottest years since 1895. Globally, 2005 was the warmest, edging out 1998, with 2006 ranked about sixth for the world, Hoerling said.Big, strong article in the New York Times – start of “A series of articles and multimedia examining the human toll, global impact and political challenge of China’s epic pollution crisis.”
Includes:
Quote:No country in history has emerged as a major industrial power without creating a legacy of environmental damage that can take decades and big dollops of public wealth to undo.But just as the speed and scale of China’s rise as an economic power have no clear parallel in history, so its pollution problem has shattered all precedents. Environmental degradation is now so severe, with such stark domestic and international repercussions, that pollution poses not only a major long-term burden on the Chinese public but also an acute political challenge to the ruling Communist Party. And it is not clear that China can rein in its own economic juggernaut.
Public health is reeling. Pollution has made cancer China’s leading cause of death, the Ministry of Health says. Ambient air pollution alone is blamed for hundreds of thousands of deaths each year. Nearly 500 million people lack access to safe drinking water.
Chinese cities often seem wrapped in a toxic gray shroud. Only 1 percent of the country’s 560 million city dwellers breathe air considered safe by the European Union. Beijing is frantically searching for a magic formula, a meteorological deus ex machina, to clear its skies for the 2008 Olympics.
Environmental woes that might be considered catastrophic in some countries can seem commonplace in China: industrial cities where people rarely see the sun; children killed or sickened by lead poisoning or other types of local pollution; a coastline so swamped by algal red tides that large sections of the ocean no longer sustain marine life.
China is choking on its own success.
…
Since Hu Jintao became the Communist Party chief in 2002 and Wen Jiabao became prime minister the next spring, China’s leadership has struck consistent themes. The economy must grow at a more sustainable, less bubbly pace. Environmental abuse has reached intolerable levels. Officials who ignore these principles will be called to account.Five years later, it seems clear that these senior leaders are either too timid to enforce their orders, or the fast-growth political culture they preside over is too entrenched to heed them.
In the second quarter of this year, the economy expanded at a neck-snapping pace of 11.9 percent, its fastest in a decade. State-driven investment projects, state-backed heavy industry and a thriving export sector led the way. China burned 18 percent more coal than it did the year before.
China’s authoritarian system has repeatedly proved its ability to suppress political threats to Communist Party rule. But its failure to realize its avowed goals of balancing economic growth and environmental protection is a sign that the country’s environmental problems are at least partly systemic, many experts and some government officials say. China cannot go green, in other words, without political change.
…As China Roars, Pollution Reaches Deadly Extremes
Series at:
Choking on GrowthFrom website called CitizenLink – where can also learn stuff such as re crisis over sexuality.
Just some hint, here, that there’s alarmism among evangelicals as the science becomes stronger re global warming being real, and being really a problem.Quote:Evangelical Christians have radically different priorities from the rest of the country about the challenges the U.S. must confront in the next 10 years.This alone alarms me!
Quote:According to a Barna poll, that’s especially true concerning global warming alarmism.Only about a third of evangelicals gave global warming “top priority” status. They rated the issue lower than any of the other 80 groups in the survey. Topping the priority list for evangelicals was the health of churches.
Stuart Shepard, managing editor of CitizenLink, who is also a meteorologist, said major news outlets are largely to blame for the hype.
“If people get their information from the mainstream media, they’re only hearing one side of this,” he told Family News in Focus. “There are top scientists and researchers who are skeptical of the outrageous claims about global warming and they make some solid science-based arguments, but you’d never know it from the evening news.”
Now, surely evangelicals of all people should not be prone to being, errr, economical with the truth. For here’s a statement that comes without being substantiated – as indeed it can’t be, for as has been shown time and again, the vast majority of science on the issue shows that global warming as a result of greenhouse gases is real, and is really a problem.
Quote:He said Focus on the Family Action has been strongly encouraging evangelicals to not allow global warming alarmism to become a defining or a dividing issue.“Most evangelicals do not and should not see this as an issue that would rise to the level of evangelism, the sanctity of life, and the protection of marriage and religious liberty.”
hmm, so a few people among evangelicals who may have started thinking for themselves on the issue, reading some of the science, being told what to do – Come along, be good sheep, do as we say and never mind those scientist people, and those rising temperatures, and those signs that storms are increasing as glaciers and Arctic ice melt, there is trouble – and just maybe we are being woefully inept stewards of the Creation.
