Ocean News

Quote
Meat, math and emissions

http://www.livescience.com/53542-more-climate-negotiations-addressing-meat-consumption.html

There is extensive research showing the outsize impacts of animal agriculture on the environment. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has concluded that "the livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global."

It's not hard to see why. The process of converting energy and protein in animal feed into meat calories and protein for humans is highly inefficient:
• Land. Animal agriculture already constitutes the largest human use of land worldwide. More than 60 percent of corn and barley, and more than 97 percent of soymeal, becomes farm animal feed, according to the FAO report Livestock's Long Shadow.
• Animal feed. According to a study in Ambio, in research led by environmental scientist Vaclav Smil, it takes 9.3 pounds (4.2 kilograms) of feed to produce 2 lbs (1 kg) of edible chicken, 23.6 lbs (10.7 kg) of feed to produce 2 lbs (1 kg) of pork and 69.9 lbs (31.7 kg) of feed to produce 2 lbs (1 kg) of beef.
• Water. The farm-animal sector is also a major consumer of scarce water resources. Animal products generally have larger water footprints than non-animal products, according to a study published in 2012 in the journal Ecosystems by Mesfin Mekonnen and Arjen Hoekstra, professors at the University of Twente.
• Greenhouse gas emissions. Animal agriculture is responsible for approximately 14.5 percent of human-induced greenhouse gas emissions, according to the FAO. Studies from the United States, India, the U.K. and Italy, among others, have shown plant-based agriculture has a lower carbon footprint.

A global solution

A side event held within the U.N. climate conference — entitled "Meat: The Big Omission from the Talks on Emissions," hosted by leading international organizations such as the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) and Humane Society International — brought together policymakers, scientists and civil society groups, and emphasized the need to reduce the number of animals raised for food. The event highlighted successful efforts around the world to achieve this goal by encouraging people to consume more plants and less meat.

 

The Race to Remake the World’s Energy | The Atlantic

 

One of the more interesting articles you've posted IN.
Can't count the times I've cautioned, there are no simple solutions to complex problems.
Have faith in the innovation and adaptive capacity of mankind. Wright brothers to Aldrin and Armstrong in a single human life span.
But you got to have an open mind!
No "science is settled" bull crap!

 

Making tracks.

 

No, no, no. Climate change is *good*. Faster sea level rise is *excellent*.

I don't want it slowed down, I can have a deep waterfront, private jetty and my own slipway if only there's 1.5m to 2m of sea level rise.

Really, is that too much to ask?

PDW

 

Quote

Sea Shepherd Is Hunting the Last of the World’s Most Notorious Poaching Vessels

http://news.yahoo.com/sea-shepherd-hunting-last-world-most-notorious-poaching-210514790.html

Sea Shepherd’s hunting of poaching vessels in the remote Southern Ocean is not as well known as its efforts to stop Japanese whale hunters, but for one species it’s a lifesaver.

The deep-sea-dwelling Patagonian toothfish that inhabits the region has been a lucrative target for illegal fishing. Six vessels, which Sea Shepherd has dubbed the Bandit 6, have been raking in big bucks skirting international fishing regulations. The ships are capable of catching more than $1 million worth of toothfish—popularly known as Chilean sea bass—before returning to port.

The boats have operated mostly unencumbered in the remote expanse of the Southern Ocean, often avoiding capture by flying under “flags of convenience” that hide the vessel’s ownership and make prosecution difficult. The Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources has put the ships on its blacklist.

“What made them stand out was their brazen return to Antarctica, year after year, in spite of being repeatedly spotted by customs vessels and other legal operators,” said Sid Chakravarty, captain of the Sea Shepherd vessel Steve Irwin. “We realized that the vessels were deliberately exploiting the loopholes in international law and acting with a purpose, fully aware of the immunity they enjoyed.”

But thanks in part to Sea Shepherd’s two-year-long "Operation Icefish" campaign, only one vessel of the Bandit 6 is still in operation. Officials in Senegal on Tuesday detained the Kunlun, a toothfish-poaching vessel Sea Shepherd has been pursuing for more than a year.

 

The biggest question about climate change isn’t ‘if’ or ‘when.’ It’s ‘how abrupt?’ | Washington Post

 

People will believe a lie because they WANT to believe it, or because they're AFRAID, it might be true!

For Earth Day: Michael Crichton explains why there is "no such thing ...

http://www.aei.org/publication/for-...-there-is-no-such-thing-as-consensus-science/

Apr 20, 2015 ... "I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."


