Post
Oh my God!
No. This is not another post about Al Gore's abandonment of facts for faith or the rise in green fundamentalism. It's even more disturbing, if that were possible. Researchers led by Guido van der Werf, an earth scientist at VU University in Amsterdam, have established that the carbon dioxide emissions said to be caused by the destruction of tropical forests have been significantly overestimated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). What's worse, the erroneous figure "was widely quoted after being highlighted by the Stern review on the economics of the problem. It is repeatedly used by Prince Charles and others as an incentive to push efforts to include forests in carbon trading." Uh, oh.
Could it be that the Copenhagen Summit will end up doing exactly the opposite of what its more ardent proponents expected? Inadvertently, the catalyst of COP15 is encouraging inquiring minds to examine the agenda, question the ideology and expose the "facts" to the harsh light of day. Now that the IPPC and Stern texts are being rumbled, the fallout could lead to a nasty surprise for those who thought that they had the cat in the December bag.
Comments
“The study showed previous assessments exaggerated the rate of tropical deforestation. It also took into account soaring emissions from fossil fuel burning since 2000, which reduces the relative role of deforestation. The scientists say 12% is an estimate, and the figure could be between 6% and 17%, but that the original 20% figure was equally uncertain.”
So the proportion of global warming caused by deforestation may have reduced from 20% to 12% because of the soaring rate of fossil fuel burning! What’s the big deal here? Why the conspiratorial tone? Scientists are continually revising and updating their models as new data and trends emerge. Thats what Scientists do, and should do.
So what, Eamonn? You are not suggesting are you that it is now right to cut down forests?
It is worth remembering that the oxygen in every single breath you take has come from a plant somewhere.
It is also worth remembering that the natural flows of carbon into and out of the environment are some 35 times greater than our fossil fuel contribution. The environment is not coping with this extra load - but the danger is that it may soon no longer be able to cope with all the natural load either. If that should happen then we shall all be up the creek! So give the forests (and the oceans) a break!
I’m not sure how an fault in calculation amounts to being “rumbled”.
No science has yet proved infallible, not physics, not biology, not chemistry. Yet when mistakes are unearthed in other areas we don’t interpret them as the death of that discipline. Newton made a few errors in calculation as I remember, but rather than spelling the end of phsyics it simply forced scientists in that area to hone their approach.
I suppose it’s not surprising that people want to rip apart the Climate Change debate. After all, who wants to believe that the world might suffer cataclysmic problems if we don’t make fundamental changes to our lives. Better to pretend everything is just fine. That is why people leap onto any error proclaiming “uhuh, they made a mistake, it’s clearly all a pack of lies”.
An error does not however, a fallacy make.
BREAKING NEWS!!!
Scientist adjust numbers - SCANDAL
by journalist Demon Fudgegeneral
blah blah blah
Sorry… you guys crack me up today
Peter, no, I am not suggesting that it is now right to cut down forests. I wrote the post to highlight the fact that someone has been checking the numbers and says that they need to be corrected, that’s all. Because the IPCC and Stern figures carry such weight in climate change debates, it’s important that they are subjected to scrutiny and not regarded as infallible sources. After all, decisions with far-reaching consequences may be made based on the two data sets.
Resources like the one you mentioned here will be very useful to me! I will post a link to this page on my blog. I am sure my visitors will find that very useful
I always like to read something like this. That is usually a bit hard to find valuable information on the internet. And I found your post using Yahoo and I can say I the time spent was worth reading.
accident claim company
In France we have Nicolas Sarkozy ... and a lot think about him all days long!
You cannot listen a radio without Sarkozy named.
When you have the nose on the window, you do not see anything!
With climate change it is the same.
We can think about it but quickly we can think round it.
My vision is to write about new energies, new techs.
You can see that with enthusiasm.
For climate change .. not!
Resources like the one you mentioned here will be very useful to me! I will post a link to this page on my blog. I am sure my visitors will find that very useful…
From low-cost business promotion techniques through web site promotion, ... Want to attract new business but have a small marketing budget or none at all?
I have traded options on ETFs, but I would rather find the best stock in the index and take a position in it. For liquidity reasons, institutions have to stick to the ETFs. We are all small, nimble traders and we need to use that to our advantage. Stick with stocks.
auto insurance directory
thanks for this
Free iPhone
What is Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), btw? I never heard about it before…thanks.
Therapeutic Pillow
Belinda, I think you can google around for this term. I think I read it somewhere, but I forgot. You can just search it here too, in this site.
Cat harness
Briefs Underwear
Courteous posting,very advisory.Thank you, very absorbing to read, you should be astonishing of your blog. I was truly relishing to check your subject matters from meter to time. We are depending forward to your potential posts.
car accident insurance claim
The environment is not coping with this extra load - but the danger is that it may soon no longer be able to cope with all the natural load either. If that should happen then we shall all be up the creek!
insurance tips
Newton made a few errors in calculation as I remember, but rather than spelling the end of phsyics it simply forced scientists in that area to hone their approach.
memory foam mattress topper
No science has yet proved infallible, not physics, not biology, not chemistry. Yet when mistakes are unearthed in other areas we don’t interpret them as the death of that discipline.
Directory
Could it be that the Copenhagen Summit will end up doing exactly the opposite of what its more ardent proponents expected? Inadvertently, the catalyst of COP15 is encouraging inquiring minds to examine the agenda, question the ideology and expose the “facts” to the harsh light of day.
Free Make Up Samples
Inadvertently, the catalyst of COP15 is encouraging inquiring minds to examine the agenda, question the ideology and expose the “facts” to the harsh light of day. Now that the IPPC and Stern texts are being rumbled, the fallout could lead to a nasty surprise for those who thought that they had the cat in the December bag.
Nail art
In dash dvd