Protecting nature is a moral imperative
September 8th, 2009
Stavros Dimas
Commissioner for Environment
You are here: European Commission > Commissioners > Stavros Dimas > My Blog
RSS comments feed on this entry
7 Responses to “Protecting nature is a moral imperative”
Comments are moderated and will not appear immediately.
The "comments" feature requires session cookies. Before posting a comment you must ensure that your browser allows session cookies.
September 10th, 2009 at 6:45 pm #
As scientists we are all nervous about Copenhagen. We just hope for the best..
It’s good not to forget that climate change is an issue also closely related to air pollution, and that policy makers should make efforts to apply measures which tackle both at the same time. There have been suggestions by science in the literature. I suggest that you have a look at this:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_11/
Apostolos, New York
——–
My country: United States of America
September 10th, 2009 at 6:47 pm #
A good speech… unfortunately this is yet more talk. Where is the action? Scientists have been warning about this for years…
——–
My country: United Kingdom
September 16th, 2009 at 10:25 pm #
Protecting nature is a moral imperative, a psychological imperative, a political imperative, a spiritual imperative and a practical imperative. May we all be creative and innovative in our abilities to respond appropriately.
——–
My country: United States of America
September 18th, 2009 at 9:19 pm #
Good speech, respect!
——–
My country: Latvia
September 20th, 2009 at 7:42 pm #
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090920/local/dead-birds-found-hidden-in-mizieb
——–
My country: Malta
September 21st, 2009 at 11:48 am #
I recently came accross your blog and have been re… I recently came accross your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I dont know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
——–
My country: Bolivia
October 15th, 2009 at 4:33 pm #
(quote)
• Arctic is not warming, but both cooling and warming, and undoubtedly the meridional air exchanges are responsible for the thermal fields distribution.
• Antarctic is not warming, but also both cooling and warming, particularly in the area of Antarctic Peninsula, by reason of southward warm air advections.
• Surface pressure is rising over the areas covered by « subtropical Highs », that is to say the Anticyclonic Agglutinations, formed and strenghtened by merging of powerful mobile polar highs (MPHs). Such a pressure rise is obviously physically antinomic of a presumed « global warming », which on the contrary would lower the surface pressure !
• Over continents, Anticyclonic Agglutinations, not permanent but more frequent, especially during wintertime but also in summer, bring sequences of anticyclonic stability, cold or heat (depending on season), and without rainfall (even drought), or snowless.
• Weather is more violent, and more irregular, with storms and strong winds, connected with powerful MPHs, diverting more tropical sensible and latent heat poleward.
• In the tropical zone, any relation links the evolution of cyclones with temperature, and drought (as over the Subsaharan area) is associated with the penetration of anticyclonic conditions (narrowing the zone) and the relative impoverishment of the water potential.
Earth is not warming «globally», the famous IPCC curve of « global » average temperature has not any climatic significance, but, as a simple index, reveals only the intensity of heat transfers from lower toward the higher latitudes.Consequently, the claimed «global warming » is nothing than a myth. Officially for some politics, financial groups, medias, IPCC, and some States where an official state religion is imposed (as in France, where Lyssenko is still alive). Climatology is presently dominated by modellers, convinced that their models are the eighth wonder of the world, and cannot be wrong, even when refuted by real facts. Many « climatologists » give an absolute and often ingenuous faith to their models, even (and certainly more) when they are not modellers themselves. Climatology (which cannot be confused with pollution) has now better to do than to lose time and money for movie scenarios as the 2100 astrological predictions. Polarisation on hypothetic mirages acts as blinkers, masking the actual climate evolution. Climate is changing, and has always changed, since change is proper to climate. As a science of Nature, Climatology, now still on an « ab/erring » way, must become again pragmatic and useful.
(end qoute)
by Marcel Leroux
——–
My country: Portugal
Leave a Reply (please consult the terms of use of this blog before posting a comment)