To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
Languages
Recent
Show all languages
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Science & Environmental Policy Project

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) is an advocacy group financed by private contributions based in Arlington County, Virginia.[1] It was founded in 1990 by atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer.[2]

SEPP disputes the prevailing scientific views on several scientific issues including climate change, ozone depletion, and the health risks of secondhand smoke.[1][3]

SEPP's former Chairman of the Board of Directors is listed as Rockefeller University president emeritus Frederick Seitz,[4] a former president of the National Academy of Sciences, now deceased.[4][5]

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/3
    Views:
    741 047
    30 747
    342
  • 5 Human Impacts on the Environment: Crash Course Ecology #10
  • Environmental Impact Assessment - Analyzing Benefits and Actions
  • Environmental Law - Master of Science in Law

Transcription

At this point, people have been studying the impacts that humans have had on the world around us for a solid 50 years. And while it's hard to get a handle on exactly how the choices we make every day affect the environment, there's no question that our lifestyles, our cars, our need for more farmland, and our love of all kinds of plastic stuff, are putting the hurt on ecosystems all over the world. Human activity all by itself, just people doing what they do, could be responsible for the extinction of nearly a thousand plant and animal species to date, most of them over the last century. And even if you don't particularly care about the Barbary lion or the Saint Helena olive, or the passenger pigeon, or anything else we've driven into extinction, the thing is, we need these other organisms. The ecosystems of the world are working very hard for us, every day: filtering water, sucking carbon dioxide out of the air, producing all the food we eat, all very important ecosystem services, benefits that the natural world provides us for free. So, having ecosystems and keeping them intact is important, not only for the organisms who live in them, but also for us, the animals who rely on them for thousands and thousands of things that we could never do for ourselves. Over the next two episodes, we're going to look at these systems and how our actions are affecting the ecosystems that we need for our survival. Basically, we're messing up the environment 6 ways from Sunday. But to make it easy on ourselves, let's start with the top 5. We often hear about all the different ways that our behavior is affecting the biosphere. Extinctions, climate change, deforestation, acid rain, desertification, pollution and more. But you're asking, "Well, why are all those things bad? What's going on? How is this stuff turning the earth into sausage? I don't understand." Well I do understand, which is why I'm qualified to make this video. So, let me lay it on you. The services that ecosystems provide for us, all the dirty work they do, can be broken up into four different categories. They're things that we could never, ever, ever duplicate or work around, no matter what kind of smarty-pants technology we come up with: First, healthy ecosystems provide support services that create and replenish the foundation of the earth's biological systems. These services include recycling all of the compounds that are necessary for life, through the carbon, water, nitrogen and phosphorous cycles. They also include other processes we've talked about before, like forming new soils and producing atmospheric oxygen. Some ecosystems contribute more to these services than others, but none of them can get these basic jobs done unless they are intact. Two: Ecosystems also perform provisioning services, giving us the raw materials we need to live. Like, the ocean provides food in the form of fish sticks and stuff. And rivers, aquifers and other freshwater sources give us water. Plants and animals also yield all kinds of fiber that we use for clothing and shelter. And all around us we find sources of fuel, whether it's biomass in the form of grasses or wood, hydropower in the form of flowing water, or the carbon locked in millions-of-years-old trees that we're now re-releasing into the atmosphere. But I'm getting ahead of myself. Ecosystems also perform super-important regulating services, moderating many of the earth's systems that can get dangerous if they get out of whack. Like as we learned in Biology: fungi and other organisms take on the task of decomposing dead things and poop. Meanwhile, plants help filter the water you drink and the air you breathe, and provide flood control. And they also absorb all that carbon you exhale and that your car belches out, which in turn, helps regulate the climate. And finally, number four, ecosystems are just kind of awesome. It's nice to be surrounded by happy plants and critters, doing their business. Nice, robust ecosystems give us places to play, scenes to inspire us, and things to just discover and learn about. These are their less tangible, but still important cultural services. An interesting thing about ecosystem services is that economists actually can, and do, calculate the monetary value they provide for humanity. If, for example, we had to do all of the things that ecosystems do for us, it would cost us 46 trillion dollars per year. Which is a lot, considering that the output of the global economy is 66 trillion dollars per year. So, yeah, we should be happy that we don't have to pay for all that. But you'll notice that I keep saying that ecosystems can only serve up all this awesome sauce if they are "intact." By that I mean they specifically have to have their biodiversity intact, because ecosystems are just a bunch of living and nonliving things working together, so unless their living parts are healthy, they're basically just rocks and weather. The main reason biodiversity is so important is that it makes ecosystems more resilient to that never-ending change we talked about a few weeks ago. Ecosystems with high biodiversity are way more resilient to disturbances than those with low biodiversity. In a high-biodiversity system, if you take one species out of the mix, it's less likely that the ecosystem will collapse. Take a hectare of Amazonian rainforest: in that little patch of land, there are more different species of plants and animals