Gak aneh coy, kita tengok saja di dalam negeri. Salah satu contoh penyumpang
terbesar terhadap kemerosotan kualitas lingkungan adalah sektor industri migas.
Kita tahu produk2 yang dihasilkannya (BBM) disamping sebagai penyumpang devisa
negara terbesar, juga penyumpang terbesar emisi karbondioksida. Bukan mau tutup
mata saya ini, sektor industri migas yang nota bene banyak berada di
daerah-daerah hutan, maka dari kegiatan eksploitasi migas di kawasan hutan
sudah jelas akan memakan korban yakni berapa puluh ribu pohon akan tumbang dan
berapa juta species pohon mati tak berkutik. Coba kalau kita perhatikan pohon
besar yang tumbuh dihutan, maka kita akan dapati ratusan tumbuh-tumbuhan ikutan
yang hidup disekitar pohon (klorofil) tsb. Jika satu pohon ditebang, maka
berapajuta tumbuh-tumbuhan ikutan yang hidup dipohon itu akan ikut musnah. Dan
ini jelas akan berdampak terhadap iklim dan kualitas kehidupan ummat manusia.
Kita tahu fungsi pohon dan
tumbu-tumbuhan adalah menyerap C02 menjadi 02 .Kita tahu O2 adalah senyawa
yang sangat diperlukan oleh seluruh makhluq hidup bukan to manusia saja.Jelas
coy jika hal ini terus belangsung tiap hari, taip bulan, tiap tahun, maka
jelas lambat laut akan hancur.
He..he.. kalau saya baca UU No. 22 tahun 2001 tentang migas intinya adalah
mengacu kepada amanat UUD 1945 pasal 33 ayat 3 "Bumi dan air serta kekayaan
yang terkandung didalamnya dikuasai negara dan
bla..bla..bla...bla...bla...bla....." Kadang isi UU No. 22 tsb banyak
kentutnya.
Kita tidak sadar dan selalu bangga dengan hasil migas yang sebagai anak emas
penyumpang devisa negara terbesar. Ternyata dibalik itu juga penyumbang
terbesar kerusakan alam yakni Areal Hutan Hijau terbuka karena kegiatan
eksploitasi dan eksplorasi migas dan juga penghasil gas emisi terbesar!!!
Jika anda Insinyur2 perminyakan merasa bangga jika produksi minyak naik tiap
tahun, apakah anda bangga juga dengan meningkatnya emisi (C02) yang dampaknya
sangat signifikan terhadap iklim, cuaca dan kualitas makhluq hidup termasuk
ente juga sebagai makhluq hidup!.
Persetan devisa negara sektor migas, selamatkan hutan untuk kepentingan ummat
manusia !!!!!
Huh ontohod!!!
Maaf coy, kurang nyambung nih ungkapan saya.
________________________________
Dari: anton john hartomo <antonhart...@yahoo.com>
Kepada: ppiin...@yahoogroups.com
Terkirim: Kam, 21 Januari, 2010 04:30:24
Judul: [WongBanten] KONTROVERSI PEMANASAN GLOBAL PATUT DISIMAK TERUS
Dear all,
Serombongan kaum ilmuwan penyangkal pemanasan global (bukan ilmuwan cuaca top)
yang dekat dengan perusahaan2 multinasional dan menguasai panggung politik
dunia, berjasa-semu telah mengambangkan hasil summit Kopenhagen. Begitulah bila
pandangan kurang transparan dan digiring politik praktis-pragmatis, bahkan
ditimpa konspirasi ilmu diwarnai dogma ala agamis. Cupetlah akhirnya... Tetapi
waktu akan menjadi hakimnya.
Bangsa-bangsa negeri berkembang mesti makin waskita dan waspada. Para ilmuwan
sejati tak patut terjebak.
Salam.
20/01/10
Sceptical about Climate Change Sceptics
Scepticism is good, but the inability to see the whole is what leads climate
sceptics astray
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho and Prof. Peter Saunders
Tragedy of the Copenhagen summit & the climate sceptics
“Low targets, goals dropped, Copenhagen ends in failure” was the headline
verdict of UK’s Guardian newspaper [1]. The “Copenhagen accord”, brokered by US
President Barack Obama and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, “recognizes” the
scientific case for keeping temperature rise to no more than 2 ˚C, but contains
no commitments to reduce emissions to achieve that goal. Martin Khor, executive
director of the South Centre (a think tank for developing countries), condemned
the entire process as [2] a “tragedy” and a “disaster”. The three-page long
Copenhagen accord, drawn up after the UN conference, was not even accepted by
the conference.
Just weeks before the Copenhagen climate summit, private e-mails were stolen
from the servers of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia
in the UK and released on the web [3], fuelling a fresh round of attack on
climate change from the sceptics that may have helped to derail the Copenhagen
summit.
