European Parliament seals climate change package

Now I can understand why the 20 swedish researchers in various fields have had a hard time publishing their article today.

The European Parliament are as of today backing EU's new climate change package which is meant to enable that the EU will live up to its climate targets by 2020:

"a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, a 20% improvement in energy efficiency, and a 20% share for renewables in the EU energy mix."

Looks good on paper but, isn't this rather unrealistic?

A majority of the parliament voted for this package, however, some swedish politicians are critical concerning the fact that the percentage of the greenhouse gas emission reductions are going to be greater "outside" the European Union, than "inside".

Bear in mind that a lot of the economic heavyweights within the European Union are responsible for a lot of industrial emissions. Backing a package like this should mean that the restrictions and regressive actions should concern the European Union and solely members of this political and economical construct.

The parliament are thereby favouring a proposition that means that other countries outside the European Union will be affected more than countries within the European Union itself. This means that poorly developed countries are threatened to reduce their emissions, leading to industrial regression rather than economical progression.

The package also includes new restrictions for automobile emissions. However, these restrictions are less restricting than the guidelines prior to the climate package. They are actually backing something that is more fair than before. We might see an increase of emissions caused by automobile industry due to this package! It is not that unlikely.

Politicians are saying something, but in reality they are doing something completely foreign as to what they are telling us.

An Unpublished Article On The Climate

20 swedish researchers in various fields have had a hard time getting published recently. Why? you may ask.

Well, they have written about the research on the climate crisis and climate change as something that, generally speaking, has been ignoring all other possible explanations on what causes the "global warming".

There is a general consensus favouring of the carbon emissions thesis. Let me remind you that it is the thesis that has its own fabricated market with carbon "offsets". Moreover, it seems as if the computer generated models of the calculated effects of carbon emissions is a bigger problem than what the IPCC wants to admit or acknowledge.

Perhaps the research community has to go back reading their Kuhn, Popper and Feyerabend, because if the general consensus is out to silence parts of a scientific community, then it's simply bad for science and the truth.

If you are a scrutinizing researcher, then you know that it is dangerous to let a single consensus cloud your judgement.

These professors have spent a lifetime researching about geography, mathematics, communications theory, geo science, physics, chemistry, oceanography etc. and the media does not want to publish a perfectly reasonable article demanding science to look in all directions for answers. That gives us an idea how easily ideas can be told, spread and upheld in our society.

A question that arises in my head is: what if peak-oil is a myth as well? The leading governments are treating is as a myth, for if they were to be serious about this then a lot more restrictions on production and the automobile industry would be enforced. The leading politicians are saying something about having to cut back on production and progression, but if they are serious they would be doing a lot more about it, such as legislating cut backs.

The Kyoto Protocol And The Fabricated Market In Carbon

Dominic Lawson: Kyoto is worthless (and you don't have to be a sceptic to believe that now)

"The truth, however, is that Kyoto, as a means to reduce carbon emissions, has been like Monty Python's parrot, long dead, despite all the protestations to the contrary by its salesmen."

"This fabricated market in carbon has at its heart the UN's Clean Development Mechanism. This is how the EU, which had an obligation under Kyoto to reduce its emissions by two per cent by 2012, has managed to claim success while actually increasing its emissions by 13 per cent. By purchasing so called "offsets" from countries such as China, Britain, for example, proclaims itself a "leader in the fight against climate change"."

A New Industrial Revolution?

The American biologist Craig Venter, who's been trying to create the first artificial living creature, have started researching on small organisms. I read it in a post on The Economist's "The World in 2009" blog.

He has been working with a bacterium called mycoplasma laboratorium and will apparently be a bacterium stiched together in a lab and contained by a natural bacterium. According to Venter himself, he thinks that he will succeed during 2009. Venter also claims in an interview, that it could be the start of "a new industrial revolution". Is this evidence of a forthcoming shift from chemistry to biology driven industries?

For instance, biology might be the future when it comes to creation of new fuel sources. Moreover, Venter has made a bold statement that his research team has discovered some sort of components that are "far better than any science-fiction scenario that anybody could imagine."

I will try and let you know if I see anything more in this matter. As for now, be sure to have a look at the wiki article on Craig Venter as well as the wiki on mycoplasma laboratorium.

Preservatives & Additives

In a recent article in DN, Marie-Louise Danielsson-Tham declared that we ought to keep certain additives and preservatives in our provisions. Her arguments are that people simply don't understand why certain additives and preservatives are used and that if we were to remove some of these substances, then there would be an increased risk of dying from eating sausages and other meats.

The debate ought to be more transparent, instead of complaining about the consumer's ignorance, nutritionists need to educate us on what these foreign substances do to our provisions, how they effect us and what would happen if we were to remove certain substances. Thus acknowledging the chemical "grey zones" and teach us about different perspectives on substances and provisions.

Perhaps we ought to eat less meat, or no meat at all? And how do we really now whether or not a substance makes us addicted or not? Danielsson-Tham's condescending manner is not something that other so called experts ought to apply when debating. Her tone and rehtoric do not impress me at all.