This post is based on two articles, one from the New York Post today, and one from Yahoo News yesterday.
The New York Post article is about what has happened to the concept of science being unbiased in the debate about man-caused globall warming. The InterAcademy Council, an independent association of "the best scientists and engineers worldwide" (according to their website), has recently finished a review of the practices of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and has found many problems in the claims in the United Nations documents.
For example, the article states:
"For example, the IPCC's much-vaunted Fourth Assessment Report claimed in 2007 that Himalayan glaciers were rapidly melting, and would possibly be gone by the year 2035. The claim was actually false--yet the IPCC cited it as proof of man-made global warming."
What are the results of bogus science? The article at the Post cites one instance:
"...based in large part on the fraudulent glacier story, "[ICPP Chairman] Rajendra Pachauri's Energy and Resources Institute, based in New Delhi, was awarded up to 3100,000 pounds by the Carnegie Corp...and the lion's share of a 2.5 million pound EU grant funded by European taxpayers."
"Thus, the Times concluded, "EU taxpayers are funding reasearch into a scientific claim about glaciers that any ice researcher should immediately recognize as bogus.""
Now to the story from Yahoo News. According to the article:
"A bit of a propaganda war is heating up in California over Proposition 23, a citizen's initiative which could suspend the state's landmark greenhouse gas reduction law.
"Backed by manufacturers and Texas oil companies Valero and Tesoro, the ballot initiative would halt enforcement of the 2006 emissions law, AB32, until California unemployment, now over 12 percent, sinks to 5.5 percent for at least a year. Backers of the "California Jobs Initiative" say it is necessary to protect Californians from untimely financial hardship."
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles is fighting Proposition 23, stating that "more Californians will get sick if Prop. 23 passes."
This is a very interesting battle. I was in California last week and at one point someone living in San Jose told me that they had regulations on when they could use their fireplaces because at times the air quality was so bad. I really hate to see that kind of government intrusion, but I also don't like the idea of brown air. It is also interesting that the Mayor's campaign against the relaxation of the emissions law is aimed at the poor.
The article points out:
"The mayor surrounded himself with activists from Latino neighborhoods who released a statement saying that Prop. 23 "will hurt low-income communities and people of color first and worst," and called for the mobilization of voters from low-income areas. They circulated a four-page report laying out the environmental violations and fines assessed against the two companies."
I really don't know what the answer is here. I know that California is very unique because of the way the winds and climate act and that impacts pollution in the state. It would be nice to think that a compromise between the health of the people and the unemployment numbers can be worked out.
The claim that the change in the emissions law would impact the poor more than the average citizen reminds me of an old Rush Limbaugh comment on a potential New York Times headline. Mr. Limbaugh once commented that if the newspapers had advance notice on when the world would end, the New York Times headline would be "World To End Tomorrow--Women and Children Hardest Hit." I think we need to find a balance here.
Leave a comment