Skip to main content

Home/ Open Intelligence / Ecology/ Group items tagged site

Rss Feed Group items tagged

D'coda Dcoda

Scientists in Revolt against Global Warming [27Nov11] - 0 views

  • Global warming became a cause to save life on earth before it had a chance to become good science.  The belief that fossil fuel use is an emergency destroying our planet by CO2 emissions took over the media and political arena by storm.  The issue was politicized so quickly that the normal scientific process was stunted.  We have never had a full, honest national debate on either the science or government policy issues. Everyone "knows" that global warming is true.  The public has no idea of the number of scientists -- precisely one thousand at last count of a congressional committee -- who believe that global warming is benign and natural, and that it ended in 1998.  We have not been informed of the costs to our economy of discouraging fossil fuel development and promoting alternatives.  The public need to know the choices being made on their behalf, and to have a say in the matter.  We are constantly told that the scientific and policy debate on global warming is over.  It has just begun.
  • The worst hurricanes were in 1926, the second-worst in 1900.  The world's top hurricane experts say that there is no evidence that global warming affects storms.
  • More and more scientists are revolting against the global warming consensus enforced by government funding, the academic establishment, and media misrepresentation.  They are saying that solar cycles and the complex systems of cloud formation have much more influence on our climate, and account for historical periods of warming and cooling much more accurately that a straight line graph of industrialization, CO2, and rising temperatures.  They also point out that the rising temperatures that set off the global warming panic ended in 1998.
  • ...24 more annotations...
  • Scientists who report findings that contradict man-made global warming find their sources of funding cut, their jobs terminated, their careers stunted, and their reports blocked from important journals, and they are victimized by personal attacks.  This is a consensus one associates with a Stalinist system, not science in the free world.
  • The theory that entirely natural sun cycles best explain warming patterns emerged years ago, but the Danish scientists "soon found themselves vilified, marginalized and starved of funding, despite their impeccable scientific credentials."  Physicists at Europe's most prestigious CERN laboratory tried to test the solar theory in 1996, and they, too, found their project blocked.  This fall, the top scientific journal Nature published the first experimental proof -- by a team of 63 scientists at CERN -- that the largest factor in global warming is the sun, not humans.  But the director of CERN forbade the implications of the experiment to be explained to the public: "I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them.  That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate."
  • The Royal Society, Britain's premier scientific institution -- whose previous president declared that "the debate on climate change is over" -- "is being forced to review its statements on climate change after a rebellion by members who question mankind's contribution to rising temperatures. ... The society has been accused by 43 of its Fellows of refusing to accept dissenting views on climate change and exaggerating the degree of certainty that man-made emissions are the main cause."
  • In America, Dr. Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize-winner in physics, resigned in protest from the American Physical Society this fall because of the Society's policy statement: "The evidence is incontrovertible: global warming is occurring."  Dr. Giaver:
  • Incontrovertible is not a scientific word. Nothing is incontrovertible in science. In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this "warming" period.
  • In 2008, Prof. Giaever endorsed Barack Obama's candidacy, but he has since joined 100 scientists who wrote an open letter to Obama, declaring: "We maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated." Do a Google search: you will find this letter reported in Britain and even India, but not in America.
  • Fifty-one thousand Canadian engineers, geologists, and geophysicists were recently polled by their professional organization. Sixty-eight percent of them disagree with the statement that "the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled."  Only 26% attributed global warming to "human activity like burning fossil fuels."  APEGGA's executive director Neil Windsor said, "We're not surprised at all.  There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of."
  • Dr. Joanne Simpson, one of the world's top weather scientists, expressed relief upon her retirement that she was finally free to speak "frankly" on global warming and announce that "as a scientist I remain skeptical." 
  • Dr. Simpson was a pioneer in computer modeling and points out the obvious: computer models are not yet good enough to predict weather -- we cannot scientifically predict global climate trends.
