Enlace al ESPANOL
After the attack form the HIV virus, and the attacks form our brothers the bearded ever disappearing men in white turbans called terrorists, now comes...
The attack straight form GOD and Mother Nature: Global Warming!!
Of course, just another apocalyptic load of BS from our beloved and burned out politicians and their over productive lie factory.
See full Channel 4 Documentary.
Those who can make you believe absurdities, will make you commit atrocitie
—Voltaire
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
A Convenient Lie
Oscar for Global Warming Science.
So who needs a Nobel?
The Global Warming Lies Keep Coming
Posted by Curt on February 6, 2007 at 11:04 PM
Timothy Ball wrote an excellent piece yesterday on the hysteria of the Global Warming crowd, the danger of going against the political juggernaut we call the Global Warming industry, and why it's all foolish scaremongering.
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
[...]Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification.
[...]No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
[...]I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.
Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.
I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
So who needs a Nobel?
The Global Warming Lies Keep Coming
Posted by Curt on February 6, 2007 at 11:04 PM
Timothy Ball wrote an excellent piece yesterday on the hysteria of the Global Warming crowd, the danger of going against the political juggernaut we call the Global Warming industry, and why it's all foolish scaremongering.
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
[...]Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification.
[...]No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
[...]I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.
Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.
I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
Global Warming Heresy
Read also:
Medicine by Amanda Bennett and Anita Sharpe
Science Or Religion? by David Crowe
Global Warming Heresy Hype & Delusions
Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
By Timothy Ball
Monday, February 5, 2007
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.
In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?
Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.
I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.
Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.
I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.
Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.
I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.
Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com
Medicine by Amanda Bennett and Anita Sharpe
Science Or Religion? by David Crowe
Global Warming Heresy Hype & Delusions
Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
By Timothy Ball
Monday, February 5, 2007
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.
In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?
Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.
I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.
Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.
I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.
Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.
I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.
Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com
Una Mentira Conveniente-Calentamiento Global
El cambio climático: ¿una gran mentira?
HENRY KAMEN
Hace unos días, el Canal 4 de TV del Reino Unido emitió un programa controvertido. El programa con el título The Great Global Warming Swindle (El Gran Fraude del Calentamiento Global), tuvo una duración de 90 minutos y cuestionó el punto de vista ampliamente aceptado de que las emisiones de dióxido de carbono producidas por el hombre son las responsables del calentamiento del planeta. Basándose en argumentos de importantes científicos, el filme apunta hacia la reciente investigación de que la radiación solar puede ser un factor más verosímil en el cambio climático, y sugiere que la reducción de las emisiones de carbono no sólo tendrá poco impacto en el ambiente, sino que además puede tener involuntariamente repercusiones para el desarrollo del Tercer Mundo. El programa es doblemente polémico porque llega poco después de dos significativos acontecimientos: el primero, un sólido informe respaldado por las Naciones Unidas, y redactado por un grupo de científicos del IPCC (Intergovemmental Panel on Climate Change), que ha recibido una extensa publicidad; el segundo, la exitosa campaña de Al Gore, quien realizó un corto sobre el calentamiento global, y con el cual ganó un Osear de Hollywood. Estos dos hechos han impactado de tal manera en España -un país que, como su Gobierno