<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for The 411 on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Rob Smith http://www.grist.org/article/ipccI/ Fri, 02 Feb 2007 05:29:59 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/ipccI/1 Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study??

A story was just reported that "Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today."


Full story is here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2004230, ...





]]> Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study??

A story was just reported that "Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today."


Full story is here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2004230, ...





]]> Comment #2 by Natural Patriot http://www.grist.org/article/ipccI/ Sat, 03 Feb 2007 07:07:21 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/ipccI/2 There's one in every crowd

Last week I happened across an interview with Senator Inhofe on one of the morning gab shows and I had the strange and unprecedented experience of feeling sorry for him.  After years as a powerful madman, devolving into a comical irritant as the tide of evidence (and, much more slowly, public opinion) turned against him, and finally, with his party's fall from power and the loss of his bully pulpit, he has now become merely pathetic. In the bright light of the new IPCC report, Inhofe's well-worn talking points sounded so transparently silly and desperate that even he seemed uncomfortable with them.  He looked like a cornered animal. The Senator must be feeling a bit like the last dinosaurs did as the rug was pulled out from under them.  

]]> There's one in every crowd

Last week I happened across an interview with Senator Inhofe on one of the morning gab shows and I had the strange and unprecedented experience of feeling sorry for him.  After years as a powerful madman, devolving into a comical irritant as the tide of evidence (and, much more slowly, public opinion) turned against him, and finally, with his party's fall from power and the loss of his bully pulpit, he has now become merely pathetic. In the bright light of the new IPCC report, Inhofe's well-worn talking points sounded so transparently silly and desperate that even he seemed uncomfortable with them.  He looked like a cornered animal. The Senator must be feeling a bit like the last dinosaurs did as the rug was pulled out from under them.  

]]> Comment #3 by Mike B http://www.grist.org/article/ipccI/ Sun, 04 Feb 2007 15:33:55 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/ipccI/3 We've got wave power.....

This technology is amazing. Not only do waves produce clean, carbon free electric power, but they also produce fresh water! By supporting technology like this, along with wind power and solar, we can beat the coming heat. Granted, the damage done already by buring fossil fuels will take about a thousand years to clean up, but this kind of machinery is a beginning.

The following is a statement by the Energy Minister of Western Australia, Fran Logan.

Regards,

Mike B)

Major leap forward for WA wave-energy technology

4/2/07

Wave-energy technology invented and developed in Western Australia has taken another step closer to commercialisation.

Energy Minister Francis Logan today unveiled the first of nine pre-commercialisation wave-energy units that will be installed in the ocean off North Fremantle and thoroughly tested over the next year.

"This new and innovative wave energy technology, designed to produce both fresh water and green electricity, has been developed in WA and has the potential to deliver significant benefits to the State," Mr Logan said.

"It is very pleasing to see this technology progressing to the next stage and used to support the development of a wave energy industry in WA.

"Wave energy is a clean, renewable source of energy that can produce electricity without producing greenhouse gas emissions."

The units, named CETO2 after a Greek sea goddess, were developed by WA company Seapower Pacific and its parent company, UK-based Renewable Energy Holdings.

The companies have invested about $10million in the technology and expect it to be fully commercialised within two years. They are currently evaluating several sites off the south-west coast of WA for commercial deployment.

"An array of the units will be installed about 250m off North Fremantle over the next two to three months, in time for the autumn and winter swells," the Minister said.

"The CETO2 wave-energy technology uses an underwater pump driven by the waves to deliver high-pressure seawater through a pipe to the shore. The seawater is then used to drive a turbine to generate electricity or passed through a reverse osmosis desalinisation unit to produce fresh water.

"The company has advised that one unit can produce about one million litres of fresh water every day and has the capacity to generate 180kW of clean electricity. An array of 100 units could supply 45 gigalitres of fresh water or enough electricity to supply 20,000 households.

"There is considerable global interest in using waves as a source of energy, with various devices being developed in countries like Norway, the United Kingdom, Japan and the United States.

"WA has an excellent wave energy resource available, with enormous potential to use this resource to produce clean electricity and fresh water."

Note: Renewable Energy Holdings is an international renewable energy operator and investor. It actively invests and operates in both proven and innovative renewable energy projects and currently operates a bioenergy project in Wales and windfarms in Germany.

Minister's office - 9222 8950

further reading can be found here:
http://www.seapowerpacific.com/NEWS.htm

]]> We've got wave power.....

This technology is amazing. Not only do waves produce clean, carbon free electric power, but they also produce fresh water! By supporting technology like this, along with wind power and solar, we can beat the coming heat. Granted, the damage done already by buring fossil fuels will take about a thousand years to clean up, but this kind of machinery is a beginning.

The following is a statement by the Energy Minister of Western Australia, Fran Logan.

Regards,

Mike B)

Major leap forward for WA wave-energy technology

4/2/07

Wave-energy technology invented and developed in Western Australia has taken another step closer to commercialisation.

Energy Minister Francis Logan today unveiled the first of nine pre-commercialisation wave-energy units that will be installed in the ocean off North Fremantle and thoroughly tested over the next year.

"This new and innovative wave energy technology, designed to produce both fresh water and green electricity, has been developed in WA and has the potential to deliver significant benefits to the State," Mr Logan said.

"It is very pleasing to see this technology progressing to the next stage and used to support the development of a wave energy industry in WA.

"Wave energy is a clean, renewable source of energy that can produce electricity without producing greenhouse gas emissions."

The units, named CETO2 after a Greek sea goddess, were developed by WA company Seapower Pacific and its parent company, UK-based Renewable Energy Holdings.

