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.

No comments: