• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
Jennifer Marohasy

Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

  • Home
  • About
  • Publications
  • Speaker
  • Blog
  • Temperatures
  • Coral Reefs
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Archives for June 2007

NASA Boss Michael Griffin Suggests Better Climate Possible?

June 3, 2007 By jennifer

“NASA’s top administrator, Michael Griffin, speaking on National Public Radio (NPR) in the US made some refreshingly sensible comments about the present global warming scare,” said Robert Ferguson, Director of the Science and Public Policy Institute.

“Many rationalist scientists agree with him, clearly demonstrating there is no scientific consensus on man-made, catastrophic global warming,” said Ferguson.

Griffin said he doubted global warming is “a problem we must wrestle with,” and that it is arrogant to believe that today’s climate is the best we could have and that “we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn’t change.”

While NASA scientist, James Hansen, was sharply critical of his boss, other scientists from around the world came to Griffin’s support.

Said Dr. Walter Starck, an Australian marine scientist, “Griffin makes an important distinction between the scientific findings of climate change and dramatic predictions of catastrophic consequences accompanied by policy demands. The former can be evaluated by its evidence, but; the latter rest only on assertions and claims to authority. Alternate predictions of benefits from projected changes have been proposed with comparable authority and plausibility. For example, unless one chooses to define the Little Ice Age as “normal” and “optimal” the net effect of any warming has only been beneficial and any anthropogenic contribution very small indeed. Dramatic predictions of imminent disaster have a near perfect record of failure. Griffin’s note of caution in the escalating concern over climate change deserves sober consideration.

Another Australian, who testified before a Senate panel last year, Professor Robert Carter, observed, “My main reaction to Michael Griffin is to congratulate him on his clear-sightedness, not to mention his courage in speaking out on such a controversial topic.”

Dr. Tim Ball, a Canadian climatologist, responded: “Griffin’s statement is sensible because it allows time for the testing of the man-made global warming hypothesis to continue as it should.”

“I certainly support Griffin’s comments,” said William Kininmonth, a former head of the Australian National Climate Centre. “Not only is it speculative to claim that humans can in any way influence the course of climate but it is arrogant to suggest that today’s climate is getting worse than it has been in the past. For example, who would prefer to return to pre-industrial conditions as they were during the Little Ice Age? Frost Fairs were common on many rivers of Europe and the London diarist John Evelyn records that in 1683-84 the Thames River froze from late December to early February. Conditions were terrible with men and cattle perishing and the seas locked with ice such that no vessels could stir out or come in. The fowls, fish and exotic plants and greens were universally perishing. Food and fuel were exceptionally dear and coal smoke hung so thickly that one could scarcely see across the street and one could scarcely breathe.”

Kansas geologist, Lee Gerhard added, “Griffin’s statement focuses on the hubris that affects much of public
policy. It is great to know that someone out there besides geologists understands that humans do not dominate earth’s dynamic systems.

Said Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph, “Claims of major, impending catastrophe are speculative and go far beyond what has been credibly established by researchers to date. Hence Griffin’s view is not at all controversial or out of step with available evidence, and he should be commended for having the courage to say it. The fact that it took courage, however, points to the deeper problem that questioning the catastrophic propaganda we hear so much is now considered politically incorrect.”

Dr. Pat Michaels at the University of Virginia agrees: “NASA Administrator Michael Griffin’s statement about whether or not it is in fact a “problem” is supported by a scientific literature that his employee, James Hansen, appears to ignore. It is well-known that much of the Eurasian arctic was between 4 and 12 degrees (F) warmer than modern temperatures for much of the 6,000 years between 3,000 and 9,000 years ago, and that such warming was caused by a massive intrusion of warm Atlantic water into the arctic. Given that the only way it can get there is to flow east of Greenland, Mr. Hansen’s well-publicized fears that a massive amount of Greenland’s ice will fall into the ocean in the next 100 years is mere science fiction. It is ironic that today President Bush appears to have given in to Hansen’s hysteria rather than to the calm reason of NASA Administrator Griffin.

Finally, Harvard University physicist Lubos Motl praised Griffin’s climate comments, calling them “sensible.” On his public blog, Motl said he applauds Michael Griffin and encourages him to act as “a self-confident boss of a highly prestigious institution.” “I have always believed that the people who actually work with hard sciences and technology simply shouldn’t buy a cheap and soft pseudoscientific propaganda such as the ‘fight against climate change,'” Motl added.

This is a media release from the Science and Public Policy Institute.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Climate & Climate Change

Whaling Commission Meeting Wrapped Up

June 3, 2007 By jennifer

The 59th Annual International Whaling Commission Meeting wrapped last Thursday in Anchorage, Alaska.

If you were distracted over the last couple of weeks, as I was, and missed some of the discussions, including at this blog, you can catch-up by having a look at the very long thread following a note from Rune Frovik, Secretary of the High North Alliance, posted on May 23, 2007.

In the blog post Rune correctly predicted that the issue of aboriginal whaling could be a “a very hot issue”.

It was. And most nations except Japan got mostly what they asked for in terms of traditional/aboriginal hunting:

– Greenland can now hunt two bowhead whales annually

– Greenland’s request to also take 10 humpback whales a year was postponed until next year

– The quotes requested by USA, Russia, St Vincent and the Grenadines were adopted by consensus

– Japan’s request for a minke whale quota to four coastal communities was rejected

According to Rune, “There is an extreme lack of consistency, a very unfair treatment of Japan’s reasonable and limited requests. The IWC is a breeding ground for hypocrisy and double standards where the anti-Japanese sentiments are running high.”

