Forums

Quote:Scientists say current concerns over a tipping point in the disappearance of Arctic sea ice may be misplaced.



Danish researchers analysed ancient pieces of driftwood in north Greenland which they say is an accurate way to measure the extent of ancient ice loss.



Writing in the journal Science, the team found evidence that ice levels were about 50% lower 5,000 years ago.



They say changes to wind systems can slow down the rate of melting.



They argue, therefore, that a tipping point under current scenarios is unlikely.

... ... ... ...

... ... ... ...

Quote:LONDON (Reuters) - Former Vice President Al Gore will renew his 30-year campaign to convince skeptics of the link between climate change and extreme weather events this week in a 24-hour global multi-media event.[/size]



[size="3"]"24 Hours of Reality" will broadcast a presentation by Al Gore every hour for 24 hours across 24 different time zones from Wednesday to Thursday, with the aim of convincing climate change deniers and driving action against global warming among households, schools and businesses.[/size]



[size="3"]The campaign also asks people to hand over control of their social networking accounts on Facebook and Twitter to it for 24 hours to deliver Gore's message. [/size]



[size="3"]"There will be 200 new slides arguing the connection between more extreme weather and climate change," Trewin Restorick, chief executive of the event's UK partner Global Action Plan, told Reuters on Monday.[/size]



[size="3"]"There will be a full-on assault on climate skeptics, exploring where they get their funding from." [/size]



[size="3"]Gore tried to raise awareness about global warming in the 2006 documentary film "An Inconvenient Truth," which earned $49 million at the box office worldwide. The film was criticized by some climate change skeptics for being one-sided.[/size]



[size="3"]Concern about climate change in the United States, the world's second biggest emitter, has fallen steadily to 48 percent in 2011, from 62 percent in 2007, an opinion poll showed in August.

Quote:Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists[/size]

[size="3"]Rising greenhouse emissions could tip off aliens that we are a rapidly expanding threat, warns a report[/size]



[size="3"]It may not rank as the most compelling reason to curb greenhouse gases, but reducing our emissions might just save humanity from a pre-emptive alien attack, scientists claim.[/size]



[size="3"]Watching from afar, extraterrestrial beings might view changes in Earth's atmosphere as symptomatic of a civilisation growing out of control – and take drastic action to keep us from becoming a more serious threat, the researchers explain.[/size]



[size="3"]This highly speculative scenario is one of several described by a Nasa-affiliated scientist and colleagues at Pennsylvania State University that, while considered unlikely, they say could play out were humans and alien life to make contact at some point in the future.[/size]



[size="3"]Shawn Domagal-Goldman of Nasa's Planetary Science Division and his colleagues compiled a list of plausible outcomes that could unfold in the aftermath of a close encounter, to help humanity "prepare for actual contact".[/size]



[size="3"]In their report, Would Contact with Extraterrestrials Benefit or Harm Humanity? A Scenario Analysis, the researchers divide alien contacts into three broad categories: beneficial, neutral or harmful.[/size]



[size="3"]Beneficial encounters ranged from the mere detection of extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI), for example through the interception of alien broadcasts, to contact with cooperative organisms that help us advance our knowledge and solve global problems such as hunger, poverty and disease.[/size]



[size="3"]Another beneficial outcome the authors entertain sees humanity triumph over a more powerful alien aggressor, or even being saved by a second group of ETs. "In these scenarios, humanity benefits not only from the major moral victory of having defeated a daunting rival, but also from the opportunity to reverse-engineer ETI technology," the authors write.[/size]



[size="3"]Other kinds of close encounter may be less rewarding and leave much of human society feeling indifferent towards alien life. The extraterrestrials may be too different from us to communicate with usefully. They might invite humanity to join the "Galactic Club" only for the entry requirements to be too bureaucratic and tedious for humans to bother with. They could even become a nuisance, like the stranded, prawn-like creatures that are kept in a refugee camp in the 2009 South African movie, District 9, the report explains.[/size]



