Category: Uncategorized

  • Case for climate change is overwhelming, say scientists

    Case for climate change is overwhelming, say scientists

    Eleven days before the IPCC publishes its latest report, a group of eminent scientists says there is massive evidence of human responsibility

    A flare stack emitting fire is silhouetted against the sun at an oil refinery in Melbourne June 24, 2009. A senator crucial to Australia's plans for carbon trading said on Wednesday he did not believe climate change was real, delivering what could be a fatal blow to government plans to slash industrial gas emissions. REUTERS/Mick Tsikas (AUSTRALIA POLITICS ENERGY ENVIRONMENT BUSINESS IMAGES OF THE DAY) :rel:d:bm:GF2E56O0NFZ01

    Scientists say that if humans continue with business as usual, using fossil fuels and pumping out excessive amounts of greenhouse gases, the world will be on track for a planet that is 4C warmer by the end of this century Photograph: Mick Tsikas/Reuters
    With the IPCC report not yet published, there is already heated debate about what it will say, and about the implications of its findings for human development.

    The scientists’ statement is unequivocal, and is not based on whatever the IPCC may publish. They say: “The body of evidence indicating that our civilisation has already caused significant global warming is overwhelming.”

    The statement comes from 12 members of the recently established Earth League, which describes itself as “a voluntary alliance of leading scientists and institutions dealing with planetary processes and sustainability issues”.

    They say that if humans continue with business as usual, using fossil fuels and pumping out excessive amounts of greenhouse gases, the world will be on track for a planet that is 4C warmer by the end of this century, or even earlier.

    The group says assertions that there has been no warming this century are simply wrong. “Regardless of the… (erroneous) claim that global warming has already stopped, evidence is that once well-known impacts from El Niño, volcanic aerosols and solar variability are removed from the observations, the warming trend of the ocean-atmosphere system is unbroken; and that it will continue (potentially towards 4°C) unless serious mitigation action is taken.

    “That global warming continues unabated over the last decade is confirmed by ocean measurements. Ninety per cent of the additional heat that the Earth system absorbs due to the increase in greenhouse gases is stored in the oceans, and the global array of thousands of scientific measurement robots in the oceans proves that they keep heating up at a steady pace. Meanwhile satellites show that sea levels also keep rising steadily.”

    The statement says a 4°C rise would drastically change the Earth. Some coastlines and entire islands would be submerged by rising sea levels, and more extreme heat waves would cause crop failures and loss of life.

    It says powerful feedback processes that would very probably raise the warming even higher could be triggered, and might prove irreversible: “Four degrees of planetary warming means some 8°C change close to the Arctic, which will cause even larger impacts on the Eurasian and North American land mass and the surrounding seas.”

    “…our societies seem to be willing to impose immense risks on future generations.”

    Already, it says, there is persuasive evidence that immense changes may be under way: “The last two decades were… punctuated by devastating floods (like the Pakistan deluge in 2010) that may be related to an incipient restructuring of the atmospheric circulation.

    “The signs on the climate wall as expressed by the accelerated melting of Arctic sea ice and by the retreat of the overwhelming majority of glaciers worldwide are there for all to see. Yet this is just the beginning.”

    The scientists say: “Although climate science only tells us what might happen and not what to do about it, we feel that inaction is an unacceptable prospect.

    “Nations go to war, implement mass vaccinations of their populations and organise expensive insurance and security systems (such as anti-terror measures) to address much fainter threats. However, our societies seem to be willing to impose immense risks on future generations.”

    The 12 signatories recognise that some people believe it is impossible for human activities to produce a 4°C temperature rise. Others, they say, are already acknowledging defeat by maintaining that the international policy goal of limiting warming to less than 2°C is a lost case.

    They write that there is “ample evidence” that the world can hold a 2°C line, and say technology shows that global sustainability is attainable. But they add: “… the evidence demonstrates that the time frame to achieve this is rapidly shrinking.”

    The signatories of the statement include Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany, and Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, Director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College London. The link above lists all 12 signatories.

  • Sign Amy’s Petition Below (repeated)

    AMY HAS 350.000 SIGNATURES BUT NEEDS MORE
    Home  »  Uncategorized   »   Sign Amy’s Petition Below

    Sign Amy’s Petition Below

    Posted in Uncategorized By Neville On September 13, 2013

    NEVILLE –

    Doctors can’t tell me exactly how long my husband has to live. Our oncologist said it could be as little as two weeks however our neurosurgeon said, given he is fit and strong, it could be 3 to 6 months.