than there are in all of Europe. So if a species of insect goes extinct, there's less risk that the whole house of cards will fall than, say, in the Sonoran Desert, where there are very few organisms, so the disappearance of one species could affect the entire ecosystem. So the best way to understand our impacts on the environment is through how we affect biodiversity. Unfortunately, it turns out that we've been doing a really bang-up job of endangering some of the highest biodiversity ecosystems on the planet. In some cases, we're having impacts on the organisms themselves directly, in other cases, we're affecting biodiversity indirectly, by creating one or two changes in that ecosystem that cascade into all kinds of problems for living things. First, let's look at that hectare of Amazonian rainforest again, because even though it's one of those super-resilient ecosystems, we're having a serious impact on it. How? Well, first by removing a lot of what makes a forest a forest: trees. According to some estimates, we're clear-cutting around 8 thousand hectares of trees a day to provide land to graze cattle on, and to harvest wood to make coffee tables or whatever. When you cut down a hectare of rainforest, suddenly a place where a few thousand species used to live turns into a place where just a handful of species live: some grass, some weeds, maybe some rats or mice, some insects and, you know, some cows. Because man, we love cows. And when you take out so many of the living things on that hectare of land, a bunch of things happen. For starters, you're not just affecting that ecosystem, but neighboring ecosystems as well. For instance, all those trees that were cut down provided the service of regulating the flow of all that rain that rainforests get, not only by absorbing some of it but also by slowing down runoff, letting the water seep into the soil, before slowly making its way into streams and rivers and ultimately the ocean. But when those trees are gone, the water hits the land and shoots off into the nearest stream, causing erosion and washing minerals and chemicals all the way to the sea, where it affects marine ecosystems. And when I say "affect," I don't mean in a good way. This, my friends, is what's called a cascade effect, in this case caused by deforestation, one of the most obvious, observable human impacts. In addition to causing more flooding and changes in water quality, deforestation on a large scale can lead to another impact: desertification, or the spread of dry, unproductive landscapes. But cutting down trees doesn't automatically turn a forest into a desert, desertification is driven along by additional factors, like overgrazing by cattle, and over-irrigation. So how can over-watering something make it turn into a desert? Well, when we use groundwater to irrigate crops, the natural salts in the groundwater build up in the soil, eventually making it so salty that nothing wants to live there. Over time, fertile land near desert ecosystems becomes overtaxed, and the desert spreads. And this is exactly what has happened in China over the past century, where overgrazing and the cities' unquenchable thirst for water have caused the Gobi Desert to grow by 3,600 square kilometers every year. Now, these two impacts by themselves clearly limit the biodiversity of otherwise lush ecosystems. But because they also result in fewer trees that provide the all-important services of releasing oxygen and absorbing CO2, you know what domino's gonna fall next: the climate. Carbon dioxide: the principle greenhouse gas. It insulates the Earth. So it stands to reason that the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the warmer the earth will be. And the thing is, we're reducing the size of forests at the same time as we're unleashing all kinds of greenhouse gases by burning fossil fuels. This double-whammy is much of what's driving global warming. As a result, we're seeing decreases in the levels of polar sea ice, which means less habit for polar bears, seals and sea birds. More temperate animals are moving closer to the poles, and hotter, drier conditions are causing more grass fires and forest fires. And while the climate has changed many times in the past, those changes usually took place over centuries or even millennia, giving organisms time to adapt or move, these changes are taking place within our lifetimes. And it's kind of a huge deal. And it's complicated. It'd take me at least, like, 10 minutes and 52 seconds to explain it all in detail. Which is why I did that in another video. By now hopefully you can see how one human impact can lead to another, and how, even indirectly, they can end up reducing biodiversity. But it's hard to overlook the more immediate impacts we can have on ecosystems. One of the more in-your-face ways we affect biodiversity is by introducing nonnative species, either intentionally or unintentionally. Again, there are so many examples of this that you can learn more about it in another video I did. But suffice it to say: whether it's kudzu in North America, or cane toads in Australia, invasive species have a knack for out-competing or outright eating native species to the point that it rocks the world of an entire ecosystem. And finally, probably the most direct impact we have on biodiversity is simply over-harvesting certain organisms. We're overfishing the oceans to meet growing demand for popular fish species, like tuna, while on land we're exterminating important predators, like wolves, to protect livestock...those cows again. And the less diverse those ecosystems are, the more vulnerable they become to disturbances, including those other 4 impacts I just mentioned. And the fact is, there's a bunch more where those came from. Because there's a whole separate set of effects that humanity has on the biosphere that stems simply from us putting the wrong amounts of certain stuff in the wrong place at the wrong time. That's what we call pollution, so tune in next time when we'll explore what it really is, where exactly it's coming from, and what we can do about it. Thank you for watching another kind of depressing episode of Crash Course Ecology. And thanks to everyone who helped us put it together. There's a table of contents over there if you want to click to review anything. Or the links are down below in the description. And if you have any questions or comments or ideas for us, please leave them on Facebook or Twitter or of course, down in the comments below.

