clothcap (clothcap) wrote,

CCNet - Scientific ‘Consensus’ Wrong Again

CCNet – 19 May 2011

The Climate Policy Network  

Scientific ‘Consensus’ Wrong Again:

Species Loss Far Less Severe Than Feared

The pace at which humans are driving animal and plant species toward extinction through habitat destruction is at least twice as slow as previously thought, according to a study released Wednesday. Key measures of species loss in the 2005 UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report are based on "fundamentally flawed" methods that exaggerate the threat of extinction, the researchers said. --AFP, 18 May 2011

Dire forecasts in the early 1980s said that as many as half of species on Earth would disappear by 2000. "Obviously that didn't happen," Hubbell said. But rather than question the methods, scientists developed a concept called "extinction debt" to explain the gap. --AFP, 18 May 2011

Conversation also touched on Working Group III, and here the minutes reveal an unhealthy desire for big business to get involved in the IPCC process. “KE felt that the private sector was now much more interested in being involved. Industry representatives recently asked the [IPCC’s] WG III secretariat to be involved in the review process for a Special Report on renewables.” Hmm... I wonder what effect their input to the review had. Can anyone remind me if the Special Report on Renewables concluded that renewables were a good thing or not? –-Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, 17 May 2011

The Government has inserted a get-out clause in its climate change plan that will allow it to scrap a new emissions target within three years if other European countries fail to take similar action. --Ben Webster, The Times, 18 May 2011

Nobody should fall for Chris Huhne's green spin. It is now absolutely clear that the government's proposed carbon targets are conditional on international agreements and developments. The conditionality of UK targets on future EU targets is a step in the right direction. --Benny Peiser, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 18 May 2011

The government's claim that no other country has such targets is correct, as no other country wishes to inflict such damage on its business sector and economy. We trust that, in the national interest, no serious attempt will be made by the government to attain these overly aggressive targets. –-Lord Lawson, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 18 May 2011

Whether it's paralysis, fatigue or an indication of the arrival of "post-climate times," a major National Research Council mid-May report warning about the severe dangers of accumulating greenhouse gas emissions seems to have barely registered as a blip on the Richter scale of environmental urgency. --Elizabeth McGowan, SolveClimate News, 18 May 2011

1) Scientific ‘Consensus’ Wrong Again: Species Loss Far Less Severe Than Feared - AFP, 18 May 2011

2) Did Green Industry Lobby Influence IPCC Report? - Bishop Hill, 17 May 2011

3) ‘Get-Out Clause’ Would Let Ministers Scrap Unilateral Emissions Targets - The Times, 18 May 2011

4) GWPF: Conditional Climate Targets Are A Step Back From Blind Unilateralism - The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 18 May 2011

5) UK Climate Targets To Cost Every Household £500 A Year (.... If They Were Ever Implemented) - Daily Mail, 18 May 2011

6) The Post-Climate Times: Green Scares No Longer Work - SolveClimate News, 18 May 2011


  • Post a new comment


    default userpic
    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.