    Nick has exhausted all the commercially available treatment options for Stage 4 melanoma and is just not qualifying for the new ‘breakthrough’ PD-1 drug trials – he needs access to PD-1 urgently, however the pharmaceutical companies, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Merck, each of whom make a version of PD-1 have not, to date, agreed to grant Nick access to the drug on a compassionate basis. They insist that he should enter a trial but they know that he does not qualify for any trials.

    I can’t imagine life without Nick. I can’t imagine telling our son Locky he has to watch the big game alone, telling Hayley that Daddy can’t take her bike-riding anymore, or knowing that my youngest son won’t even remember his dad.

    This treatment is our family’s last hope. That’s why we started a petition on change.org asking Bristol-Myers Squibb and Merck to give Nick compassionate access to the PD-1 cancer drug. Please click here to sign our petition.

    Merck and Bristol-Myers Squibb have the power to grant Nick single patient access to PD-1 right away under compassionate use laws. They even have policies for providing development drugs to people where it is their only hope. PD-1 is being trialled right now and they’ve given patients compassionate access to drugs like this before so I can’t see any reason why they shouldn’t this time – but so far they’re refusing to hear our case.

    Nick is determined to beat this so our children — Locky (7), Hayley (5), and Evan (1) — can grow up with Dad beside them. Nick takes on each new battle with melanoma with audacity — determined to win and constantly assuring others that he will jump the next hurdle. And he always does.

    Nick can jump this last hurdle, I know it — but only if Merck and Bristol-Myers Squibb give him that chance.

    Please join Locky, Hayley, Evan, and me in asking Merck and Bristol-Myers Squibb to provide the cancer drug PD-1 to Nick, so he can win against melanoma.

    Thank you so much for your help,

    Amy Auden

     

  • Post election strategy: Hit Abbott’s weak spot

    Why this ad?
    Protect Control Networkswww.sourcefire.com/SCADANetworks – Address cybersecurity threats with Sourcefire. Free Whitepaper.

    Post election strategy: Hit Abbott’s weak spot

    Inbox
    x
    Aaron Packard – 350.org Australia <aaron@350.org>
    5:36 PM (3 minutes ago)

    to me
    Images are not displayed. Display images below – Always display images from aaron@350.org

    Dear Friend,

    I think we all know that the outcome of the election was not a success for tackling climate change, and if we’re to be honest, it’s probably most adequately described as a climate disaster.

    You do have to wonder if Tony Abbott’s blood oath to repeal the carbon price counts for anything as there was actually no blood involved. But here at 350.org Australia, we’ve concluded that while a price on carbon is and has been a very important step for Australia, Abbott’s plan to cut it is likely to be a distraction* from the area we can actually win in – their weak spot: coal expansion. We need to win this one, big time.

    Here’s how.

    The Government is fighting a losing battle to expand coal exports

    Abbott and the Premier of Queensland, Campbell Newman are desperate to rapidly expand Australia’s coal exports. But they’re going to have a tough time. The international price of coal is low and is likely to remain low as demand for coal is not growing as fast as the industry predicted it would. China for one is busy putting in new legislation to decommission coal power plants and ramp up alternatives – meaning that the country is on track to peak it’s demand for coal much earlier than the consensus outlook had prothesised. The international price pressure, coupled with the divestment pressure, and the great work community groups around Australia are doing to fight these projects is making financing big coal projects increasingly risky and undesirable. Just last week, Glencore Xtrata shelved it’s massive Wandoan coal project for these very reasons.

    Over the coming year, we’ll continue to build momentum and pressure with Divestment campaigning. We’ll also issue a direct challenge to the fossil fuel industry – through Summer Heat Australia (more to come soon).

    Alongside those two, we’re going to be figuring out ways to challenge the ideology of extraction that would see Australia dug up no matter the social or environmental cost. Naomi Klein defines that ideology as ‘extractivism’:

    It’s an approach to the world based on taking and taking without giving back. Taking as if there are no limits to what can be taken – no limits to what a functioning society can take, no limits to what the planet can take. When crisis hits, there is only ever one solution: take some more, faster. On all fronts. So that is their story – the one we’re trapped in. The one they use as a weapon against all of us.

    We mustn’t just target Abbott and Newman for their extractivist agenda, we must target the small number of powerful people in Australia pushing extractivism. We must name it and shame it, and at the same time push forward strongly with the progressive, science-based path of development that treats the planet and people like they actually matter. That’s a big project, but it’s time to begin it. We’re always keen to hear your ideas – just hit reply to this email, or post them on our Facebook page!