Quote:Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said the poll doesn’t mean evangelicals are not interested in taking care of the planet.“Despite what the media may want to project upon evangelicals,” he said, “they understand that if we, as a nation, get the spiritual issues right and build strong marriages and families — most of the other problems will be solved.”
I see – so if you happen to be in an area that’s struck by another major hurricane as the powerful cyclones increase, or you’re affected by long term drought or major floods, just make sure you have a strong family…
Global Warming Not High on Evangelicals’ Priority ListHopefully, we’ll see more evangelicals start to use their brains, and start to realise that having stewardship over the creation means that should be able to look after it; and to do so, should change our ways. Changes predicted with warming will impact families far more than any action we might take to alleviate warming.
Indeed, have to wonder: why is it that some prominent evangelical types seem so opposed to doing things that might benefit our planet, and future generations?From China Daily report:
Quote:The country’s grain harvest is likely to fall considerably because of global warming and it will need an additional 10 million hectares of arable land to feed the people by 2030, a top climate official said Wednesday.“Global warming may cause the grain harvest to fall by 5 to 10 percent, that is by 30-50 million tons, by 2030,” said Zheng Guoguang, head of the State Meteorological Administration.
And since the population is expected to peak at 1.5 billion in 2030, 200 million more than now, the country would need to produce an additional 100 million tons of food to feed them.
…
“Warmer weather will shorten the growth period of some grains and their seeds won’t have enough time to ripen.”The swarm of insects will increase, too, because warmer winters will enable them to be active in spring, Zheng said.
Also, a 1 C rise in temperature would hasten the speed of ground water evaporation by 7 percent and that would greatly affect grain production, he said.
Quote:he State of the UK’s Birds 2006 report shows that the wintering populations of some species are declining, principally, it is suggested, because of climate change.The report, which examines bird population trends, has also highlighted a doubling of the overall numbers of 39 species of waterfowl spending the winter in the UK in the last three decades.
Every winter the UK receives over five million ducks, geese, swans and wading birds, from northern Europe, Greenland, Siberia and Arctic Canada. These birds are attracted to spend the winter in Britain and Ireland because of the relatively mild climate and ice-free conditions.
According to the State of the UK’s Birds 2006, the populations of some species, notably wading birds including the black-tailed godwit and the avocet, have increased markedly since the late 1970s. This is largely as a result of conservation action.
However, concerns are growing over the decline in the populations of other regular visitors, including the Greenland European populations of white-fronted geese, shelduck, mallard, pochard, ringed plover, dunlin and turnstone.
Milder wintersThe precise reasons for the decline of each species vary, but a common theme appears to be climate change. As winters become milder both in the UK and elsewhere, it appears that some birds are not flying as far as the UK to find suitable conditions: this trend has been particularly noted in Northern Ireland with declines of pochard and Bewick’s swan.
Similar changes perhaps underway here in east Asia, too: indeed, apparent climate change effects evident at Beidaihe, east China, even by late 1980s.
Last winter, Dalmatian Pelicans didn’t make it south as far as Hong Kong, maybe as relatively warm.Quote:The Bush administration must release a climate-change research plan and scientific assessment report that are as much as two years overdue, a federal judge ruled, rejecting a White House claim that compliance with a law requiring the studies is discretionary.U.S. District Judge Saundra Armstrong in Oakland, California, said yesterday that the administration violated a 1990 U.S. law requiring the government to produce the research plans every three years and the assessments every four years. She ordered a summary of the research plan to be produced by March and the assessment by May.
The administration “unlawfully withheld action” required under the Global Change Research Act of 1990, said Armstrong. The last research plan was in 2003, and the last assessment was published in 2000. Greenpeace International and two other environmental groups sued in November seeking a court order to produce the reports.
“This administration has denied and suppressed the science of global warming at every turn,” Brendan Cummings, an attorney arguing the case for the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement. Cummings called the ruling “a stern rebuke of the administration’s head-in-the-sand approach to global warming.”