  • Dr. Fred Singer, first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, and physicist Dr. Seitz, past president of the APS, of Rockefeller University and of the National Academy of Science, argue that the computer models are fed questionable data and assumptions that determine the answers on global warming that the scientists expect to see.
  • Berkeley Professor Muller did a media blitz with the findings of the latest analysis of all land temperature data, the BEST study, that he claimed once and for all proved that the planet is warming.  Predictably, the Washington Post proclaimed that the BEST study had "settled the climate change debate" and showed that anyone who remained a skeptic was committing a "cynical fraud."
  • But within a week, Muller's lead co-author, Professor Curry, was interviewed in the British press (not reported in America), saying that the BEST data did the opposite: the global "temperature trend of the last decade is absolutely flat, with no increase at all - though the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have carried on rising relentlessly."
  • This is nowhere near what the climate models were predicting," Prof Curry said.  "Whatever it is that's going on here, it doesn't look like it's being dominated by CO2."  In fact, she added, in the wake of the unexpected global warming standstill, many climate scientists who had previously rejected sceptics' arguments were now taking them much more seriously.  They were finally addressing questions such as the influence of clouds, natural temperature cycles and solar radiation - as they should have done, she said, a long time ago.
  • Professor Muller, confronted with dissent, caved and admitted that indeed, both ocean and land measurements show that global warming stopped increasing in 1998.
  • Media coverage on global warming has been criminally one-sided.  The public doesn't know where the global warming theory came from in the first place.  Answer: the U.N., not a scientific body.
  • It was political from the beginning, with the conclusion assumed: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (U.N. IPCC) was funded to report on how man was changing climate.  Its scientific reports have been repeatedly corrected for misrepresentation and outright fraud.
  • The science of global climate is in its infancy.
  • Yet the U.N. IPCC reports drive American policy.  The EPA broke federal law requiring independent analysis and used the U.N. IPCC reports in its "endangerment" finding that justifies extreme regulatory actions.  Senator Inhofe is apoplectic:
  • Global warming regulations imposed by the Obama-EPA under the Clean Air Act will cost American consumers $300 to $400 billion a year, significantly raise energy prices, and destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs. This is not to mention the 'absurd result' that EPA will need to hire 230,000 additional employees and spend an additional $21 billion to implement its [greenhouse gas] regime.
  • Former top scientists at the U.N. IPCC are protesting publicly against falsification of global warming data and misleading media reports.  Dr. John Everett, for example, was the lead researcher on Fisheries, Polar Regions, Oceans and Coastal Zones at the IPCC and a former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) senior manager, and he received an award while at NOAA for "accomplishments in assessing the impacts of climate change on global oceans and fisheries."  Here is what he has to say on global warming:
  • It is time for a reality check. Warming is not a big deal and is not a bad thing. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios ... I would much rather have the present warm climate, and even further warming...No one knows whether the Earth is going to keep warming, or since reaching a peak in 1998, we are at the start of a cooling cycle that will last several decades or more.
  • Obama has adopted the California model.  The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 has shed a million jobs in that state.  California now has almost 12% unemployment, ranking 50th in the nation.
  • The country could be following North Dakota, where oil development has led to a 3.5% unemployment rate, or Texas, which has created 40% of the jobs nationwide since the 2009 economic crash thanks to its robust energy sector.  These are good jobs.  An entry-level job on an oil rig pays $70,000 a year.  A roughneck with a high school diploma earns $100,000 a year in Wyoming's Jonah Fields.  Brazil's new offshore oil discoveries are predicted to create 2 million jobs there.  We have almost three times more oil than Brazil.
  • The cover of fighting to save the planet gives the government unlimited powers to intrude into private business and our individual homes.  The government can reach its long arm right into your shower and control how much hot water you are allowed to use.  In the words of MIT atmospheric scientist Dr. Lindzen, "[c]ontrolling carbon is kind of a bureaucrat's dream.  If you control carbon, you control life."
D'coda Dcoda