“Incestuous, homogeneous fiefdoms of self-proclaimed expertise are always rank-closing and mutually self-defending, above all else.”
― Glenn Greenwald

“The best measure of a politician’s electoral success was becoming not how successfully he could broker people’s desires, but how well he could tap their fears.”
― Rick Perlstein, Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/consensus

"

 

Quote
Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)

American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3

American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4

American Geophysical Union
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5
American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6

American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7

American Physical Society
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8

The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9

International academies: Joint statement
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10

U.S. National Academy of Sciences
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11

U.S. Global Change Research Program
"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.”13
“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely* due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”14
IPCC defines ‘very likely’ as greater than 90 percent probability of occurrence


OTHER RESOURCES
List of worldwide scientific organizations

The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

 

Quote
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/sep/29/comment.bookscomment
Michael Crichton's latest novel, State of Fear, is an action-packed thriller in which the hero is a scientist who discovers that climate change is all a fraud. The novel has sold well, but it was still something of a shock yesterday to find its author as an expert witness testifying on global warming in front of the United States Senate.

Crichton had been summoned to give evidence by Senator James Inhofe, a Republican senator from Oklahoma, who recently called global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people".

Some scientists speculated that Crichton might be the best witness Senator Inhofe could find. A 2004 survey of 900 peer-reviewed and published scientific papers on climate change failed to find a single one who went against the belief that man-made change is happening and is dangerous.

But it was hard to imagine a more star-struck audience than the line-up of Republican senators who rushed to shake the author by the hand yesterday as he arrived in the oak-panelled committee room on Capitol Hill. "I've never seen this before," said one old hand of the Washington press corps. "Usually, they barely give the witnesses a second glance."

Outside the committee room, Peter Saundry, executive director of the National Council for Science and the Environment, said he was bemused by Crichton's apparent position. "If you read his book, you are left with the impression that environmentalists are only one step up from the sort of people who will cross the road to murder your children, but then you get to the author's note at the back and he makes this statement saying he is not a climate change denier. It's hard to know what his position is."

 

You don't know who or what he is?

" Crichton’s pioneering use of computer programs for film production earned him a Technical Achievement Academy Award in 1995.

Crichton won an Emmy, a Peabody, and a Writer’s Guild of America Award for ER. In 2002, a newly discovered ankylosaur was named for him: Crichtonsaurus bohlini. He is survived by his wife Sherri, his daughter Taylor and his son, John Michael.

CRICHTON, (John) Michael. American. Born in Chicago, Illinois, October 23, 1942. Died in Los Angeles, November 4, 2008. Educated at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, A.B. (summa cum laude) 1964 (Phi Beta Kappa). Henry Russell Shaw Travelling Fellow, 1964-65. Visiting Lecturer in Anthropology at Cambridge University, England, 1965. Graduated Harvard Medical School, M.D. 1969; post-doctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences, La Jolla, California 1969-1970. Visiting Writer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1988."

http://www.michaelcrichton.com/biography/

His best seller, "State of Fear' was published as fiction, but the mechanics of pseudo science and consensus science were accurately portrayed in the book, and he opened a lot of eyes to what is really happening.

"If it's consensus, it's not science!"

 

Future generations need to recognize you and other alarmists for what you really are, and watch out for others like you. That's why you won't get your way.
We won't LET you!

 

Your URL is incomplete. Perhaps this is what you intended:
http://www.aei.org/publication/for-...-there-is-no-such-thing-as-consensus-science/

Crichton's comments about the role of consensus in science are incomplete at best, and generally misleading. Here are a few quotes from the comment section of the above URL which explain the role of consensus in science better than I can.

 

Crichton said he wasn't a climate change denier. Neither am I.
Doesn't it seem strange that educated, presumably intelligent people, can't see the difference between climate change and anthropogenic climate change? Even though it's explained to them over and over.
The only thing I can figure, is, they're so desperate to get people on their side, they lump those who understand climate is changing into the same category as those (themselves) that believe man is causing it to change.
I don't believe man is causing climate change. Crichton didn't either. We both know climate is changing from natural causes, as it's done for epochs of time.

Peter Saundry, executive director of the National Council for Science and the Environment, said he was bemused"
""author's note at the back and he makes this statement saying he is not a climate change denier. It's hard to know what his position is."
quoted from myarks post above.
Apparently peter Saundry as well as myark, think there's no difference between natural climate change and man causing it.
I'm bemused.

 

My quote wasn't incomplete.
you contend I'm obligated to argue BOTH sides of the question?
Obviously, those comments were by people who think a consensus means something. Did they post their credentials?

Congress asked Crichton to testify, because the man is trained as a scientist and physician, excelled in his studies, and apparently everything else he did.
He was BRILLIANT!
His detractors are dim by comparison.