President Bush Ordered to Release Overdue Global-Warming Plan
Good article by Chris Mooney, who has written book apparent link between hurricane/tropical cyclone intensity and global warming. Uses current Hurricane Dean as starting point, and includes:
Quote:Dean now takes its rank among the top ten most intense Atlantic hurricanes. If you look at that list you’ll see that six of the strongest (Wilma, Rita, Katrina, Mitch, Dean, and Ivan) have been in the past ten years. That’s not the kind of statistic that’s easy to overlook. According to these data we are getting more super-strong storms in the Atlantic basin than we ever have before.To be sure, there’s a counterargument here: Data wasn’t as good on hurricane intensity in previous eras as it is today, when our measuring equipment is better than ever. Stronger storms may well have existed in the past, but we were simply incapable of detecting their true strength.
This is a serious objection, although it’s hard to know precisely how serious. Nevertheless, the fact remains that if you look at the official records, Dean now fits in to a staggering hurricane decade. That’s highly suggestive, if not definitive. And this staggering decade has occurred in part because of anomalously warm ocean temperatures in the hurricane-prone regions. Many scientists question whether you can explain these warm anomalies without invoking global warming as at least part of the cause.
…
according to my ongoing “Storm Pundit” count of mega-hurricanes, Dean is the 10th Category 4 or 5 tropical cyclone observed globally this year. [Mooney lists the storms]
…
by my own count, there were 19 of these intense storms in 2006, 22 in 2005, and 23 in 2004. Hurricane specialist Jeff Masters says the long term average is 17 — in which case all of these years would be above it and we might indeed be looking at a trend.Hurricane Dean: 1 Of 10 Most Intense Atlantic Hurricanes Ever Measured
Seems the better the science underlying global warming, the greater the hysteria, with commentators trying to outdo themselves with stupidity of their prose.
Carl Thomas (who he?) maybe saw the nuttiness re Nuremberg Trials, and decided he could do better. Here, from an article in Salt Lake Tribune, are couple of his loopiest sentences:Quote:Grown-up scientists, theologians, historians, archaeologists and others who pursue facts and objective truths are rooted in reality and constantly adjusting their conclusions, theories and hypotheses when new information comes to light. Those who ignore facts and cling to outdated information, or outright falsehoods, can quickly embrace fanaticism. [err, like the fanaticism of the denial lobby these days?]
So it is with ”global warming,” the secular religion of our day that even has a good number of adherents among people of faith. Having decided to focus less on the eternal and whether anyone dwells there, global warming fundamentalists are pushing planet worship on us in a manner that would make a jihadist proud.
…
That ought to be enough to give everyone pause, along with emerging evidence that the global warming jihadists may be more full of hot air than the climate they claim is about to burn us up.– Oh dear, the poor lad seems to be almost frothing at the mouth here.
does, though, insert some truth, in what’s perhaps a Freudian slip:Quote:One can get a sense of who is telling the truth about global warming by the company the concept keeps.– indeed! How often have you noticed the sceptics are supported by energy companies, and/or are died-in-the-wool righties?
Thomas: Logic of global warming jihadists: So much hot airThe skeptics’ lobby seems more alarmed by the day. Michael Fox, PhD – who worked in the energy industry (hmm….) has penned a piece in Hawaii reporter, which includes pooh-poohing fears re ozone hole, and this:
Quote:There has been little debate and instead personal attacks, threats, loss of funding, calls for speech suppression, and even Nuremburg Trials.Twisted Science Bullies of the Beltway Oh dear, oh dear – "Nuremberg Trials". What an insult this is, including to anyone reading Fox’s baloney. "Twisted Science", the article is called, yet here the truth is not merely twisted, it’s exaggerated, blown out of all proportions.