The Copenhagen summitfailed because of other over-riding reasons as described
by Khor [2], and predicted by our guest editor, Alan Simpson, UK member of
Parliament [4] (Announcing Science in Society- Autumn 2009). Ultimately, it
comes down to an inability of the world nations to cooperate, to see the whole
picture, particularly in the longer term.
But it is a mistake to dismiss the climate sceptics, as they will continue to
influence the tough negotiations ahead. And their voices are getting shriller,
louder, and more sophisticated in the political arena. A US Senate Minority
Report updated in March 2009 [5], claims more than700 international scientists
(note: not climate scientists) dissenting over global warming.
On the eve of the summit, Saudi Arabia and Republican members of the US
Congress used the e-mails incident to claim that the need for urgent action to
cut carbon emissions has been undermined [6]. UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown,
Environment Secretary Ed Miliband, and Ed Markey, who co-authored the US
climate change bill, had to join forces to condemn the ‘flat-earth’ sceptics.
Meanwhile, sceptic celebrities such as Professor Siegfried Frederick Singer and
Lord Christopher Monckton were out in force in Copenhagen at a sceptics
conference [7], expostulating to a rapt audience on ‘climategate’ - how
scientists deliberately distort data to support the global warming hypothesis -
and thanking China for emitting CO2 that greatly benefits agriculture.Singer,
former president of US National Academy of Sciences, has written a petition
signed by 31 000 urging the US government against adopting a climate change
treaty [8]. Monckton, a hereditary peer in the UK and formerly policy advisor
to Margaret Thatcher, embarked on a tour of North America during the autumn of
2009 to campaign against the Copenhagen summit, warning that the US president
Obama intended to sign a treaty at the conference that would “impose a
communist world government” on the globe [9].
In the same weeks, we were bombarded with messages urging us to stop supporting
the conventional theory. A common thread running through climate scepticism is
that human activities have no impact on climate, least of all, the increase in
CO2 from human activities. The earth has warmed and cooled in the past, and
natural causes can account for all the warming that may have taken place since
the industrial revolution; andsceptics will jump at whichever natural cause
that appears plausible from time to time. There are those who believe global
warming itself is a fiction, and the Copenhagen summit a UN plot to establish a
(communist) world government.
The scientific case of climate scepticism
Peter Taylor, author of Chill, A reassessment of global warming theory [10], is
convinced the earth is cooling, not warming, based on scientific evidence
reviewed in his book published in 2009. A good friend sent us the
scholarly-looking volume of more than 400 pages complete with notes and
references, strongly urging us to read it.
Taylor is an environmental analyst and policy advisor with impeccable
credentials. He has worked as a consultant with the UK government and various
NGOs on environmental pollution, nuclear waste hazards, and renewable energies.
He doesn’t approve of biofuels, nuclear power stations, GMOs or big wind farms,
for good reasons.
On climate change, one finds it strangely reassuring when he says there isno
‘incontrovertible signal’ for climate change and that the climate change
‘consensus’ does not exist, even within the UN Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC). That’s just what one would expect from real science, as
opposed to religious dogma. Even Taylor himself admits that the “consensus”
only exists in theIPCC summary for policy makers, and not in the technical
reports.
When Taylor reveals alternative theories largely ignored by the establishment;
that too, rings true. The scientific establishment is akin to a religious
order; the hacked e-mails incident [2] exposes, if anything, the extent to
which the ‘in-group’ can exclude the ‘dissenters’. It is the same in every
field, as we can confirm from personal experiences.
What makes us wary is when Taylor says he was “motivated to critically review
the evidence of climate change because the proposed cure is likely to be worse
than the disease.” His chief concern was the impact on the UK countryside,
especially from the push for biofuels as a renewable energy strategy, which
would mean using up all the ‘set-aside’ land to grow ‘bioenergy’ crops, leaving
no natural ecosystems in the magnificent landscape, no butterflies and bees, or
any vestige of natural biodiversity.
Was Taylor unconsciously biased against the evidence for climate change because
he did not like the remedial policies proposed? That’s the danger of allowing
politics to dominate science, as governments and vested interests do, all too
often. We would not be surprised if much of climate scepticism is politically
motivated and by far less benign reasons.
We don’t like the climate change remedies on offer either; which is why we have
gone out of our way to formulate truly green and sustainable energy policies
[11] (Green Energies - 100% Renewable by 2050) that are independent of whether
climate change is occurring or not [12] (Power to the People, 100 Percent
Renewables by 2050). That frees us from potential bias against the conventional
theory, which we too, have found overly simplistic.
Nevertheless, we cannot believe human activities have no influence on climate.
Humans have destroyed vast swathes of forests and other natural ecosystems,
decimating natural biodiversity, turning huge areas into waste land and desert
through overexploitation of soil and water. We have literally changed the face
of the earth.
