What the World Is Saying

A SERVICE BRINGING YOU THE BEST READERS' COMMENTS

FROM TOP NEWS SOURCES ON THE WEB

ENVIRONMENT

ARCHIVES — FEBRUARY 2010

[RETURN TO commentopia HOME PAGE]

FEBRUARY 22, 2010 -- FEBRUARY 28, 2010

AUSSIE P.M. SOUNDS OFF AGAINST JAPANESE WHALING

What a load of spin! New Zealand ruled out court action years ago. The "significant difficulties" with the case is the fact that Japan's actions are 100% legal under international law. New Zealand has been saying this for ages.

In 2006, NZ's IWC representative (and law expert) Geoffrey Palmer said "under international law Japan is not doing anything wrong and there is no legal argument New Zealand could use to stop the whaling". He also said, "there is no legal theory that is available that can prevent, in our view, the Japanese from doing what they are doing".

The reality is that the current Australian government used anti-whaling populism as a part of their election campaign, and now that they are in power they are trying to slowly back-pedal in a face-saving exercise. Will it work? Sure Australians are generally anti-whaling, but that doesn't mean they will necessarily be gullible. I'm sure most Australians can see this for what it really is.

Read the article HUFFINGTON POST/Australia to Japan: Stop all whaling or face international legal threat

<>

I agree with banning whaling totally

But someone has to buy the whale boats as compensation to the owners,, or pay to convert them to tourism boats,, they are expensive boats and have taken generations of work to evolve into the size that they are now.

Once this is done the industry can cease to exist.

I would contribute 10 pounds to a fund to buy these boats from the owners and convert them to whale watching boats.

There is a fund in place to buy out all the commercial salmon licences in Europe and leave them not used for conservation,,in this there is compensation payed,, the same should be done with whales.

Read the article U.K.TIMES/Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd gives Japan whaling ultimatum

FEWER FOGGY DAYS THREATEN CALIFORNIA REDWOODS

I've lived in Redwood Country most of my life and watched the change from foggy summers to the current pattern of distinct wet and dry seasons with very little fog. Too much biomass has been removed through 100 years of logging and it altered the climate here. And now climate change is piling on.

Anyone who sites a single season as evidence for anything clearly doesn't understand the problem, which is not whether this year is more or less of something than last year, but the overall destabilization that is causing extremes. Understanding it appears to require a longer attention span than is needed for the average sitcom.

"Global warming" is accurate, but a misnomer for the scientifically illiterate public. "Climate Destabilization" describes what's happening more accurately, even though the man-made rise in temperature is the proximate cause.
Read the article SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE/Less fog puts giant redwoods at risk, scientists say

<>

I've lived in SF and the Monterey Bay Area most of my life. "June Gloom" is still very much alive and well on the coast. Depressingly so.

Taking a small sampling (100 years isn't much) and singling out what are probably the two years with the greatest variance for a comparison isn't the basis for declaring a change in the micro-climate.
Read the article SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE/Less fog puts giant redwoods at risk, scientists say

<>

That's odd.

In 1998 we had an entire summer without fog. The organic broccoli and artichoke farmers I know were bemoaning the situation.

Now over the past three summers the north coast has experienced COLD, WET, CLOUDY, FOGGY summers.

DId I mention how the organic broccoli and artichoke farmers are still complaining?

Now it's gophers eating their crops.

Organic broccoli and artichoke farmers never seem to be happy.

Funny thing is, neither are UC Berkeley researchers. Read the article SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE/Less fog puts giant redwoods at risk, scientists say

FEBRUARY 15, 2010 -- FEBRUARY 21, 2010

ON WALDEN POND INVASIVE SPECIES THRIVE IN CHANGING CLIMATE

To further clarify the use of Thoreau's Journal to establish climate change, most of the study, as I understand it relies on the dates he records of when plants leafed out and/or blossomed in the spring.

I pay particular attention to first and last frosts which he often records. Any long-time gardener can tell you that our growing season has lengthened even in the last thirty years, and most of us know that possums have moved north in the time. This general warming has made it easy for many of us to slide into agreement with the CO2 warmists, but at least some of us are having second thoughts.

Read the article BOSTON GLOBE/Thoreau-ly different at Walden Pond

<>

Who is to say that the native species observed by Thoreau 150 years ago are the "true" native species? Which of these species was around 15,000 years ago? 100,000 years ago? As climate inexorably changes over millennia, so will the "native species". I think its called "evolution".

Read the article HUFFINGTON POST/Thoreau's Walden Pond shows effects of global warming

Thoreau was a lot of things. One thing he wasn't was a botanist.

What amazes me is a group of people, the climate change priests, are well known for not listening to anyone they feel do not have the proper credentials. But they will listen to some grumpy old writer who lived alone in the woods examining plants.

There is no way of knowing if his tabulations are accurate because they had no peer review. They really can not be offered up as scientific evidence. This does not surprise me though. Climate change priests care little for scientific standards.

Read the article SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN/Romanticism undone:Invasive species, global warming taking toll on plants at Thoreau's Walden Pond

FEBRUARY 1, 2010 -- FEBRUARY 14, 2010

PRESIDENT OBAMA FUELS THE NUCLEAR DEBATE

I'm a liberal, but I'm also a scientist, and these people are just idiots. Any realistic assessment of future energy needs will lead one to the inevitable conclusion that the use of nuclear power absolutely must be expanded, especially if we are to curtail our use of fossil fuels.

While alternative forms of energy are out there and even going through significant development, none of them (and no combination of them) has even a remote chance of significantly supplying the world's growing energy needs. At best they can supplant a small portion in specific applications.

But like it or not, nuclear is the only "alternative" power source for the foreseeable future that has any realistic potential for even slowing our reliance on carbon-based fuels.

Read the article USA TODAY/Obama's call for nuclear power plants angers supporters

<>

Doing the math. . .

It costs 3 cents to save energy through improvements in energy efficiency. That's the average from 20 states that have adopted energy efficiency portfolios. It costs about 25 cents for new nuclear energy including transmission to your door step.

In other words, you can either get 33 kilowatt-hours for a dollar with energy efficiency, or you can get 4 kilowatt-hours for a dollar from nuclear energy. Obama is not doing the math. With nuclear energy, the price only goes up with waste management over a million years.

With energy efficiency, the price keeps dropping as our youth and our most innovative thinkers take on more challenges figuring out how to improve efficiencies (and solar and wind energy technologies) and reduce impact on our wallets and on our environment.
With our limited energy dollars, we cannot afford the upfront costs of nuclear energy, much less its back-end costs.

Read the article USA TODAY/Obama's call for nuclear power plants angers supporters

back to home page

read more comments from THE INDEX