[/quote]PRESS RELEASE
For immediate release – 13th August 2007
Joint Press Release by Biofuelwatch, Ecological Internet and
Rainforest RescueBiofuel expansion threatens Europe’s wildlife as agricultural set-
asides are to be scrappedMillions of farm birds could be left without enough food and
breeding sites next spring if plans to scrap Europe’s agricultural
land set-aside targets for next year go ahead, warn environmental
groups. Plans to set a zero set-aside targets from October this
year have been announced by the EU Commissioner for Agriculture,
Mariann Fischer-Boel, as a response to rising food prices. Those
plans are to be ratified by ministers this autumn. Several studies
confirm that set-asides have become a vital habitat for many of
Europe’s endangered birds and insects, and that farm birds have
declined by nearly 50% on average since 1980. Over 5300 people
have written to European politicians this month, asking for the
plans to be dropped and supporting a moratorium on biofuel targets.Glen Barry, Director of Ecological Internet explains: “Dramatic
declines in insect, bird and wild flower populations show that many
of Europe’s ecosystems are under extreme stress from intensive
agriculture and climate change. Our future depends on protecting
healthy ecosystems. We need real cuts in greenhouse gas emissions,
with massive cuts in energy use as well as truly sustainable
renewable energy, such as wind and solar power. More intensively
farmed monocultures cannot be part of the solution.”Almuth Ernsting from Biofuelwatch adds “There is no doubt that the
expansion in biofuels is pushing up food prices. The European
Union are committed to stopping biodiversity losses by 2010 but
those plans will almost certainly make this impossible. Our birds
and insects must not be sacrificed for biofuel expansion. We need
a moratorium on EU biofuel targets and incentives now – and we need
to keep our set asides until they can be replaced with better
environmental safeguards.”Few environmental NGOs regard the current set-aside system, as
being the ideal instrument for protecting farmland biodiversity,
although it provides a safety net for many species. Many NGOs hope
that a ‘health check’ of the Common Agricultural Policy in 2008
will lead to more targeted environmental safeguards. However,
there are widespread concerns that sudden scrapping of all set-
aside targets without any replacement or reform will devastate bird
and insect populations.According to Reinhard Behrend from Rainforest Rescue, Germany,
“biofuel expansion is already causing rainforest destruction and
the displacement of large numbers of communities in the global
South. At the same time, poor people are hit hardest by rising
food prices whilst Europe burns more and more food in cars. The
only logical solution is to suspend biofuel targets, whilst
drastically reducing our overall fuel use.”Contacts:
Almuth Ernsting, Biofuelwatch, info[at]biofuelwatch.org.uk, UK –
Tel 0044-(1)224-324797 or 0044 (1)224-7925 364186Glen Barry, Ecological Internet, US,
GlenBarry[at]EcologicalInternet.org -Tel 001-920 776 1075Notes:
1. For further details of the organisations involved see:
Biofuelwatch: http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk
Ecological Internet: http://www.EcoEarth.Info
Rainforest Rescue: http://www.regenwald.org.2. An email action alert against the planned abolition of set-
aside targets for 2008 and for a moratorium on EU biofuel targets
has been signed by over 5300 individuals and can be found at
http://www.climateark.org/alerts/send.asp?id=europe_biofuel_ecosystem
and
http://www.regenwald.org/international/englisch/protestaktion.php?id=195 .3. A call for a Moratorium on EU biofuel targets and incentives,
and on large-scale monocultures for bioenergy in Europe has been
signed by 152 organisations from the global North and South. The
text and the list of signatories can be found at
http://www.econexus.info/biofuels.html [/quote]Just seen rather loopy piece on the Newsweek feature by group calling itself AIM – Accuracy in Media (“accurate” being from far-right distorted perspective? – front page stories include one explaining “It is fascinating to watch how our liberal media treat the Bush Administration on foreign policy matters.)
Similar to Newsbusters; even refers to the Newsbonkers story as “fascinating”.
Trots out various assertions re warming – could be the sun etc, along with quotes from usual suspects, inc Inhofe, Bob Carter.
Also indulges in some stupid fearmongering re calls for change to slow warming:Quote:What is at stake is our standard of living.
…
In truth, they are the mud-slingers with a political agenda that threatens the American way of life. This is the fact that they are so desperate to conceal.– Small-minded, blinkered, blithering idiocy, pandering to gormless right-wingers in the US of A. And with no realisation there is actual science behind global warming – and behind showing sun isn’t sole cause of recent warming.
No awareness there is far more at stake than simply “the American way of life”, whatever that is.