[size="3"]The most unappealing outcomes would arise if extraterrestrials caused harm to humanity, even if by accident. While aliens may arrive to eat, enslave or attack us, the report adds that people might also suffer from being physically crushed or by contracting diseases carried by the visitors. In especially unfortunate incidents, humanity could be wiped out when a more advanced civilisation accidentally unleashes an unfriendly artificial intelligence, or performs a catastrophic physics experiment that renders a portion of the galaxy uninhabitable.[/size]



[size="3"]To bolster humanity's chances of survival, the researchers call for caution in sending signals into space, and in particular [color="#ff0000"]warn against broadcasting information about our biological make-up, which could be used to manufacture weapons that target humans.[/color][color="#ff0000"][size="4"]***[/size] [/color]Instead, any contact with ETs should be limited to mathematical discourse "until we have a better idea of the type of ETI we are dealing with."[/size]



[size="3"]The authors warn that extraterrestrials may be wary of civilisations that expand very rapidly, as these may be prone to destroy other life as they grow, just as humans have pushed species to extinction on Earth. In the most extreme scenario, aliens might choose to destroy humanity to protect other civilisations.[/size]



[size="3"]"A preemptive strike would be particularly likely in the early phases of our expansion because a civilisation may become increasingly difficult to destroy as it continues to expand. Humanity may just now be entering the period in which its rapid civilisational expansion could be detected by an ETI because our expansion is changing the composition of the Earth's atmosphere, via greenhouse gas emissions," the report states.[/size]



[size="3"]"Green" aliens might object to the environmental damage humans have caused on Earth and wipe us out to save the planet. "These scenarios give us reason to limit our growth and reduce our impact on global ecosystems. It would be particularly important for us to limit our emissions of greenhouse gases, since atmospheric composition can be observed from other planets," the authors write.[/size]



[size="3"]Even if we never make contact with extraterrestrials, the report argues that considering the potential scenarios may help to plot the future path of human civilisation, avoid collapse and achieve long-term survival.[/size]



[size="3"]

Quote:PANAMA CITY: An impasse in global climate talks is casting a shadow on clean energy financing in the developing world, with growing doubts over a program that has funded billions of dollars in projects.



UN-led negotiations involving nearly 200 nations are struggling to come up with a framework after 2012, when wealthy countries' commitments to cut carbon emissions blamed for climate change run out under the landmark Kyoto Protocol.



A signature feature of Kyoto is the Clean Development Mechanism -- or CDM in the talks' jargon -- which allows countries to meet their obligations by financing environmentally friendly projects in the developing world.



The European Union has supported a new round of Kyoto commitments after 2012 to avoid any gap, but other advanced economies have balked. Ramping up the pressure, developing countries have warned they would not support a continuation of the CDM without further commitments by rich nations.



"My hunch is that without having a second commitment period, there is no future for the CDM at this moment," said Naoyuki Yamagishi, who is following the issue for the environmental group WWF.



Martin Hession, the chair of the CDM executive board, acknowledged a hardening of positions during talks but said that the program had an ongoing mandate from the Kyoto Protocol that does not end in 2012.



He argued that the CDM -- which forecasts its projects will reduce 2.7 billion tons of carbon equivalent by the end of 2012 -- has made a "massive contribution" both to climate change mitigation and sustainable development.



"For me, the impact is plainly overwhelming," he told AFP in Panama City where the latest talks under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change are underway.



"What the market would most like to see would be a clear sense of the direction we're going on mitigation," he said.



The World Bank has also urged greater clarity. In a recent study, the global lender warned that billions of dollars in future private investment was at risk[/size][size="3"] [color="#9932cc"]{ or, in other words, the investments made (like the "Blood & Gore" company) to mop up monies from climate scam will be in danger }[/color] [/size][size="3"] and said that the doubts about future climate action -- along with nagging economies woes -- have already slowed down low-carbon projects.



Transactions in the CDM market have stagnated and amounted to $1.5 billion last year, less than in 2005 when the Kyoto Protocol took effect, according to the World Bank study.