    There’s a few other parts to our strategy, which we’ve summarised in this post-election climate organising checklist:

    1. Rational argument won’t win the day – the Coalition is deeply ideological. It’s a power fight.
    2. Government lobbying won’t work. We have to challenge power with power.
    3. Divestment is now more important than ever – it’s our most effective strategy to fight the extra power the coal and gas industry has just received with the change in government, because it gets to the financial base of the industry. We don’t have to faff about with the Government.
    4. Things will move fast. We need to get ready to respond. But we mustn’t get caught up with just responding. We need to go on the offensive.
    5. Support alternative media. Create alternative media. We have to divest ourselves from reading and believing the Murdoch press. Invest our desire for news into media that is fact-based and unbiased.
    6. Be ready for non-violent direct action
    If this resonates with you, the main thing we want you to do is stay active and stand with us over the coming months. The other thing that helps a lot is if you would become a monthly donor to 350.org Australia. Click here to find out how. We are a small team, and treasure every dollar that comes our way. Your ongoing support will enable us to rise to this challenge.
    Thanks for all that you do, onwards!
    Aaron, Blair, Charlie, for 350.org Australia
    *We’re not saying that people shouldn’t stand up for the carbon price – but our analysis is that it will draw considerable effort for questionable results, and we’d rather put that effort into the weak
  • Liberal MP Dennis Jensen slams Coalition for dumping science portfolio

    Liberal MP Dennis Jensen slams Coalition for dumping science portfolio

    No science minister ‘disconcerting’

    Nobel prize winning astrophysicist Brian Schmidt says it will take six to eight weeks to determine how committed the Abbott government is to science.

    A vocal climate sceptic who wanted to be science minister has hit out at Tony Abbott’s decision not to appoint a dedicated minister to the area.

    Western Australian Liberal Dennis Jensen’s criticism came as the country’s peak science bodies expressed concern over Mr Abbott’s new ministry, which has omitted a dedicated science minister for the first time in more than 50 years.

    WA MP Dr Dennis Jensen wants to be science minister in the Abbott government.Liberal MP Dr Dennis Jensen is critical of the Abbott government’s decision to omit a science minister.

    Dr Jensen, who had publicly put himself forward as a potential science minister, said on Tuesday the omission of a specific portfolio was incoherent.

    Advertisement

    “I’m somewhat confused about what happened to the science portfolio,” he told ABC News 24.

    The backbencher, who has a master’s degree in physics and a PhD in material science and is outspoken in his doubts about mainstream science on climate change, said splitting responsibility for science between the industry and education ministries would “make it a somewhat schizophrenic policy area”.

    Ian MacFarlaneIan MacFarlane Photo: Max Mason-Hubers

    “We’ve got a minister for sport, for God’s sake, but we don’t have a minister for science,” he said.

    “I guess this is a problem with not having people of scientific bent in decision-making processes.”

    Dr Jensen cited problems with the Australian Research Council’s process of awarding grants and a lack of quality students entering the field at university.

    “Science is in crisis, quite frankly,” he said.

    Dr Jensen made the comments in an interview in which he repeated criticisms that Mr Abbott’s paid parental leave scheme was too expensive and had not been properly thought through.

    He said the scheme should be referred to the Productivity Commission for examination.

    Asked whether he could see himself voting for the scheme, Dr Jensen said he would ‘‘have to wait and see where the policy goes’’ but he currently had problems with it.

    The country’s peak science bodies have expressed concern over Tony Abbott’s new ministry, which has omitted a dedicated science minister for the first time in more than 50 years.

    Not since 1931 has an Australian government been without a science minister.

    Universities Australia said it would work with the Abbott government to ensure it did not neglect “the critical areas of science, research and innovation”.

    Under the incoming Abbott government, the minister for industry, Ian MacFarlane, will be responsible for some areas of science, including The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation.

    Mr Abbott said on Monday science would “largely be in the industry portfolio”.

    “I am trying to avoid a situation where unless something is specifically mentioned in someone’s title it is unimportant,” Mr Abbott said.

    “Everything that is significant is obviously of concern to an Australian government but it is possible to take things very, very seriously indeed without feeling they need to be included in people’s titles because we are just getting to a situation of title inflation and frankly I want to avoid title inflation.

    “Thankfully I think we’ve got some title deflation as a result of this ministry.”

    The Australian Academy of Science said it was disappointed.

    ”A scientifically literate society is a society which is equipped to hold informed debate and make intelligent decisions about big issues that affect us all,” the Academy’s secretary for science policy, Les Field, said.

    The head of Science and Technology Australia, Catriona Jackson, said the nation’s scientists were confused by the absence of a science minister.