If you’ve a strong stomach, or curious re how global warming hysteria looks in US, see:
Newsweek Burns Truth in Global Warming StoryIf you want some hysteria and distorted information on global warming, seems the site Newsbusters is as good a place to look as any. Despite trying to pooh-pooh science re warming, seems happy enough to agree that warming is happening when it seems things might be ok – as a few in Russia suggest (about, err, Russia, not the planet as a whole). In a piece by some geezer billed as "economist, business owner…" (so, not a scientist then), quotes source saying:
Quote:As the long and dreary Russian winters become balmier, billions of dollars will be saved on heating and there will be fewer cases of depression, says Vladimir Klimenko, a professor at the Moscow Energy Institute, whose lab is funded by the state-run oil and gas company.– notice the funding of Vlad the Kilmenko: echoes of Exxon! the item conclusion includes:
Quote:In the end, as the planet has indeed been much warmer in the past than it is today – despite protestations to the contrary by folks with a political agenda– I haven’t seen scientists denying re planet having being warmer in past; it’s warmth relative to periods for much of human history, plus speed of warming, that are seen as problems. And laughable that Newsbustes should accuse anyone of political agenda: site bills itself as "Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias". Russia Welcomes Global Warming as Answer to All Its Prayers – even this title is stupid! "all its prayers" indeed! Must dash; feeling a bit bilious
From World Meteorological Association release:
Quote:Weather and climate are marked by record extremes in many regions across the world since January 2007. In January and April 2007 it is likely that global land surface temperatures ranked warmest since records began in 1880, 1.89°C warmer than average for January and 1.37°C warmer than average for April. Several regions have experienced extremely heavy precipitation, leading to severe floods. The Fourth Assessment Report of the WMO /UNEP Intergovernmental Group on Climate Change (IPCC) notes an increasing trend in extreme events observed during the last 50 years. IPCC further projects it to be very likely that hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent.
…
During the first half (June-July) of the Indian summer monsoon season, four monsoon depressions (double the normal frequency) caused heavy rainfall and floods in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Many stations reported 24-hr rainfall exceeding 350 mm. These monsoon extremes and incessant rains caused large-scale flooding all over South Asia, a situation that continues even now, resulting in more than 500 deaths
…
Cyclone Gonu, the first documented cyclone in the Arabian Sea, made landfall in Oman on 6 June with maximum sustained winds near 148 km/h. …
Heavy rains during 6-10 June ravaged areas across southern China.
…
In England and Wales the period May to July in 2007 was the wettest (406 mm) since records began in 1766, breaking the previous record of 349 mm in 1789.
…
Two extreme heat waves affected south-eastern Europe in June and July, breaking the previous records with temperatures exceeding 40 °C.
…
An increase in intense tropical cyclone activities in the North Atlantic since about 1970 has been observed.The World Meteorological Organization reports on extreme weather and climate events
Newsweek article, Climate Change Deniers: a Well Funded Machine has various folk in the scepticism business hot under the collar. Includes writer in Investor’s Business Daily, whose piece for some reason includes:
Quote:In 1633, Galileo Galilei was put on trial "for holding as true a false doctrine taught by many," namely that the earth moved around the sun. In Newsweek’s view, Galileo was a "denier" of the accepted "consensus." You know the type — hacks like Copernicus, who disputed the fact that Earth was the center of the universe, or Columbus, who disputed the international consensus that Earth was flat.Chilling Effect – it’s of course barking mad to make such an argument, for the "consensus" versus Galileo’s false doctrine was based on religion, not science [again, w Copernicus and Columbus, science was on their side]. Much as the arguments vs global warming being non-issue are predominantly political based, while overwhelming scientific research/evidence backs global warming being major problem. Were Galileo alive today, he would recognise the potential perils of global warming; he was a scientist, not a political pundit.
Good to see article in Newsweek, which clearly ruffling righties’ feathers.
Includes:
Quote:the denial machine is running at full throttle—and continuing to shape both government policy and public opinion.Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless. “They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry,” says former senator Tim Wirth, who spearheaded environmental issues as an under secretary of State in the Clinton administration. “Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That’s had a huge impact on both the public and Congress.”
Just last year, polls found that 64 percent of Americans thought there was “a lot” of scientific disagreement on climate change; only one third thought planetary warming was “mainly caused by things people do.” In contrast, majorities in Europe and Japan recognize a broad consensus among climate experts that greenhouse gases—mostly from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas to power the world’s economies—are altering climate.