The CDM has also proven attractive to investors, particularly in Europe, by creating a new unit -- Carbon Emission Reductions -- that can be put up as collateral and is not subject to whims such as currency rates.



But the CDM has been controversial among environmental groups. Some praise the system in general, saying it has jumpstarted low-carbon investment in the developing world.



But other green groups reject the philosophy behind the CDM, arguing that it effectively subsidizes investment in dirty energy by balancing it off with credit for overseas projects that may have been built anyway. <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/dry.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='<_<' />



Some policymakers may privately agree. A US diplomatic cable released by the WikiLeaks website said that executives in India conceded that they would continue projects with or without CDM benefits they were seeking.



Official data shows that nearly half of projects are in China, the world's largest emitter, and that a comparatively small number are in the world's poorest countries.



China's role in green energy has been particularly controversial in the United States, where many lawmakers are skeptical about climate change and question any initiative that would fund projects in a perceived competitor.



The United States rejected the Kyoto Protocol, although California -- the largest US state which has gone its own way with an emissions reduction program -- is in early talks with the CDM board.



Adding to the controversy, talks observers said that Japan, with the support of India, has pressed in Panama City for the CDM to be expanded to cover nuclear energy projects.



The WWF's Yamagishi said that Japan's push on nuclear exports predates the Fukushima crisis triggered by the March 11 tsunami and that negotiators likely had not reconsidered their positions since.



Despite the criticism of the CDM, Yamagishi said it was critical not to lapse into a system of bilateral arrangements on climate financing that lack supervision.



"We definitely prefer a multinational system because it has rules," he said.[color="#9932cc"] <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> {Right! Rules to funnel all "climate-taxes" from nations into a non-democratic financial institution set up by the [/color][/size][size="3"][color="#9932cc"]non-democratic [/color][/size][size="3"][color="#9932cc"]WB and the [/color][/size][size="3"][color="#9932cc"]non-democratic [/color][/size][size="3"][color="#9932cc"]IMF to provide more financial muscle to the now-on-the-horizon NWO}[/color]

Quote:PANAMA CITY: With nations facing gaping shortfalls meeting pledges on climate change, several governments and activist groups are pushing to put a price on shipping emissions to fund aid to poor countries.



Commercial ships virtually always run on fossil fuels and produce nearly three percent of the world's carbon emissions blamed for climate change -- twice as much as Australia -- but are unregulated under the Kyoto Protocol.



Shipping has come under renewed focus in UN-led talks on a post-Kyoto framework which are coincidentally being held in Panama, whose flag flies on 20 percent of the world's merchant vessels and is home to the vital canal.



Germany has spearheaded the idea of setting a price on shipping emissions and devoting proceeds to the new Green Climate Fund, which aims to mobilize $100 billion a year by 2020 in aid to low-lying islands and other poor nations seen as most vulnerable to climate change. [color="#9932cc"]{...reminds me of the story of the scorpion who requested the frog to carry it across the river, with a promise of not stinging the frog. Once across the river, the rest (& the frog) is folklore history ... }[/color]



The money has been in question with top donors Japan, the European Union and the United States all facing internal challenges. Experts say the world is also far off from the UN-enshrined target of limiting warming to 2.0 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) to prevent climate change's worst consequences. [/size][size="3"][/size]

[size="3"]

"We fully recognize that shipping is one of the most efficient forms of transporting goods, but we can't get away from the sheer scale of emissions if we're serious about meeting the 2.0-degree target," said Tim Gore of aid group Oxfam.



The revenue "would be generated independently of any economic problems that developed countries might be facing and they would come year-on-year in predictable fashion and can easily be scaled up over time," he said.



How the carbon proposal would work remains under discussion. France has supported the idea and called for a market trading system in maritime carbon emissions rather than an outright tax.



Activists hope that France will push forward the idea when it leads the Group of 20 major economies' summit next month and that the year-end UN climate conference in Durban, South Africa would put it in writing, allowing talks to start to make it a reality.



The World Bank and IMF, in a research paper submitted last month to Group of 20 finance ministers and obtained by AFP, said that setting a $25 charge per ton of carbon dioxide from aviation and maritime bunker fuels would generate $250 billion in 2020 and reduce each sector's emissions by five to 10 percent.



