Los bericht bekijken
Oud 24 december 2007, 23:18   #20
jules
Staatssecretaris
 
jules's schermafbeelding
 
Geregistreerd: 15 oktober 2003
Locatie: Antwerpen en zo
Berichten: 2.565
Standaard

Citaat:
Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Ramón Gitannes Bekijk bericht
De links omtrent dit onderwerp leven niet lang heb ik al ondervonden. Maar dat is normaal rond kerstmis hoor, dat heeft niks met een complot te maken.
Toch nog eentje kunnen opvissen.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../ngreen211.xml
allé, daar gaan we weer.
Tim Ball en Lindzen hebben al meer aandacht gekregen dan ze verdienen. (google zelf maar of lees dit forum).

Van Myles Allen die jij opvoert als anti-groen geef ik volgende twee dingen mee. Het eerste geeft duidelijk aan dat ie niet direct je hoax-theorie aanhangt.
Het tweede is een interessant tekstje over zijn visie over hoe klimaatbeleid gevoerd kan worden.


Citaat:
Today we go to the University of Oxford to speak with physicist and professor Myles Allen. He is the principal investigator of a major new study conducted by the ClimatePrediction.net project that warns the effects of global warming may be twice as bad as previously thought.AMY GOODMAN: Good to have you with us. Can you explain the study?
MYLES ALLEN: Thank you very much. Let me begin by thanking more than 25,000 U.S. participants, in case any are listening to your show, who helped us with the study. If it’s one thing they’ve shown-–it is amazing actually the amount of computing power these people have contributed-–how much we need this in climate research. The point of this study was to look at the uncertainty in climate predictions. One of the gripes of many years on climate prediction from the skeptics’ side has been that these predictions are based on computer models and computer models need you to put things in; and the claim has always been ‘garbage in, garbage out’—if you put the wrong numbers in, you might be getting the wrong numbers out. So, what we did to address this head on, was vary all the things we didn’t know about in these models, or many of the things we don’t know about in these models, and ran the simulation many, many times to see what difference it made to the answers. And that’s why we needed to recruit your participants from across the world. As I said, we got more than 95,000 in total--more than 25,000 in the U.S.—building the world’s largest climate modeling facility. And this is how we’ve been able to explore all these different possibilities with these climate models.
JUAN GONZALEZ: When you say that global warming may be twice as bad as previously thought, what does that mean in concrete?
MYLES ALLEN: Right. What we found-–here are the two just sort of accepted consensus range of uncertainty in the warming expected if, for example, one were to double pre-industrial carbon dioxide levels--that’s a level of carbon dioxide which is expected within the next few decades-–would be between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Centigrade. Actually I’m not quite sure what that is in Fahrenheit. Anyway, that is the consensus up until now. What we found is these models being fed back to us from our participants show-–by just varying the things within the ranges of uncertainty, varying certain aspects of the model within the range of uncertainty-–these models are giving us warmings to that same increasing carbon dioxide, ranging to up to over 10 degrees Centigrade. So this is more than double the upper end of the previously accepted range. What this means in concrete terms is that we tend to discuss levels of carbon dioxide that might cause dangerous climate change as if this was something that was likely to happen in the future-–maybe twenty, maybe forty, maybe sixty years’ time, and people argue about how soon it will happen. What our results indicate is that there is a chance-–it’s not the most likely outcome, but there is a possibility that we may have reached the level of danger-–a level of—carbon dioxides may already be at a level which would ultimately cause a dangerously high level of climate change. So, what this-–to put it into perspective, what these results indicate is that the danger zone is not something we’re likely to reach in fifty years’ time; it could be that we’re in it already.
Citaat:
The ghost of Gleneagles

Myles Allen
The G8 leaders should take courage and admit that making polluters pay through the law courts is the simple, straight, if scary solution to global warming, says Myles Allen.
30 - 06 - 2005


