Thursday, December 27, 2007


Somehow, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its recent conference in Bali, Indonesia, had accomplished two things: the nod of the U.S. representatives to join in the campaign for a reduction of carbon dioxide emission; and the preparation of the roadmap for the next conference in Warsaw next year and in Copenhagen in 2009. But still hardly any commitment from the participating countries to reduce carbon emission was obtained. And the lingering doubts on the issue of carbon emission as to cause global warming remain hovering in the minds of men and women of IPCC that it is not only for the value of commerce they will have to act, but in consideration of the desire of the people to live in peace not with fear of impending catastrophes. And to make the issues more lively so that we will be more enlightened and guided on the direction we have to choose, we suggest to invite people who are more knowledgeable on climate change. Not only the 50 scientists involved with IPCC whose identities remained hidden for public scrutiny but also the 400 scientists with unquestioned credibilities, who now openly aired their views, and whose identities remained open in the internet; should be considered for the purpose of transfarency. These men of science are now engaging the services of representatives who can directly call the attention of IPCC to correct the disturbing maladies. We have all the time at our disposal compared to the million of years natures are gradually developing changes in our environment and we should not be obliged to act abruptly. Only the people with hidden agenda are forcing their will hurriedly for us to swallow the line and sinker. In line with these developments and to add more color unconfined to these intramurals, it is suggested to encourage more debates to bring into open all cloudy issues of climate change. It is quite exciting to pair off people with deep contrasting views or belief with the laws of nature. Let us try to consider the following: 1) Pairing Al Gore with Bjoern Lomborg. Gore is a former U.S. Vice President and profusely campaigning for reduction of carbon emission and carbon trading while Lomborg is a Danish Statistician and considered the world’s leading skeptic of global warming. Both are directly or indirectly avoiding head-on confrontation on the issue or coincidence that they do not met in one venue of the same event; 2) Pairing Rajendra Pachauri with Richard Lindzen. Pachauri is IPCC chairman who disavowed calling Lomborg as Hitler and widely considered as a proponent in muzzling views of global warming dissent while Lindzen is a Meteorology Scientist complaining of “15 years harassment” on scientists expressing different views on climate shift; 3) Matching Bill Clinton with George Bush both U.S. Presidents working behind the stage of carbon emission myth; 4) Fitting Kevin Rudd with James Inhope. Rudd is the Prime Minister-elect of Australia who dislodged PM Howard by campaigning as a global warming barker while Inhope is a U.S. Senator and a ranking member of Senate Environment and Public Works Committee with the support, of course, of his 400 “quack” scientists who let themselves muted in the IPCC global warming consensus; and 5) Combining the like of Hans Verolme and Stephanie Tunmore, World Wide Fund for Nature and Greenpeace leaders, respectively, colliding with Andrea Weaver, author of “Keeping Our Cool: Canada is Warming World,” and Philip Scott, scientist and former editor of Journal of Biogeography. It is quite hard to find whom to match the duo of George Soros and Geoffry Sachs, both believe to be financers of carbon trading, with other group of contrarians. But, of the aforementioned 5 matches, it will be more entertaining how we see them counter-punching. With the development being uncovered, particularly, the testimony that $50 billion (U.S.) !... was spent for the failed global warming research, Algorebal will be facing more contest with the carbon contrarians striving for truths. Read more on this article...

Friday, December 14, 2007


Anyone who is into politics and aspiring to be president or prime minister may had been rumbling on their image-building propaganda; leading a community organizing activities; and/or sponsoring projects on health, sports, creating jobs, environments, and other popularity enhancing gimmicks. And there is the dilemma of either supporting the skeptics or joining the global warming advocates. Choosing one of these equally undesirable alternatives of campaign objectives will cost you an irriparable damage or a gratifying consequences. Take the clue from Kevin Rudd who dislodged Prime Minister John Howard, whose term is Australia's longest since 1974! Rudd's campaign salvo was when he declared that he would support the fight against global warming and made it his main priority. Riding on the zest of global warming issue is a critical component of being elected as president. Whether you are opposing or concurring in carbon emission legerdemain, as long as you are concerned with the abrupt changes in climate shift and its repercussions to human existence, you will have an edge and make it known months before election day. The trends today, as what being hammered-out in Bali, Indonesia, by IPCC delegates -which is how carbon-emission-reduction can be pushed through by international trading system for greenhouse gas emission, instead of a meaningful discussions on how we can adapt to the natural course of nature- should be always in your campaign agenda and prominently highlighted in the course of action or political platforms. You must be well-informed of the mitigating schemes such as: emission trading; carbon tax; carbon offset; carbon credit; and carbon sink or sequestration; and how it will generate funds and/or create jobs. These will be a likely questions that may be raised in your campaign debates or extramurals. It is understood that carbon will become one of the biggest commodity markets in the world, so aspiring candidate should be well-prepared on issues like green jobs, bio-fuel development, renewable power source, energy-effecient cars not SUV's, green building analysis, green-focused corporate strategy, and ... "all greenback... oh.., ouch!" .... or other green-related undertakings. These will result in the transfer of funds by billions of dollars on energy price increases and carbon caps. The fate of any presidential hopefuls shall always be decided by their adherence to a global warming programs they shall have to initiate. These inflated issues will affect the political landscape of our society, and you will realize how it influences the electorates. The ultimate outcome of electing a president is dependent on how you deal with climate change and this should never be understimated. Read more on this article...