SEPP's views

SEPP listed the following key issues in 2010: [1]

  • "Computer models forecast rapidly rising global temperatures, but data from weather satellites and balloon instruments show no warming whatsoever. Nevertheless, these same unreliable computer models underpin the Global Climate Treaty."
  • In preparing its 1995 report, the UN-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change unfairly marginalized scientific views which do not support the conclusion that human activity is causing climate change.
  • The Environmental Protection Agency has promulgated various regulations (pertaining to e.g. smog, ozone, environmental toxins, and particulate matter) which significantly harm the economy with negligible environmental benefit.
  • No detectable increase in ultraviolet radiation has been demonstrated from thinning of the ozone layer. The ban on CFCs in developed countries is economically harmful and ineffective, because they are still produced in developing countries.
  • In general, science has been misused to promote "politically correct" views, and the mechanisms of science funding contribute to a systemic bias.
  • Natural resources are best managed by free-market mechanisms in the context of clearly established property rights.
  • The U.S. space program should focus on crewed exploration of Mars (as opposed to uncrewed problems, or crewed exploration of low Earth orbit), with the Moon as a stepping stone.
  • Efforts to protect the Earth from asteroid impact have been neglected.

On September 2, 1997, Singer said that "The possibility that global temperatures could rise because of an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a concern that needs to be monitored...But there has been no indication in the last century that we've seen anything other than natural climate fluctuations. Both greenhouse theory and computer models predict that global warming should be more rapid in the polar regions than anywhere else," he says, "but in July the Antarctic experienced the coldest weather on record."[2]

SEPP was the author of the Leipzig Declaration, which was based on the conclusions drawn from a November 1995 conference in Leipzig, Germany, which SEPP organized with the European Academy for Environmental Affairs.