No country-house party is complete without something in the basement that no one wants to talk about, but which gives everyone the creeps. At the G8 summit in Gleneagles, what the leaders will not be discussing is a solution to the problem of climate change – even though it could have far more impact than any conceivable political negotiations. The solution already exists, and requires nothing more of the politicians than that they simply get out of the way. No, it is not a whizz-bang new energy technology or crunchy lifestyle change, but something much uglier: impact liability.
Right now, it looks unlikely the G8 leaders will make more than a token reference to what was meant to be (after African poverty) the second great theme of the meeting. They may agree climate change is a problem, bringing us more or less to where we were at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. But with so little to show for more than a decade of effort, is it time to encourage the politicians to redirect their energies elsewhere? By continuing to pretend they will eventually come up with a solution, might they be doing more harm than good?
But, environmentalists will protest, politicians have to come up with the solution, because this is a collective problem requiring collective action. Campaigners – particularly those who were none too comfortable with markets in the first place – often cite climate change as an example of market failure. Conversely, free-market enthusiasts find themselves denying the need for any action over climate change at all, like the church denying the discoveries of Galileo’s telescope, because anything so inimical to their worldview cannot possibly exist.
International negotiations to steer us towards a greener future do indeed sound horribly reminiscent of central planning. Ironically, the United States administration’s government-funded research into alternative-energy technologies sounds equally 1950s. People have learned that governments don’t have a great record in developing or delivering consumer goods.
Is politics the problem?
It is time for a fundamental rethink. This is not a lifestyle issue requiring detailed intervention in every aspect of our behaviour. It is a simple problem of waste disposal. The fossil-fuel industry has yet to implement an effective method of disposing of their key waste product, the carbon dioxide generated by the stuff they sell. As long as dumping it in the atmosphere was apparently harmless, it would have been a waste of their shareholders’ money for them to do so. But as the impacts of climate change become steadily more obvious, that situation is changing.
Past emissions of greenhouse gases, easily traceable to products sold or used by only a couple of dozen major corporations, very likely increased the risk of that heatwave by at least a factor of two, and probably more like a factor between six and ten. The factor of two is significant: that is the level at which a court might conclude that the victims were entitled to compensation from those responsible. If this had been a toxic chemical spill or an unexpected by-product of a drug, the courts would surely already be involved, even in litigation-shy Europe. Unlike most victims of smoking, it would be hard to argue that many victims of climate change had much choice in the matter.
Europe will be better prepared for the next heatwave, whether it comes this summer or not; but it cannot prepare for every storm-surge, flood or other hazard that climate change rolls its way. Rhetoric about safeguarding the planet for all our common futures cunningly obscures the all-too-tangible costs it is imposing on some of us right now. If you own a property in a floodplain in northwest Europe, your personal wealth may be depreciating by several thousand euro per year as a direct side-effect of what is officially recognised as the most profitable legal activity mankind has ever come up with. How do you feel about this?
A number of lawsuits have already been filed against greenhouse-gas emitters, but none has yet grasped the nettle of demanding compensation for damage. As the signal strengthens and the science of attribution matures, this is surely on the way. Emitters have responded by arguing that this is a matter for government regulation, not for the courts (ironically, the same voices argue elsewhere against any form of greenhouse-gas regulation).
This is why the politicians may have become part of the problem. A flaccid regulation regime that pre-empts any claims for compensation is the worst of all possible worlds. If you lose money because of climate change, you want to take your case to the richest corporations in the world, not some World Bank-administered compensation fund that will ask intrusive questions about what you will do with your settlement.
Is law the answer?
If only some of the G8 leaders had the nerve to admit defeat, stand aside, refuse to limit their own emitters’ liability and force their trading partners to do the same – then the entire complexion of the problem would change overnight.
openDemocracy’s debate on the politics of climate change addresses the science, energy policy, environmental impacts and human experience of this major global issue.
It includes contributions from Ian McEwan, Bill McKibben, Fred Pearce and a host of others. A good introduction is Caspar Henderson’s “debate guide”.
A few emitters might decide to tough it out (as the tobacco companies did in comparable circumstances), accepting the occasional settlement as part of the price of staying in a profitable business. But more might look at current estimates of smokestack sequestration costs of possibly as little as $10 per barrel of oil equivalent, and conclude their safest strategy would be to bury the equivalent carbon of whatever fossil fuels they sell rather than face a potential lawsuit whenever the weather turned nasty anywhere in the world over the next century.
With joint and several liability enshrined in American tort law, no one would want to be the last one selling “hot” (un-sequestered) carbon. Some could even decide to bury 10% more carbon than the content of the fuel they sell, so SUV drivers in the Sierra Club could once again hold their heads high.
Of course, environmentalists would hate this, since it would take away their biggest stick to persuade us to do all sorts of things they would like us to do anyway, like riding bicycles or turning vegetarian. They grumble that you need to burn more carbon to bury it, particularly once you run out of smokestacks and have to resort to growing bio-fuels or scrubbing it out of thin air.
But so what? If people want to buy oil at $50 per barrel and companies can come up with carbon-neutral ways of producing it while still making a profit, only the most curmudgeonly central planner would stand in the way. Perhaps this is why the politicians won’t be talking about this at Gleneagles: suddenly, their summit meetings would look less essential to saving the planet.
Nigel Calder tenslotte was idd editor in new scientist. 30 jaar geleden
Mocht zonder kritische vragen zijn hoogst -hmm hoe zou ik het zeggen- 'controversiële' verhaaltje doen in the great global warming swindle, een film waarvan de titel de lading volledig dekt.
jules is offline   Met citaat antwoorden