The companies have invested about $10million in the technology and expect it to be fully commercialised within two years. They are currently evaluating several sites off the south-west coast of WA for commercial deployment.

"An array of the units will be installed about 250m off North Fremantle over the next two to three months, in time for the autumn and winter swells," the Minister said.

"The CETO2 wave-energy technology uses an underwater pump driven by the waves to deliver high-pressure seawater through a pipe to the shore. The seawater is then used to drive a turbine to generate electricity or passed through a reverse osmosis desalinisation unit to produce fresh water.

"The company has advised that one unit can produce about one million litres of fresh water every day and has the capacity to generate 180kW of clean electricity. An array of 100 units could supply 45 gigalitres of fresh water or enough electricity to supply 20,000 households.

"There is considerable global interest in using waves as a source of energy, with various devices being developed in countries like Norway, the United Kingdom, Japan and the United States.

"WA has an excellent wave energy resource available, with enormous potential to use this resource to produce clean electricity and fresh water."

Note: Renewable Energy Holdings is an international renewable energy operator and investor. It actively invests and operates in both proven and innovative renewable energy projects and currently operates a bioenergy project in Wales and windfarms in Germany.

Minister's office - 9222 8950

further reading can be found here:
http://www.seapowerpacific.com/NEWS.htm

]]> Comment #4 by kyledan http://www.grist.org/article/ipccI/ Fri, 13 Apr 2007 23:01:40 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/ipccI/4 I hope I am not being a jerk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_the_main ...

]]> I hope I am not being a jerk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_the_main ...

]]> Comment #5 by blueberrysushi http://www.grist.org/article/ipccI/ Sat, 13 Oct 2007 07:26:59 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/ipccI/5 IPCC

Your link, kyledan, was not "being a jerk." It is good to look at the arguments of those who, for whatever reason, question global climate change. Some of those listed on the wikipedia link have been discredited elsewhere, but I think it is reasonable to assume that many are rational people who have serious and well-founded concerns.

That aside, the many scientists who either believe in or have contributed to climate change theory are also rational and well-founded. Both camps have peer-reviewed research that points to different conclusions; that the vast majority of the research is in favor of global warming theory is the basis of current political and popular concerns over the current course of human behavior.

To sum up, scientific disputes can and should always occur within the context of any theory. Debates clarify and sharpen theory, and, of course, sometimes lead to entirely new and contradictory theories. If and when new theories that actually dispute global warming are established, it will turn into a truly interesting debate.

]]> IPCC

Your link, kyledan, was not "being a jerk." It is good to look at the arguments of those who, for whatever reason, question global climate change. Some of those listed on the wikipedia link have been discredited elsewhere, but I think it is reasonable to assume that many are rational people who have serious and well-founded concerns.

That aside, the many scientists who either believe in or have contributed to climate change theory are also rational and well-founded. Both camps have peer-reviewed research that points to different conclusions; that the vast majority of the research is in favor of global warming theory is the basis of current political and popular concerns over the current course of human behavior.

To sum up, scientific disputes can and should always occur within the context of any theory. Debates clarify and sharpen theory, and, of course, sometimes lead to entirely new and contradictory theories. If and when new theories that actually dispute global warming are established, it will turn into a truly interesting debate.

]]> Comment #6 by GonzoDon http://www.grist.org/article/ipccI/ Sat, 13 Oct 2007 14:15:26 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/ipccI/6 Thanks Blueberrysushi

You state things well.  Science is never 100% certain of anything, and it is healthy for mankind to entertain a certain amount of skepticism about any scientific 'concensus'.

That said, the weight of evidence for human impacts on the warming of our planet is becoming difficult to dismiss.  Those who can argue scientifically that there are holes in the theory should speak out.  But I'm getting damn tired of the 99% who are opposed to theories of global warming for blatantly political/economic reasons, nothing else -- god how I hate the knee-jerk politically-based opposition to what are scientific questions.  

In the long run a healthy skepticism based on reason strengthens all science.  But there are good reasons, my friends, why most of us these days do not believe that the earth is flat nor that illness is caused by demon possession nor  that the sun revolves around the earth.  

None of these insights occurred because religion or political leadership showed us the way out from superstition.  It was because scientists were willing to look truth in the eye.

Science is imperfect, but it is the best process we have for feretting out truths about the physial processes that affect our world.  Including global warming.  

So while I'm no expert in atmospheric science, I'll believe the IPCC unless or until someone can demonstrate to my scientific satisfaction (not political expediency) that the earth is, in fact, flat.

]]> Thanks Blueberrysushi

You state things well.  Science is never 100% certain of anything, and it is healthy for mankind to entertain a certain amount of skepticism about any scientific 'concensus'.

That said, the weight of evidence for human impacts on the warming of our planet is becoming difficult to dismiss.  Those who can argue scientifically that there are holes in the theory should speak out.  But I'm getting damn tired of the 99% who are opposed to theories of global warming for blatantly political/economic reasons, nothing else -- god how I hate the knee-jerk politically-based opposition to what are scientific questions.  

In the long run a healthy skepticism based on reason strengthens all science.  But there are good reasons, my friends, why most of us these days do not believe that the earth is flat nor that illness is caused by demon possession nor  that the sun revolves around the earth.  

None of these insights occurred because religion or political leadership showed us the way out from superstition.  It was because scientists were willing to look truth in the eye.

Science is imperfect, but it is the best process we have for feretting out truths about the physial processes that affect our world.  Including global warming.  

So while I'm no expert in atmospheric science, I'll believe the IPCC unless or until someone can demonstrate to my scientific satisfaction (not political expediency) that the earth is, in fact, flat.

]]>