NIPCC

In 2008, The Science and Environmental Policy Project completed the organization[6] of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) as the culmination of a process that began in 2003. The NIPCC calls itself "an international coalition of scientists convened to provide an independent examination of the evidence available on the causes and consequences of climate change in the published, peer-reviewed literature – examined without bias and selectivity."[7]

The 2008 NIPCC document titled Nature, Not Human Activity Rules the Climate: Summary for Policymakers of the Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel of Climate Change,[8] published by The Heartland Institute,[9] was released in February–March 2008. Singer served as General Editor and also holds the copyright.

Unnamed climate scientists from NASA, Stanford University and Princeton who were contacted by ABC News dismissed the same report as "fabricated nonsense.".[10] In response, Singer objected to the ABC News piece, calling it "an appalling display of bias, unfairness, journalistic misbehavior, and a breakdown of ethical standards" which used "prejudicial language, distorted facts, libelous insinuations, and anonymous smears."[11]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b "Science and Environmental Policy Project". DeSmogBlog. Retrieved 2019-03-19.
  2. ^ Revkin, Andrew C. (2002-02-26). "Climate Plan Is Criticized As a Risky Bet". The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-05-23.
  3. ^ SEPP, Key Issues (Updated July 2006) Archived July 12, 2010, at the Wayback Machine
  4. ^ a b SEPP, SEPP Board of Directors Archived 2006-09-28 at the Wayback Machine, accessed 19 Sep 2010
  5. ^ Patricia Sullivan, Washington Post, 6 March 2008, Frederick Seitz, 96; Physicist Cast Doubt On Global Warming
  6. ^ Singer, S. Fred (2007-09-01). "The Week that Was". SEPP. Archived from the original on 2008-04-29. Retrieved 2008-05-09. Because of these omissions, which became evident from the initial drafts of AR4, the SEPP decided to set up a 'Team B' to produce an independent evaluation of the available scientific evidence. While the initial organization took place in 2004, Team B only became activated after the SPM appeared in February 2007; it changed its name to NIPCC and organized an international climate workshop in Vienna in April 2007.
  7. ^ Harriette Johnson and Joseph L. Bast (2008-05-05). "Climate Change Conference Invigorates Global Warming Debate". Environment News. The Heartland Institute. Archived from the original on 2012-08-02. Retrieved 2008-05-07.
  8. ^ Singer, S. Fred, ed. (2008-03-02). "Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate". Summary for Policymakers of the Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change / The Heartland Institute. Archived from the original on 2008-03-14. Retrieved 2008-05-08.
  9. ^ Report notice: Opinions expressed are solely those of the authors. Nothing in this report should be construed as reflecting the views of the Science and Environmental Policy Project or The Heartland Institute, or as an attempt to influence pending legislation.
  10. ^ Harris, Dan; Felicia Biberica; Elizabeth Stuart; Nils Kongshaug (2008-03-23). "Global Warming Denier: Fraud or 'Realist'?". ABC News. ABCnews.com. Retrieved 2008-03-24.
  11. ^ Singer, S. Fred (2008-03-28). "Letter to ABC News from Dr. S. Fred Singer". Science & Environmental Policy Project. Archived from the original on 2009-08-27. Retrieved 2009-07-08.

Further reading

In 2004 Singer was coauthor of two papers published in Geophysical Research Letters:

  • Douglass, D. H., B. D. Pearson, and S. F. Singer (2004), Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L13208, doi:10.1029/2004GL020103.
  • Douglass, D. H., B. D. Pearson, S. F. Singer, P. C. Knappenberger, and P. J. Michaels (2004), Disparity of tropospheric and surface temperature trends: New evidence, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L13207, doi:10.1029/2004GL020212.

Scientific criticism of SEPP's views:

  • "The Ozone Backlash," Science, New Series, Vol. 260, No. 5114, pp. 1580–1583, June 11, 1993.

External links

This page was last edited on 16 September 2023, at 06:02
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.