For political reasons, activists have sought to separate the shipping and aviation issues. Airlines, backed by governments including the United States and China, have fiercely fought a European Union proposal to tax air emissions.



Concerns from the shipping sector have been more muted. The International Maritime Organization in July adopted energy efficiency standards to reduce emissions and has been studying the levy idea.



The UN agency said that its move marked the first time that an international industry sector has mandated reductions in greenhouse gases, though environmentalists say that the effort will only make a dent.



But the idea of putting a price on shipping emissions has drawn fire from major emerging economies such as China and India, which are concerned that it would treat vessels from rich and developing nations in the same way.



International maritime rules have traditionally applied to all ships regardless of origin due to fears that vessels could easily skirt more complex regulations.



But successive accords of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change have recognized that advanced economies bear more historic responsibility for global warming and should do more.



As a solution, Gore of Oxfam proposed that part of the carbon revenue would be directed to developing countries to ensure that their industries are not put at a disadvantage.



Shaun Goh, a transport ministry official from Singapore, said that any levy needed to consider that some countries -- such as his own -- are more dependent on shipping and also ensure that the industry as a whole does not suffer.



"We don't deny that shipping, as well as probably aviation, has a role to play in climate finance. But the question is what role they would play and to what degree," he said.

Quote:Former Vice President Al Gore recently expressed his dismay for people who doubt the theory of global warming.[/size]



[size="3"]In a somewhat shocking rant, reported by the Web site Real Aspen, Gore railed against the tactics that global warming skeptics have used in the debate on climate change[/size][size="3"].[/size][size="3"] Speaking at the Aspen Institute media forum "Networks an Citizenship," Gore pulled no punches, cursing numerous times in a speech that is quickly making rounds on the Internet.[/size] [size="3"]



After referencing how tobacco giants succeeded in delaying the implementation of the surgeon general's report for 40 years, Gore compared it to the current situation with climate change.[/size]



[size="3"]"That same model of media manipulation was transported whole cloth into the climate debate. And some of the exact same people -- I can go down a list of their names -- are involved in this. And so what do they do? They pay pseudo-scientists to pretend to be scientists to put out the message: 'This climate thing, it's nonsense. Man-made CO2 doesn't trap heat. It may be volcanoes.'"[/size]



[size="3"]Gore then spouted off a couple of curse words that aren't for family friendly news sites such as IBTimes. He said these skeptics have polluted the debate and there's no longer a shared reality on an issue like climate, even though "the very existence of our civilization is threatened." [/size]



[size="3"]"People have no idea! It's no longer acceptable in mixed company, meaning bipartisan company, to use the [expletive] word 'climate.' They have polluted it to the point where we cannot possibly come to an agreement on it," said Gore.[/size]



[size="3"]The former Vice President was originally at the Aspen Institute to talk about poverty, but spoke at a separate lunch for the institute's communications and society program, according to the Los Angeles Times. It was at this meeting, where he was supposed to talk about electronic public square and governance, that Gore went off.[/size]



[size="3"]Gore could be referencing a recent study from Roy Spencer, research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. science team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer. Spencer's recent study on climate change concluded the Earth is more efficient at releasing energy than models used to forecast climate change (like global warming) have led people to believe.[/size]



[size="3"]"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."[/size]



[size="3"]Using data from NASA's Terra Satellite, Spencer deducted that the climate system sheds energy more than three months before the typical warming event reaches its peak. When this is applied long-term, he said the climate isn't as sensitive to the carbon dioxide concentrations about which global warming scientists have theorized.[/size]



[size="3"]Other climate scientists were quick to dismiss Spencer's theory however. Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said the research's conclusion, didn't come with clear analysis. Others flat-out said it was a political ploy.[/size]



[size="3"]"It makes the skeptics feel good, it irritates the mainstream climate science community, but by this point, the debate over climate policy has nothing to do with science. It's essentially a debate over the role of government," surrounding issues of freedom versus regulation, Andrew Dessler, a Texas A&M University of atmospheric sciences, told LiveScience.[/size]