reconoce, es el mayor contaminador de la atmósfera en Europa, con las emisiones de C02 más altas en el continente- que la noción del «cambio climático» se ha convertido en tópico de absurdas exageraciones e incluso de chistes infantiles. En España hay ahora regulares y desatinados informes diciendo que el cambio climático ya ha llegado aquí. Los bosques arden, los viñedos se secan, y los mares invaden las playas. Pero no hay nada divertido sobre la idea del calentamiento global, o bien es verdad, lo cual se convierte en una terrible amenaza para la humanidad, o es falso, en cuyo caso habrá sido una conspiración imperdonable contra nuestras sensibilidades. El programa del Canal 4 recibió agudos ataques por parte de un colaborador del periódico The Guardian. El escritor calificó el contenido de «re- tórica deshonesta», pero admitió que el miedo al cambio climático se parece un poco al de hace algunos años sobre la desaparición de la capa de ozono de la tierra. También admite que muchos excéntricos, desde ecologistas a políticos extremistas, han usado el argumento del cambio climático para impulsar sus propias pequeñas soluciones. Pero, concluye diciendo que la existencia de estos seguidores no invalida la realidad del cambio. La reacción de otro destacado periodista del Independent era bastante diferente. Se reía del Osear que Al Gore recibió. y denunciaba la propaganda deshonesta de Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth (Amigos de la Tierra) y otros movimientos, cuya ambición es restringir la tecnología con el propósito de crear un mundo natural donde no haya progreso técnico o científico y podamos vivir todos en condiciones primitivas. No soy un experto en estos temas, pero parece claro que hay incertidumbre suficiente sobre el alcance del cambio climático como para permitirnos dudar de los aspectos del informe del IPCC. Uno de los científicos del IPCC también aparece en el programa de TV del Canal 4. Es el profesor Paul Reiter del Instituto Pasteur de París, quien declara que tuvo que amenazar al IPCC con tomar acciones legales para que quitasen su nombre de sus 'conclusiones con las que estaba en profundo desacuerdo: «Hacían que pareciera que todos los científicos sobresalientes estaban de acuerdo. Esto no es verdad». Entonces ¿cuál, según el programa de TV, es la causa del calentamiento global? La respuesta que dan es simple, y no sorprende: es el sol que calienta el planeta. Esta creencia se basa en las observaciones meteorológicas de dos científicos daneses, cuyos hallazgos se discuten en el programa. También hay una entrevista con el jefe del Centro Internacional de Investigación del Ártico, Syun-Ichi Akasofu, que describe cómo «El Ártico siempre se ha expandido y contraído. Pero la prensa viene aquí todo el tiempo y nos pregunta: ¿dirá algo sobre el desastre invernadero? Y yo digo: no hay desastre». Estos detalles muestran que hay una gran variedad de opiniones entre los científicos, como ha sido siempre con tales temas en las últimas décadas. Por cada artículo publicado sobre un desastre latente, hay otros sobre la falsedad de las alarmas. El pasado noviembre, en la revista Science, un científico argüía que las alarmas sobre el aumento del nivel del océano Atlántico eran falsas. En otra revista, un grupo de científicos de Nueva Zelanda dice que las cifras, señalando que el mes de diciembre de 2006 era el más frío de los últimos 60 años, son prueba de que las afirmaciones sobre el calentamiento global son infundadas. La Coalición Nuevazelandesa de la Ciencia del Clima, que está formada por 13 científicos, afirma que la temperatura de Nueva Zelanda no es más alta en el 2006 que lo fue en los años de 1800. Dicen que ha habido años calurosos y años fríos desde mediados de los años 1800, pero sobre todo, la temperatura, sólo ha experimentado un aumento de menos de tres cuartos por ciento. Podemos seguir así citando pedazos de testimo- • nios, que demuestran que hay suficientes diferencias de opinión, cómo para llegar a tener dudas. Asumamos sin embargo que la teoría del cambio climático es correcta, aún con todas sus exageraciones. ¿Qué podemos hacer al respecto? Por ejemplo, las medidas adoptadas por el Gobierno brítánico son casi inútiles. El Gobierno planea gastar millones de libras en medidas para reducir las emisiones de C02 en un 30% para el año 2020, pero un informe científico revela que esto es imposible y que la reducción en el año 2020 será sólo del 12%, lo que en términos prácticos signiñca poco más que nada. Para llevar a cabo una acción efectiva y reducir las emisiones de carbono suficientemente, necesitamos cerrar nuestras fábricas, prohibir los automóviles, abolir aviones, eliminar todos los refrigeradores, y en general volver a la Edad de Piedra. ¿Estamos realmente preparados para hacerlo? La