Sickness,Death, Environmental Impacts of Dispersants - 0 views

  • The report, The Chaos Of Clean-Up, was prepared in response to widespread public concern among Gulf Coast communities about the safety of chemicals, known as dispersants, that were poured into the Gulf of Mexico to disperse oil during the Deepwater Horizon disaster. This report presents findings from a literature review of scientific research on each of 57 chemical ingredients that are found in dispersants that were eligible for use at the time of the Deepwater Horizon disaster. The ingredients and formulas for various dispersants on the market typically are not available, and it is not fully known which chemical ingredients among the 57 are found in which dispersant.
  • The review demonstrates the wide range of potential impacts from exposure to the chemicals found in dispersants. From carcinogens, to endocrine disruptors, to chemicals that are toxic to aquatic organisms, some of the ingredients in oil dispersants are indeed potential hazards. For instance, of the 57 ingredients, 5 chemicals are associated with cancer 33 chemicals are associated with skin irritation, from rashes to burns 33 chemicals are linked to eye irritation 11 chemicals are suspected or potential respiratory toxins or irritants 10 chemicals are suspected kidney toxins.
  • As for potential effects on the marine environment, 8 chemicals are suspected or known to be toxic to aquatic organisms 5 chemicals are suspected to have a moderate acute toxicity to fish Clearly, some of the chemical ingredients are more toxic than others, and some dispersants are more toxic in particular environments. The widely-varying toxicity of different dispersants underscores the importance of full disclosure and proper selection of dispersants for use in oil spill response.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • While revealing some of the potential hazards of dispersants, the literature review also highlights the extent of our current lack of knowledge about dispersants and their impacts. Ultimately, the absence of thorough scientific research on dispersants and the chemicals that comprise dispersants, as well as the lack of public disclosure of each dispersant's ingredients and formulation, hinders any effort to understand the full impacts of dispersant use. These findings call for more research, greater disclosure of the information that is known, comprehensive toxicity testing, the establishment of safety criteria for dispersants, and careful selection of the least toxic dispersants for application in oil spill response. Download Complete Report: The Chaos Of Clean-Up
  •  
    An executive summary on the dispersants used in the BP oil spill
D'coda Dcoda

EPA finds contamination at former rocket test site Callifornia [ 14Dec12] - 0 views

  • SIMI VALLEY, Calif. (AP) — Lingering radioactive contamination exists at a former rocket test lab outside of Los Angeles that was the site of a partial nuclear meltdown, federal environmental regulators said Wednesday. The Environmental Protection Agency launched a $42 million study to investigate radioactive pollution at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, 25 miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles. Technicians collected 3,735 soil samples from a corner of the 2,850-acre hilltop lab where most of the testing was done. Of those, they found about 10 percent contained radioactive concentrations exceeding background levels. Most of the contaminated soil was found in places like the materials handling facility that were previously cleaned, but it looked like "isolated spots were missed," said Mary Aycock, an EPA Superfund remedial project manager.
D'coda Dcoda

Breakthrough in the Macondo Mystery: BP Admits to New Activity at Deepwater Horizon Sit... - 0 views

  • In a bombshell revelation that’s going viral, BP has admitted to conducting a study to “track oil from seabed to surface” in the Macondo Prospect. Sounds to me like they’ve found a leak. Not so fast. A leak would suggest BP is to blame (perish the thought), but a “natural seep” would imply an act of God, conveniently out of the hands of mere mortals. Here’s how Sabrina Canfield covered the BP disclosure for Courthouse News Service on Nov. 21:
  • nd a leak.
  • In an emailed statement late Friday, a representative from BP verified that several vessels are in the vicinity of the Macondo well: “There are several vessels there participating in a study of natural oil seeps. This study has been ongoing for the past month or so. Data continues being collected and we provided an update on the natural oil seeps at the SETAC [Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry] conference in Boston this week. … The study is documenting the specific locations of these seeps and is seeking to track oil flow from seabed to surface,” BP wrote. If there are seeps in the area, they are not natural. I can assure you of that. BP was required to conduct a seafloor survey prior to applying for a permit to drill. If these seeps were not discovered during the survey – which they apparently weren’t – they must be related to the disaster and the heavy-handed methods used to attempt to seal the well.
D'coda Dcoda

Global Tracking of Small Animals Gains Momentum - 0 views

  • ovember 2011 > Pennisi, 334 (6059): 1042 OAS_AD('Top'); Sciencewww.sciencemag.org Prev | Table of Contents | Next Science 25 November 2011: Vol. 334 no. 6059 p. 1042 DOI: 10.1126/science.334.6059.1042 News & Analysis Animal EcologyGlobal Tracking of Small Animals Gains Momentum Elizabeth Pennisi Summary An ecologist has developed a new space-based system to track animals too small to be monitored globally with current instruments. Next month, he and his colleagues will begin testing whether a new animal tag can eventually communicate with the International Space Station. He has also been promised $2.3 million to start to set up an antenna
  • An ecologist has developed a new space-based system to track animals too small to be monitored globally with current instruments. Next month, he and his colleagues will begin testing whether a new animal tag can eventually communicate with the International Space Station. He has also been promised $2.3 million to start to set up an antenna on the space station for ICARUS, as the project is called. If all goes well, he says, by the end of 2014, the antenna will be tracking about 1000 small animals, with the potential to follow thousands more, enabling him and collaborators to assess how the creatures spend their lives and where they die.
D'coda Dcoda