    ”Science and technology are central to virtually everything government does, from industry to universities, to agriculture to health, to creating the kind of jobs that will ensure a prosperous future,” she said.

    But leading scientists including Nobel prize-winning physicist Brian Schmidt, and immunologist Sir Gustav Nossal, were reluctant to judge the new ministry until further details were released.

    Professor Schmidt said as long as the minister in charge of science had passion and influence.

    Sir Gustav said he was not too concerned, but would like the new government to continue to support the major science organisations, including the CSIRO, Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, and the Defence Science and Technology Organisation.

    with Nicky Phillips, Bridie Smith

     

     

    Ads by Google

    Dental Implant Warnings

    symptomfind.com/CosmeticDentalCare

    What You Should Know Before Getting Dental Implants. Read Expert Advice

    Gold Stocks To Buy

    www.FatProphets.com.au

    Australian Stock Market – Get Free Access To The Latest Free Report

    Don’t Sell Your Timeshare

    TimeshareOut.com/9-Mistakes-Report

    Until you read our special report. Get it today.

    Recommended
    8 Miley Cyrus memes to cleanse the palate

    8 Miley Cyrus memes to cleanse the palate
    Demi Moore is reportedly dating her ex's father

    Demi Moore is reportedly dating her ex’s father
    Bandt facing defeat in prized seat, poll finds

    Bandt facing defeat in prized seat, poll finds
    Sad loss for Jack and Lisa

    Sad loss for Jack and Lisa
    Australia-China trade no longer just a resource story

    From the web
    Australia-China trade no longer just a resource story
    Financial Review
    8 Miley Cyrus memes to cleanse the palate
    Demi Moore is reportedly dating her ex's father
    Bandt facing defeat in prized seat, poll finds
    Sad loss for Jack and Lisa
    Australia-China trade no longer just a resource story
    Advertisement
    Featured advertisers
    &lt;!– UI NOTE: Make iframed content accessible: –&gt; &lt;a href=”http://assets.betterbills.com/widgets/AGE-VIC.html”&gt;View these special offers by BetterBills.&lt;/a&gt;
    Advertisement

    Readers’ most viewed

  • Parliament of Fools (MONBIOT)

    ontrol Networkswww.sourcefire.com/SCADANetworks – Address cybersecurity threats with Sourcefire. Free Whitepaper.

    Monbiot.com

    Inbox
    x
    George Monbiot news@monbiot.com via google.com
    5:02 PM (31 minutes ago)

    to me

    Monbiot.com


    Parliament of Fools

    Posted: 16 Sep 2013 03:05 PM PDT

    The US disease has arrived in Britain: representatives waging an all-out war against science.

     

    By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 17th September 2013

    A “flat-earth love-in”. That’s how one MP described the debate he witnessed in parliament last week(1). The politics with which citizens of the US, Canada and Australia are now wearily familiar – in which elected representatives denounce both scientific evidence and the researchers who produce it – have arrived in Britain.

    A couple of years ago I decided to stop arguing with climate change deniers. It was driving me mad. Spend too much time grappling with the convolutions of people like Lord Lawson, Lord Monckton, David Rose or Christopher Booker and some of it rubs off on you. I began to feel like the man in the celebrated cartoon: “I can’t come to bed yet dear. Someone is wrong on the internet.”

    But this, in Westminster, is something new: a group of parliamentarians, some of them, like John Redwood, Peter Lilley, Andrew Tyrie and Graham Stringer, senior and experienced, prepared to abandon all caution and declare an all-out war on the evidence. Listening to the debate on Tuesday, I had the sense that they were undergoing an initation test, like mara gang members acquiring a facial tattoo. To show you are a true believer, you must disfigure your political record by reciting a ream of nonsense in parliament. So, with a heavy heart, I find myself going in again.

    They appeared to have two aims: to torpedo the report being published next week by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and to strike down the UK’s Climate Change Act. Were it not for the fact that they now represent a powerful current of opinion within parliament, in which the environment secretary swims, I would bang my head three times against the wall then move on. But their power and reach, their clanking certainties and their outrageous misrepresentations demand a response.

    The debate was proposed by a Conservative MP called David TC Davies, who used his speech to produce a long list of conspiracy theories and zombie myths: claims that have been repeatedly debunked but keep resurfacing. Here are a couple of examples, to give you a sense of the distance some of our elected representatives have established between themselves and the evidence.

