Boisvenue, Celine and Steven Running. "Impacts of Climate Change on Natural Forest
Productivity- Evidence Since the Middle of the 20th Century." Global Change Biology
12.5 (2006): 862-882.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’
* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
* The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
* The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
* The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth#ixzz0hH4qzzmW
* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
* The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
* The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
* The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth#ixzz0hH4qzzmW
Monday, March 1, 2010
late inspiration...
Well, the extra credit point in the exam was to write a haiku about nature (and how we discussed it in class). I tried to think of one, but did not find a last line. Unfortunately -or fortunately, depends on the point of view - I found one a couple of minutes after I went out of class...I dislike such 'too late inspirations.'
Nature: part of us.
But separated by man.
Why? Think of it now.
The reason why I share this with you: I found it interesting that I, though I tried to write something about nature, eventually came up with something that totally focuses on us. This also reminded me of the very beginning of the class when we read the poem "I contemplate a tree" by Buber and stated/ discovered that man is still the point of reference. It makes me wonder if there is any chance to change this way of self-centered thinking towards a more holistic way, where we do not see us as so apparently dominant? But how can we achieve this? I mean, it cannot be the point to completely give up our identification, can it? Probably, it all goes back to the Leopoldian thought of life in a balance. It sounds so easy, but at least I get constantly outsmarted by my 'conventional' way of thinking. And this still happens although I try to change it and dare to say that I care about environment and my influence...
Nature: part of us.
But separated by man.
Why? Think of it now.
The reason why I share this with you: I found it interesting that I, though I tried to write something about nature, eventually came up with something that totally focuses on us. This also reminded me of the very beginning of the class when we read the poem "I contemplate a tree" by Buber and stated/ discovered that man is still the point of reference. It makes me wonder if there is any chance to change this way of self-centered thinking towards a more holistic way, where we do not see us as so apparently dominant? But how can we achieve this? I mean, it cannot be the point to completely give up our identification, can it? Probably, it all goes back to the Leopoldian thought of life in a balance. It sounds so easy, but at least I get constantly outsmarted by my 'conventional' way of thinking. And this still happens although I try to change it and dare to say that I care about environment and my influence...
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Tonight Feb 28 most see tv
on the weather channel at !1 pm is doing a show on the life of the bayou. i could be a good. http://www.weather.com/tv/programs/CantoreStories.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)