Nuclear Risks at Bed, Bath & Beyond Show Dangers of Scrap [20Mar12] - 0 views

  • The discovery of radioactive tissue boxes at Bed, Bath & Beyond Inc. (BBBY) stores in January raised alarms among nuclear security officials and company executives over the growing global threat of contaminated scrap metal.
  • While the U.S. home-furnishing retailer recalled the boutique boxes from 200 stores nationwide without any reports of injury, the incident highlighted one of the topics drawing world leaders to a nuclear security meeting in Seoul on March 26-27. The bi-annual summit, convened by President Barack Obama for the first time in 2010, seeks to stem the flow of atomic material that has been lost, stolen or discarded as trash.
  • As U.S. and European leaders tackle the proliferation of weapons-grade uranium or plutonium in countries like Iran and North Korea, industries are confronting the impact of loose nuclear material in an international scrap-metal market worth at least $140 billion, according to the Brussels-based Bureau of International Recycling. Radioactive items used to power medical, military and industrial hardware are melted down and used in goods, driving up company costs as they withdraw tainted products and threatening the public’s health. ‘Major Risk’ “The major risk we face in our industry is radiation,” said Paul de Bruin, radiation-safety chief for Jewometaal Stainless Processing BV, one of the world’s biggest stainless- steel scrap yards. “You can talk about security all you want, but I’ve found weapons-grade uranium in scrap. Where was the security?”
D'coda Dcoda

RSOE EDIS - Biological Hazard in MultiCountries on Thursday, 13 October, 2011 at 04:59 ... - 0 views

shared by D'coda Dcoda on 23 Dec 11 - No Cached
  • The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration declared a recent rash of seal deaths to be an "unusual mortality event" on Tuesday. More than 60 seals have died and 75 found diseased in Alaska with skin sores and patchy hair loss. The Fish and Wildlife Service has also identified diseased and dead walruses. A similar official declaration for Pacific Walrus in Alaska is pending. The walruses have suffered from similar symptoms, which have also included labored breathing and appearing lethargic. Scientists have yet to identify a cause for this disease, but tests have indicated that it is not a virus. Hunters, meanwhile, continue to see many healthy animals. Despite a significant contact with seals and walruses, no humans have reported similar symptoms. However, it is not known whether the disease can be transmitted to humans or other animals. In most cases, necropsies and lab tests have revealed skin lesions, fluid in the lungs, white spots on the liver, and abnormal growths in the brain. Some of the seals and walruses have undersized lymph nodes, possibly a sign of weakened immuned systems. In Canada and Russia, ringed seals have been reported suffering similar symptoms. It is unknown whether they are related.
  •  
    Speculation its the radiation in the ocean
Marc-Alexandre Gagnon

Photos: Best Buy's quiet home energy stores - Cleantech News and Analysis [07Nov11] - 0 views

  • SAN CARLOS, Calif. – Retail giant Best Buy announced last week that it’s making a modest bet on selling home energy gear to consumers via a new web portal and new Home Energy sections at just three stores nationwide.
  • For many Best Buy shoppers, it could be the first time they’ve even thought about using these types of efficiency tools to cut home energy usage.
  • An interactive booth where customers can turn lights on and off and an employee can talk to potential customers enabled shoppers to learn about the benefits and price points of LEDs vs CFLs.
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • Home Energy control panels are connected to refrigerators, lamps, lights, heating and cooling systems, showing shoppers how the digital energy home could be connected.
  • Best Buy’s Home Energy section has a lot of potential to educate consumers and grow the market for home energy products.
  • It’s one of the only large retailers in the country paying attention to this market, though we’ll have to see how much volume goes through the section in the coming months, and whether Best Buy will recreate the section in other stores, keep it as a niche in just three stores, or someday shut them down if they aren’t performing.
1 - 8 of 8
Showing 20 items per page