    “It is not proven,” Davies maintained, “that the carbon dioxide that has gone into the atmosphere is responsible for the relatively small amount of warming that has taken place since industrialisation.” Well, of course it’s not proven – nothing is. But the evidence is impressive. Perhaps Davies is unaware of the mountain of scientific work on the subject, investigating the likely contribution of sunspots, volcanoes and other natural causes(2), and measuring changes in the amount of radiation reflected back to the earth’s surface by greenhouse gases(3). These studies attribute most of the warming of the past few decades to us(4).

    Davies insisted that “in the 1970s, everyone was predicting a forthcoming ice age.” But a study of the peer-reviewed literature on climate change published between 1965 and 1979 found just seven articles suggesting that the world might be cooling, and 44 proposing that it was likely to get warmer(5). The “emphasis on greenhouse warming,” it concludes, “dominated the scientific literature even then.” There were several stories in the popular press suggesting an impending ice age, but scientists cannot be blamed for that, any more than they can be blamed for David Davies’s claim that “it is an ice age that we should be worried about.”

    On he went, churning through familiar fables and wild conspiracies about the role of the Met Office, which “did everything possible to withhold its evidence and calculations” by, er, publishing them on its website. The bastards. But one statement stands out. Davies maintained that according to a parliamentary answer he’d received, “every person in the country will be paying between £4,700 and £5,300 a year towards the Government’s climate change policies.” I looked up the answer. It says nothing of the kind.

    The figures he was given are the average per person for all energy costs between 2010 and 2050: “all capital, operating and fuel costs for the whole energy system including cars, trains, planes, power stations, boilers and insulation”(6). Climate change policies account for a very small part of the total. The answer was provided just eight days before the debate. It is hard to understand how Mr Davies could have remembered the figures, but forgotten what they represented.

    He’s not the only one who mangled the evidence like this. The Labour MP Graham Stringer joined the witch-hunt by claiming that the Met Office’s research department – the Hadley Centre, based in Exeter – had been discredited by an inquiry led by Lord Oxburgh. But Lord Oxburgh’s inquiry investigated (and largely exonerated) a completely different body at the other end of the country: the University of East Anglia’s climatic research unit(7). What makes this really odd is that Stringer, as a member of the Commons science and technology committee, conducted a parallel inquiry into the unit, during which he was noted for his aggressive questioning(8). How could he have forgotten which body was the subject of these investigations?

    Are we to believe that these elected representatives have such poor memories or such feeble powers of comprehension that these were honest mistakes? In either case, Davies and Stringer both owe the House a correction.

    It was cheering to see a Conservative minister, Greg Barker, mount a robust defence of the science, especially as one of his colleagues, the environment secretary Owen Paterson, has now publicly rejected it, siding with the fossil fuel lobbyists against the evidence(9). But for how much longer will the government hold the line against the flat-earthers in its own ranks? Will we soon find ourselves in the position of Australia, with a prime minister who once described manmade global warming as “absolute crap”?(10)

    Never underestimate the willingness of powerful people to ignore the evidence they find inconvenient. Never underestimate their willingness to appease industrial lobbyists by repeating the nonsense they generate. Never understimate their readiness to sacrifice the common interests of humankind for the sake of a belief they refuse to abandon.

    www.monbiot.com

    References:

    1. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm130910/halltext/130910h0001.htm#13091045000001

    2. http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=%22climate+change%22%2C+attribution&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_vis=1

    3. http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

    4. https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms2.html

    5. Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley, and John Fleck, September 2008. The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, pp1325-1337.  DOI:10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1 http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

    6. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm130902/text/130902w0011.htm

    7. Ron Oxburgh et al, 2010. Report of the International Panel set up by the University of East Anglia to examine the research of the Climatic Research Unit. http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/crustatements/sap

    8. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, 2010. The disclosure of
    climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf

    9. http://www.skepticalscience.com/paterson-on-climate.html

    10. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/the-town-that-

  • Petition (AMY AUDEN)

    NEVILLE –

    My family and I are completely overwhelmed and tremendously grateful for all the support we’ve received.

    So far more than 350,000 people have signed our petition. It is just incredible.

    After my son Locky appeared on The Today Show wearing a Hawks scarf, his beloved team jumped on board to support us. It brought huge smiles to the Auden household during this difficult time.

    We’ve just heard that tonight we will be on Channel 10’s The Project. Please tune in and watch.

    We have so much momentum – but as yet no movement from the drug companies.

    Please keep sharing the petition so that numbers continue to grow – we are still hopeful that we can win this.

     

    Keeping our campaign in the media and growing numbers on the petition will hopefully pressure the drug companies to see sense and give Nick the treatment he desperately needs.

    Thanks for your ongoing support, it means so much.

    Amy