Sunday, December 9, 2007


Mass media in the Philippines is always unbalanced. The trend is to expound on the uglier side junking the country in a wastebin. Daily news stories are geared toward the bias of failures and rarely of compliment. See how media treat the Trillanes Mutiny at the Manila Peninsula Hotel. Instead of informing and clarifying what transpired in the said military stand-off, they tended to slur the issue and tainted the reputations of the law enforcers while upholding the perpetuators. They tried to turn aside the issue and shifted the focus of attention to the apprehended press -which by ethical standards, they should not be in the middle of conflict unless they are a party thereof. The possibility of a given favor cannot be discarded, specially, when they tried to hide or skip the story until it fades in the limelight. The press is always capitalizing on the abuse of certain authority while covering up their own misdeeds -a one-sided practices that seldom come out of their controlled lair. The objectivity of news reporting to bring out the event fairly is often blurred by the object of persuasions or colored opinions to favor the entities they worked for and/or stain the sides they abhor. Stinking media agents are taking advantage of unrestrained press to vilify and sending the country in mockery and in unfavorable stead. Read more on this article...

Monday, December 3, 2007


Global warming advocates are now tackling and pushing their agenda at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) meeting in Bali, Indonesia, and they are now courting all attendee countries for support except, perhaps, U.S.A. who do not buy the enterprise of carbon emission legerdemain. The Bush Administration maybe well-advised in not signing or conforming with the Kyoto Protocol which IPCC is expediting to accomplish. Not for the reason that they are the biggest contributor to the greenhouse gases, supposedly, but they really understand what is happening to the universe today. They should not be faulted with what they have. They worked and sacrificed for their advancement and in not conforming with what IPCC are cooking today, is the one they should not be blamed. U.S. is considered to have the most advanced research, technical knowledge, and tracking devices -not to mention NASA which is not only covering the earth but all of the galactical activities- that record any unusual changes, movements, and appearances alien to humans. We don't want to believe that they would sacrifice humanity out of greed! Climate change is a natural happening and very few fully understand it. But there are groups who are manipulating and utilizing the natural occurrence to advance their hidden agenda of enriching theirselves. They are using an independent body with universal clout to legitimize their greed for wealth. And this is directed to the poorest of the poor to keep them shackled to the chains of poverty they are experiencing eversince. Once these so-so climate advocate groups have obtained the stamp of U.N. imprimatur, giant carbon-related establishments which are now in advance stage of development, will be ready to operate and the poor countries will be at the tail-end. . . unable to compete. Read more on this article...

Saturday, December 1, 2007


Global warming, the frequent topic of discussions, have reached the stages of reasoned generalities as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its summary report based on speculations, conjectures, and unverified phenomena of nature. Much of the laws and facts presented are biased and geared towards the frightening effect on humans, particularly, the scare of rising sea levels which are frequently mentioned and sending horrifying effect; more when they alarmed that the low-lying areas will all submerged in water.

The IPCC report deals mainly on how to minimize carbon dioxide emission which are solely attributed to human misdeeds, and eventually obligating the participating countries to make it their policy of limiting carbon dioxide emission to a specified level. By following the IPCC's directions, these countries will impose penalties to their citizens who will disobey the specified carbon dioxide emission rules.

There is no dispute that there indeed a global warming -not unless all the published reports are false. We do not have to argue with the controversies created by economists or politicians. The significant proof -based on published observations- which cannot be contested are the remarkable melting of ice in the polar ice cap; the cascading glaciers towards the Atlantic; the partial thawing of the solidly frozen ice surrounding Iceland, Spitsbergen, and northern Europe; and the Vikings who are now cultivating and planting crops in Greenland which was previously prevented by 81 per cent ice cover.