respuesta obviamente es no. Los ecologistas, por su parte, no tienen soluciones prácticas Se oponen al combustible nuclear, así que las plantas nucleares serían cerradas. Ahora se oponen al combustible de carbón, por tanto el carbón desaparecerá. Con el tiempo todos los combustibles desaparecerán. La civilización, a su vez, desaparecerá. ¿Es esto lo que quieren? Asumamos, sin embargo, que la teoría es falsa. ¿Nos podemos arriesgar a pensar que es falsa, cuando la mayoría de los científicos parecen apoyarla firmemente? ¿Podemos ignorar sus advertencias? Los científicos se han ganado el apoyo de secciones de la prensa, y la prensa por su lado ha influenciado a la opinión pública, de manera que la opinión popular es más consciente que nunca de la importancia del posible calentamiento global. La consecuencia es que las grandes empresas, siempre deseosas de tener en cuenta la opinión popular, han comenzado a invertir fuertemente en medidas anti-contaminación. Y la inversión ha generado ga- nancias. Por- ejemplo,'una inversión; en 1999, de British Petroleum dé 20 millones de dólares en medidas de planificación energética, había dado en 2002 un rendimiento de 650 millones de dólares. El hecho de que estas medidas no han frenado las emisiones de C02 de los coches, es probablemente irrelevante. La elección está entre abolir del todo el petróleo -y por lo tanto abolir toda la economía moderna y volver hacia atrás, como agradaría a algunos ecologistas, hacia la Época Medieval o tomar medidas reformadoras. Las tres preguntas básicas son: ¿Está ocurriendo el calentamiento global? Si es así, ¿Por qué? ¿Y-qué se debería hacer sobre ello? Las respuestas á éstas preguntas no son fáciles. Primero, el calentamiento está verdaderamente sucediendo con un aumento de aproximadamente 0.7 grados a lo largo de todo el siglo XX. Pero, como muchos científicos han señalado, esto no es de necesidad alarmante. La siguiente pregunta es: ¿por qué? Aquí no hay en absoluto acuerdo, como deja claro el programa del Canal 4. «La única respuesta honesta», ha dicho recientemente una autoridad en la materia, < no lo sabemos». Lo cierto es que los pronósticos de lo que pueda pasar dentro de 100 años no se basan en hechos, sino en especulaciones. ¿Aumentarán los océanos? Un informe especial contratado por el Gobierno de Gran Bretaña ha argumentado que el deshielo polar podría ocasionar un aumento adicional del nivel del mar de menos de medio centímetro por siglo. Esto es én verdad menos alarmante que otros que han sugerido que España perdería todas sus playas este siglo. Finalmente, ¿qué se debería hacer? Imaginemos que es cierto que la actividad humana es responsable del cambio climático. Imaginemos que estamos seguros que dentro de veinte años la costa del Mediterráneo de España tendrá constantes y severas sequías. Imaginemos que en cien años las principales ciudades costeras de España estén inundadas. Imaginemos que en 200 años, con las emisiones continuas y como consecuencia del calentamiento global, buena parte del Mediterráneo es inhabitable. Entonces hagámonos las preguntas más importantes. Incluso siendo todo esto verdad," ¿cambiaríamos nuestras vidas? Nuestra economía depende del aumento de consumo y producción. Para parar estas consecuencias ¿deberíamos parar la producción? ¿Deberíamos eliminar los camiones, conducir coches pequeños y lentos, caminar al trabajo, eliminar todos los aviones? ¿Prohibiríamos las importaciones, consumiríamos sólo alimentos locales y comeríamos menos carne? ¿Llevaríamos sólo ropa hecha a mano? ¿Querríamos hacer todo esto a sabiendas de que haciéndolo estamos condenando al desastre toda la economía de los países más pobres del mundo? ¿Apeteceríamos pagar mucho más por la energía no contaminante? Si no hacemos tales cambios, entonces estudiar el cambio climático no es tan importante. El debate entero podría ser una enorme mentira, pero ya no impórtária. Henry Kamen es historiador, acaba de publicar The Disinherited: The Exiles who Created Spanish Culture (Londres: Alien Lañe).
Monday, January 22, 2007
My Desert-Island All-Time Top Five Favourite Happy Endings
1: The Winter's Tale - William Shakespeare (Play)
2: 81/2 - Federico Fellini (Film)
3: Leaves Of Grass Ode To Myself - Walt Whitman (Poem)
4: Hold me, Thrill Me, Kiss Me - Mel Carter (50's tune)
5: My Family And Other Animals - Gerald Durrell (Novel)
One more title for the play slot if all works must be XX Century pieces:
Private Lives - Noel Coward (Play)
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Edward Bond
To justify injustice, words, beliefs, opinions, faiths, passions –all are corrupted. Soon people will need an interpreter to understand the words that come from their own mouth, and would have to be someone else to know the passions in their own
breast!