…
“As soon as the scientific community began to come together on the science of climate change, the pushback began,” says historian Naomi Oreskes of the University of California, San Diego. Individual companies and industry associations—representing petroleum, steel, autos and utilities, for instance—formed lobbying groups with names like the Global Climate Coalition and the Information Council on the Environment.
…
Challenging the science wasn’t a hard sell on Capitol Hill. “In the House, the leadership generally viewed it as impermissible to go along with anything that would even imply that climate change was genuine,” says Goldston, the former Republican staffer. “There was a belief on the part of many members that the science was fraudulent, even a Democratic fantasy. A lot of the information they got was from conservative think tanks and industry.”
…
Ex-oil lobbyist Philip Cooney, working for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, edited a 2002 report on climate science by sprinkling it with phrases such as “lack of understanding” and “considerable uncertainty.” A short section on climate in another report was cut entirely. The White House “directed us to remove all mentions of it,” says Piltz, who resigned in protest. An oil lobbyist faxed Cooney, “You are doing a great job.”
…
Look for the next round of debate to center on what Americans are willing to pay and do to stave off the worst of global warming. So far the answer seems to be, not much.Back in February 2004, I received email from poultry flu expert Carol Cardona, inc
Quote:The reason I speculated that humans moving birds should
not be eliminated as suspects in the spread of this disease is that in my
experience sick and dead ducks don’t fly far. But, people can very easily
move sick birds over many miles. The movements may be legal or illegal but
in an outbreak of disease, they usually happen. I don’t think migratory
birds can be eliminated as major spreaders but you can never underestimate
the ability of humans to move disease.I’ve since simplified this to argue “Dead Ducks Don’t Fly” – but also added far more, looked at much info.
Yet, many wild pronouncements re migratory birds carrying H5N1 around, and/or set to transport it to all corners of the globe (ever see any of the crassest idiocy from Henry Niman? – Aaarghh!!0
Paper just on CDC site looks at the issue, conclusion much as in Cardona’s email.
Abstract:
Quote:The claim that migratory birds are responsible for the long-distance spread of highly pathogenic avian influenza viruses of subtype H5N1 rests on the assumption that infected wild birds can remain asymptomatic and migrate long distances unhampered. We critically assess this claim from the perspective of ecologic immunology, a research field that analyzes immune function in an ecologic, physiologic, and evolutionary context. Long-distance migration is one of the most demanding activities in the animal world. We show that several studies demonstrate that such prolonged, intense exercise leads to immunosuppression and that migratory performance is negatively affected by infections. These findings make it unlikely that wild birds can spread the virus along established long-distance migration pathways. However, infected, symptomatic wild birds may act as vectors over shorter distances, as appears to have occurred in Europe in early 2006.final sentence:
Quote:Migratory birds are already affected by habitat destruction and climate change; alarmist statements blaming migrants for the spread of an emerging disease with pandemic potential and ignoring or underplaying the role of the poultry industry do not do justice to the complexity of the issues involvedEcologic Immunology of Avian Influenza (H5N1) in Migratory Birds
further comment I sent to aiwatch (group re bird flu and wild birds):
o why then the widespread blame of wild birds, inc by many people who
should know better – of course the FAO’s Domenech (how much have FAO to
hide, hope is not widely seen?); and even some purported
“conservationists”? [money helping latter avoid telling it like it is?]How many birds killed, scared; how many people unnecessarily scared of
wild birds during this modern-day witchhunt?
How many small holders had livelihoods seriously disrupted, as wild
birds supposedly about to bring in bird flu; while Big Chicken
companies like Bernard Matthews have been merrily transporting
eggs/chicks/poultry back and forth, and misplacing paperwork or
whatever?Anyone standing up to express shame over their roles in all this?
Not that I can see, tho some are quieter nowadays.Anyone seen, yet, the FAO report on S Korea situation: was this shoved
away from limelight once it appeared wild birds weren’t the vectors
there? [curious Nial Moores told to remove his account from website:
was it factually wrong, or just telling the “wrong” story?, not
convenient for fans of Big Chicken.]How many places are still feeding chicken manure and carcasses to fish?
– anyone done research into whether this isn’t such a good idea after
all? Or, too busy being witch-hunters.