Taylordoes not waste time on the conventional theory. He simply states
categorically that there is no evidence anthropogenic (human-generated) CO2 has
any role in warming the planet, nor any other human activities. It is all a
fabrication. He singles out the computer modellers as the chief villains that
have created the myth. Their models, which dominate the IPCC, are
‘untransparent’, based on false assumptions, ignore natural cycles, and do not
take sufficient account of natural forces. All the work on ‘postdiction’ of how
atmospheric CO2 correlates with temperature in the earth’s ancient history, as
measured in ice cores is summarily dismissed.
The refutations
Actually, the evidence for CO2 and the greenhouse effect is very good indeed.
Research into the greenhouse effect began in the 19th century with Fourier,
Tyndall, Langley, and Arrhenius who first quantified the relationship between
changes in CO2 and climate [13]. In the1930s, burning fossil fuels by human
beings began to be considered a cause of significant warming. The IPCC climate
models are based on fundamental physics [14, 15]; and confirmed by direct
satellite measurements [16] (see [17] Getting Sceptical about Global Warming
Scepticism).
Taylor subscribes to the theory favoured by climate sceptics: solar activity
can account for most if not all the warming that has taken place in the latter
part of the past century. He devotes most of the book describing and defending
the theory, especially as revived by researchers at the Danish National Space
Center in the late 1990s [18]. The theory claims a strong correlation between
solar activity and global climate, which can be explained by an influence of
solar activity on the abundance of cosmic rays.
Solar activity goes through cycles that average 11 years long. When the solar
magnetic field is strong during periods of maximum sunspot activity, cosmic
rays are excluded from the solar system, and as the sun’s activity diminishes,
cosmic rays become more abundant. The theory is that cosmic rays promote the
formation of clouds by generating plenty of ions in the atmosphere that can
form cloud condensation nuclei upon which water vapour condense to form
droplets that coalesce into clouds. More clouds shade the earth from the sun
and cool the earth. Conversely, a lack of clouds allows more solar radiation to
strike the earth and warms it. The Danish group published a series of papers
that attempted to establish links between cosmic rays and in succession, total
cloud cover and low cloud cover, and between the solar cycle lengths and
Northern Hemisphere land temperatures. But Peter Laut at the Technical
University of Denmark analysed the published graphs
[19], and showed that the apparent strong correlations displayed on the graphs
have been obtained by “an incorrect handling of the physical data” and
cautioned against “drawing any conclusions” based on them. In other words, the
data have been manipulated in unjustified and unexplained ways to produce the
correlations that do not actually exist. This lack of correlation between solar
activity and earth temperature was amply confirmed by other researchers [17]
including experts in solar physics [20-22].
Far from ignoring the cosmic ray hypothesis, as Taylor complained, climate
scientists have seriously followed it up with the latest satellite data; and
the evidence has all gone against the theory. One of the proposals for saving
the hypothesis is to invoke sudden decreases in cosmic ray - Forbush events -
that occur within a solar activity cycle, as having special significance in
influencing cloud formation. But investigations from the space-borne MODIS
instrument, which has been operating since 2000, failed to find such
correlation [23]. Similarly, little correlation could be found between cosmic
ray flux and the formation of new particles that could serve as cloud
condensation nuclei [24].
Yet, based on this tenuous and widely discredited evidence, Taylor is
predicting a global chill because the flux of cosmic rays has been rising since
2004. The regional cooling across Eurasia, England and parts of North America
through December 2009 and early January 2010 might seem to fit his prediction.
But much of the planet is in fact experiencing warmer temperatures than usual,
including North-east America, Canada, North Africa, the Mediterranean, and
south-west Asia [17]. This is an apt illustration of what’s wrong with climate
scepticism: the inability to see the global picture while focussing on their
tiny areas of interest.
Scepticism is healthy, especially when the political stakes are high in
something like climate change; but it must be accompanied by a passionate
commitment to the coherent whole. Contrary to the claims of Taylor and other
climate sceptics, scepticism has stimulated good research on cloud formation,
for example, which has long been identified as a major area of uncertainty by
top climate scientists [15, 25]. Similarly, the importance of natural cycles
[10], the slow response/feedback times of greenhouse gases [26] (350ppm CO2 the
Target), the role of black carbon in warming the earth [27] (Black Carbon Warms
the Planet Second Only to CO2) and the rapid depletion of oxygen [28, 29] (O2
Dropping Faster than CO2 Rising, Warming Oceans Starved of Oxygen) must all be
taken into consideration.
One thing we are completely convinced of: human actionis effective in
exacerbating or mitigating climate change. The choice and responsible are both
ours. We need an open and transparent science to help us make the right choice
and implement the appropriate solutions.
Akses email lebih cepat. Yahoo! menyarankan Anda meng-upgrade browser ke
Internet Explorer 8 baru yang dioptimalkan untuk Yahoo! Dapatkan di sini!
http://downloads.yahoo.com/id/internetexplorer