[size="3"]In a comment, The Aspen Institute's spokesperson, Charlie Firestone said:[/size]



[size="3"]"Al Gore spoke and took questions for more than an hour in an informal session at the Aspen Institute FOCAS Conference on Aug. 4. The topic of the Forum was "Networks and Citizenship." His remarks ranged from the history of communications to current research in neuroscience to a discussion of contemporary politics. [/size]



[size="3"]One participant described it as "a tour de force of ideas expressed with humor, passion and insight." The session was arranged at the last minute as he was in Aspen to participate in another conference. He was unaware that the session was being taped, as most Aspen Institute policy meetings are off the record."

Quote:Al Gore's environmental documentary An Inconvenient Truth contains nine key scientific errors, a High Court judge ruled yesterday.



The judge declined to ban the Academy Award-winning film from British schools, but ruled that it can only be shown with guidance notes to prevent political indoctrination.



In the documentary, directed by Davis Guggenheim, the former US vice president and environmental activist calls on people to fight global warming because "humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb".



But Judge Michael Burton ruled yesterday that errors had arisen "in the context of alarmism and exaggeration" in order to support Mr Gore's thesis on global warming.



His criticism followed an unsuccessful attempt by Stewart Dimmock, a Kent school governor, to block the Government's plan to screen the documentary in more than 3,500 secondary schools in England and Wales.



The father of two claimed An Inconvenient Truth included "serious scientific inaccuracies, political propaganda and sentimental mush".



The film's distributor, Paramount, warns in its synopsis of the film: "If the vast majority of the world's scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced."



But the judge ruled that the "apocalyptic vision" presented in the film was politically partisan and thus not an impartial scientific analysis of climate change.



It is, he ruled, a "political film".



[size="4"]The nine alleged errors in the film[/size]



[/size][indent][size="3"] 1. Mr Gore claims that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland "in the near future". The judge said: "This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr Gore's "wake-up call". He agreed that if Greenland melted it would release this amount of water - "but only after, and over, millennia"."The Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of seven metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus."[/size]



[size="3"] 2. The film claims that low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls "are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming" but the judge ruled there was no evidence of any evacuation having yet happened.[/size]



[size="3"] 3. The documentary speaks of global warming "shutting down the Ocean Conveyor" - the process by which the Gulf Stream is carried over the North Atlantic to western Europe. Citing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the judge said that it was "very unlikely" that the Ocean Conveyor, also known as the Meridional Overturning Circulation, would shut down in the future, though it might slow down.[/size]



[size="3"] 4. Mr Gore claims that two graphs, one plotting a rise in C0[sub]2[/sub] and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed "an exact fit". The judge said that, although there was general scientific agreement that there was a connection, "the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts".[/size]



[size="3"] 5. Mr Gore says the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was directly attributable to global warming, but the judge ruled that it scientists have not established that the recession of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is primarily attributable to human-induced climate change.[/size]



[size="3"] 6. The film contends that the drying up of Lake Chad is a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming but the judge said there was insufficient evidence, and that "it is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability."[/size]



[size="3"] 7. Mr Gore blames Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans on global warming, but the judge ruled there was "insufficient evidence to show that".[/size]



[size="3"] 8. Mr Gore cites a scientific study that shows, for the first time, that polar bears were being found after drowning from "swimming long distances - up to 60 miles - to find the ice" The judge said: "The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm."That was not to say there might not in future be drowning-related deaths of bears if the trend of regression of pack ice continued - "but it plainly does not support Mr Gore's description".[/size]



[size="3"] 9. Mr Gore said that coral reefs all over the world were being bleached because of global warming and other factors. Again citing the IPCC, the judge agreed that, if temperatures were to rise by 1-3 degrees centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and mortality, unless the coral could adapt. However, he ruled that separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution was difficult.[/size]

[/indent][size="3"]

A Government spokesman said he would not make any further comment on the case today.