The increase in sea level is quite an inconvenient standard to state that this is a sign of global warming as a result of melting ice. Not unless it can be shown that a certain island has been swallowed by the sea. The average elevation of the islands in the Republic of Maldives is 3 feet and there is no report that an island there has disappeared. It can not be opined further that there is unusual rising sea level much more when a high tide is being enhanced by the pull of the moon when it aligned with the sun influencing or contributing too much force on the sea.

The rise in temperature cannot be invoked either since a thermometer measuring the heat can be installed in a warm or cool places , hence the varying rise in temperature is unreliable, such as the IPCC's temperature assumption of 1.1 degrees centigrade to 6.4 deg. centigrade towards the 21st century. How about measuring the surface temperature in the middle of the ocean where there are no crowds or spectators applausing and screaming everytime Manny Pacquiao landed a solid punch at his opponent. Would it be the same as the temperature measured in the traffic of heat-emitting cars in the streets of Bangkok or in Manila?

The IPCC's climate scenarios are created by economists and not the scientists -which they always brand as skeptics- and all are speculative predictions. Take these IPCC's reports:

"3rd Assessment Report, 1990-2100: temperature - 1.4 deg. to 5.8 deg. centigrade sea level - 0.1 to 0.9 meters"
"4th Assessment Report, 1990-2100: temperature - 1.1 deg. to 6.4 deg. centigrade sea level - 18 cms. to 59 cms."
These are full of inconsistencies. Where did they measure the sea level? There are places where the sea level rises up to 50 feet during high tide like the bay in Nova Scotia and place like the French Polynesia where the rise is only a few inches.

The government representatives are indorsing the methods of IPCC in achieving consensus based on peer review, published scientific and technical literature, and relevant informations extended by authoritative organization. However, there are claims that such assessments are biased, exagerated, and leaning to some vested interest leading to a more important/beneficial issues such as carbon dioxide emission trading.

IPCC pinpointed carbon dioxide as the main greenhouse gas that effect global warming and that human activities are the main source. Why make carbon dioxide the culprit in global warming? CO2 is a mere 0.038 per cent of the atmospheric gases and greenhouse gases is only l % which is responsible to the greenhouse effect that reflect heat back to earth -the negative forcing is the one being absorbed by the atmosphere and the long-wave energy is the one being radiated back into space.

The earth's atmosphere is composed mostly of 99% nitrogen and oxygen and only 1% is the greenhouse gases. Of this one percent of greenhouse gases, about 65% is water vapor and the 35% are composed of carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, nitrous oxide, and the groups of flourinated gases. Water vapor is the most important part of greenhouse gas and 100 times more than the carbon dioxide. They keep on harping at carbon dioxide as the menace while it is the meanness of the greenhouse gases. It may be assumed that we are short, instead, of carbon dioxide for if we have more our earth must be more greener today as it is the vital necessity of every plant species.

Assuming the heat being radiated by the sun is constant and the radiative forcing is slow, then it is logical that the earth is gradually warming as it continuously absorbing the positive forcing energy provided by the sun. If this is not the case, then it is also logical that the sun is producing more heat energy as what is happening during the solar maximum which occur every 10 to 12 years. Take for granted that the negative forcing is being trapped by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and parts of the long-wave energy is reflected back to earth, then it will not take a long time the earth will overheat, explode, and disappear in the space.

But our earth existed billions of years ago and has maintained the radiative balance or equilibrium ever since. No one knows the causes of global warming. It is the property of the sun when it generates more solar energy and it is also the cycle of the earth by receiving and releasing the supplied energy. It is like a boiler that automatically releasing heat through exhaust valve that prevents overheating.

There is no significant warming ever recorded since the time of Galileo in 1610 when the solar furnace generated so much heat. Not even in about 450 million years ago when CO2 reached the level over ten times higher than today as claimed by Tim Patterson, professor of Paleoclimatologits of Carleton University. Not even in the writings of David B. Wake, expert in the evolution of amphibians, when he said that the lungless salamanders, during 70 to 80 million years ago, dispersed elsewhere due to global warming.

Earth heating and cooling is a natural cycle. Human is a tiny thing in the universe that existed in a short period of time. We can not be considered to be in a group-of-small-things so as to cause global warming.

(Data source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) Read more on this article...