Edward Bond
The Tin Can People - The War Plays’ Part 2
Interview With Julio
J-Re scholars: I guess it might be possible to “appraise” a work of art to some extent, but I’m not sure about the value of such an “appraisal”. Take the Parker on your website. Should we care about literary technique when reading it?
M- I think some works are easier to access when approached form a structural perspective. I think in the case of Shakespear that would always be the wisest way forward. In the case of the Parker poem I think it's easy enough to understand what she is saying, so the logical thing is to then ask what does she mean by it....A structure analysis would reveal short sharp shock lines. I feel it as mainly comic, ironic and very cruel but witty and light, almost Cole Porter like lyrics.
J- Yet, I like literary criticism (I guess that’s what we’ve been doing this week), even when I completely disagree (e.g., John Updike’s review of the latest Houellebecq at The New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/critics/books/articles/060522crbo_books). I guess because it’s not merely about books we’re talking about.
M-If only I could read the Updike crit! It's not accessable anymore.
J-Re the Parker: It makes me think of irony and emotional restrain in 20th century literature and art in general. It may be only a literary device, but sometimes it looks like we’re ashamed of sensitivity. It is not precisely anti-Romanticism, but it seems authors have to make clear that they’re aware that sentimentality is the worst sin they may commit.
M-I totally agree with you there, I suppose it's a natural reaction to the Romantic sensibilities. Art seems to work on an Action-Reaction basis or dynamic.
J-An indirectly related topic: happiness and art. A suggestion for a future post: your desert-island, all-time, top five favourite happy endings, or simply furiously optimistic works (poems, music...), in “scholar’s culture” (i.e., Pretty Woman or The Sound of Music do not qualify). It might not be that easy.
M-REAL Art and Happiness are as compatible as Vanity and Happiness. It depends on what time in the artists life the work relates too. But I will follow this entry with my Top 5 list of Happy Endings.
J-The “Not I” above the photo refers to the poems as well? Is it another turn on Parker’s irony?
M-Not I is the title of a Play by Samule Beckett. See here
M- I think some works are easier to access when approached form a structural perspective. I think in the case of Shakespear that would always be the wisest way forward. In the case of the Parker poem I think it's easy enough to understand what she is saying, so the logical thing is to then ask what does she mean by it....A structure analysis would reveal short sharp shock lines. I feel it as mainly comic, ironic and very cruel but witty and light, almost Cole Porter like lyrics.
J- Yet, I like literary criticism (I guess that’s what we’ve been doing this week), even when I completely disagree (e.g., John Updike’s review of the latest Houellebecq at The New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/critics/books/articles/060522crbo_books). I guess because it’s not merely about books we’re talking about.
M-If only I could read the Updike crit! It's not accessable anymore.
J-Re the Parker: It makes me think of irony and emotional restrain in 20th century literature and art in general. It may be only a literary device, but sometimes it looks like we’re ashamed of sensitivity. It is not precisely anti-Romanticism, but it seems authors have to make clear that they’re aware that sentimentality is the worst sin they may commit.
M-I totally agree with you there, I suppose it's a natural reaction to the Romantic sensibilities. Art seems to work on an Action-Reaction basis or dynamic.
J-An indirectly related topic: happiness and art. A suggestion for a future post: your desert-island, all-time, top five favourite happy endings, or simply furiously optimistic works (poems, music...), in “scholar’s culture” (i.e., Pretty Woman or The Sound of Music do not qualify). It might not be that easy.
M-REAL Art and Happiness are as compatible as Vanity and Happiness. It depends on what time in the artists life the work relates too. But I will follow this entry with my Top 5 list of Happy Endings.
J-The “Not I” above the photo refers to the poems as well? Is it another turn on Parker’s irony?
M-Not I is the title of a Play by Samule Beckett. See here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