I have previously expressed my disappointment at the International Whaling Commission condoning the slaughter of rare whales by indigenous peoples using what are arguable inhumane traditional methods, while ruling against the commercial harvest of more common species by more humane methods in a piece published in July 2005 entitled ‘No science and no respect in Australia’s anti-whaling campaign’.

Next year the IWC meeting will be in Santiago, Chile.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Plants and Animals

Australia to Embrace Carbon Trading

June 2, 2007 By jennifer

On 10 December 2006 the Australian Prime Minister announced the establishment of a joint government-business Task Group on Emissions Trading. Yesterday, the Report of the Task Group on Emissions Trading was publicly released. It “outlines the state of play in international cooperation on climate change and the possible development of emissions trading at the global level. Against this background, the Report outlines a proposed Australian domestic emissions trading scheme, together with a set of complementary policies and measures, that would enable Australia to position itself for international developments while maintaining economic growth and safeguarding our competitive advantage.”

The report includes comment that, “The most common type of emissions trading systems are known as ‘cap and trade’ schemes. Under such a scheme, the government determines limits on greenhouse gas emissions (that is, sets a target or cap) and issues tradable emissions permits up to this limit. Each permit represents the right to emit a specified quantity of greenhouse gas (for example, one tonne of CO2-e). Businesses must hold enough permits to cover the greenhouse gas emissions they produce each year. Permits can be bought and sold, with the price determined by the supply of and demand for permits. Governments can choose how they wish to allocate permits, for example, by auctioning, grandfathering, benchmarking, allocating to meet specific equity objectives, or any combination of these options (a more detailed discussion of these methodologies is included in Chapter 7).
By placing a price on emissions, trading allows market forces to find least cost ways of reducing emissions by providing incentives for firms to reduce emissions where this would be cheapest, while allowing continuation of emissions where they are most costly to reduce. This underlines the fact that emissions trading is not an objective in itself, but a means of achieving a certain level of abatement at the lowest cost possible.”

Paul Kelly writing in The Australian newspaper has commented, “The essence of John Howard’s belated response to climate change is to commit early, think global and implement slowly. After years of dispute and scepticism, Australia now has a strategic blueprint for action — a blueprint superior to the defect-ridden European emission trading regime.

“This is the start of Australia exerting serious influence on the global debate. In substantive terms, it closes the gulf between Howard and Kevin Rudd on climate change. It insists that Australia must act now and not wait for global agreement. It makes the timetable for emission trading almost bipartisan — Howard in 2011 and Labor by 2010.

“While Howard’s report does not specify a target — in response to Rudd’s 60 per cent cut by 2050 — its entire “cap and trade” scheme depends upon a long-term target to be finalised next year after more analysis. Labor, equally, wants the scheme’s design finalised “by the end of 2008”.

And yesterday the Australian Prime Minister announced his support for a new US climate change initiative, a new post-Kyoto framework.

John Howard said, “The Australian Government welcomes the United States’ initiative announced overnight to build a broader coalition for practical international climate change action. This is a genuine attempt to get past the political stand-offs of previous negotiations, to cut through the entrenched positions of the north-south divide enshrined in the Kyoto Protocol and instead to focus on real solutions.

“My Government has consistently championed the need for practical action that makes a difference. In particular, we have advocated meaningful co-operation with developing countries and a new global framework in which all major economies feel able to participate.

“The US initiative – and the recent statement by Japan calling for a new global response that goes beyond Kyoto and brings in all major emitters – is further evidence that a new international consensus on climate change is starting to emerge.

“Australia has been very active in shaping this emerging consensus, which represents a significant move away from the empty symbolism of Kyoto towards the approach the Government has consistently advocated. The Government has been in frequent contact with the US Administration and our other key international partners.

“We have been at the forefront of practical, regional initiatives such as the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6) and the Clean Coal Partnership with China. The Government has launched a $200 million Global Forests Initiative to tackle deforestation and has put climate change at the centre of the APEC leaders’ agenda in September.

“The US approach recognises that to deal with climate change a multi-pronged strategy is required, including areas such as energy efficiency, technology development and transfer – including nuclear power – and forestry, as well as ways to adapt to changes in the climate.”

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Climate & Climate Change, Energy & Nuclear

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 6
  • Go to page 7
  • Go to page 8

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • Ian Thomson on Vax-ed as Sick as Unvax-ed, Amongst My Friends
  • Dave Ross on Vax-ed as Sick as Unvax-ed, Amongst My Friends
  • Dave Ross on Vax-ed as Sick as Unvax-ed, Amongst My Friends
  • Alex on Incarceration Nation: Frightened of Ivermectin, and Dihydrogen monoxide
  • Wilhelm Grimm III on Incarceration Nation: Frightened of Ivermectin, and Dihydrogen monoxide

Subscribe For News Updates

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

June 2007
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  
« May   Jul »

Archives

Footer

About Me

Jennifer Marohasy Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD has worked in industry and government. She is currently researching a novel technique for long-range weather forecasting funded by the B. Macfie Family Foundation. Read more

Subscribe For News Updates

Subscribe Me

Contact Me

To get in touch with Jennifer call 0418873222 or international call +61418873222.

Email: jennifermarohasy at gmail.com

Connect With Me

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2014 - 2018 Jennifer Marohasy. All rights reserved. | Legal

Website by 46digital