Global warming just guff
On May 14 the Taipei Times reported on the Energy Efficiency and Green Environment Forum, where Michael Nobel, great grandnephew of Nobel prize founder Alfred Nobel, was the featured speaker. In effect, he and other forum attendants echoed the global warming mantra that our planet is in imminent danger of catastrophic disaster despite much scientific evidence to the contrary.
Nobel cited last year’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. The IPCC has issued several reports on global climate change (in 1990, 1995, 2001 and 2007). However, each of these reports contains false claims and exaggerations while conveniently disregarding sound environmental research. Unfortunately, many of the IPCC’s unproven hypotheses have been passed off as facts.
In response, over the past few years, more than 19,000 US scientists have signed a petition coauthored by Dr Frederick Seitz, former president of the US National Academy of Sciences, urging political leaders to reject the Kyoto Protocol. Also, from March 2 to March 4 of this year, renowned scientists from around the world met in New York for a conference on climate change and issued a report on their extensive research. In the report’s forward, Dr Seitz wrote that the IPCC “is pre-programmed to produce reports to support the hypotheses of anthropogenic warming.”
He further pointed out that the 1990 IPCC report “completely ignored satellite data, since they showed no warming. The 1995 report was notorious for the significant alterations made to the text ... in order to convey the impression of a human influence. The latest IPCC report [2007] completely devaluates the climate contributions from changes in solar activities, which are likely to dominate any human influence.”
A vast majority of scientists have acknowledged that our solar system is so complex that they’ve barely begun to understand its effects on our climate. The data show that cooling and warming cycles lasting five to 35 years or longer are the norm. Not coincidentally, some of the same doomsayers who 30 years ago warned of a global ice age are now warning of catastrophic global warming.
But shouldn’t we believe such environmental “authorities” as Nobel prize winning former US vice president Al Gore? After all, last year Gore won an Oscar for his documentary An Inconvenient Truth. A look at his living style, however, reveals just how “green” he is. In February last year, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research reported that Gore’s 20-room mansion consumes more electricity per month than the average US household uses per year. Yet in his documentary, Gore has the audacity to lecture his fellow Americans and global citizens on reducing their energy consumption at home and drastically slashing carbon dioxide emissions. Apparently, doing so himself would cramp his style.
Many scientists concur that adopting the Kyoto Protocol would have a miniscule impact on the environment. Yet, implementing it would cost a fortune and do tremendous damage to our weakened global economy.
No wonder Michael Nobel encouraged us to embrace Gore’s vision. After all, Gore also received a Nobel Prize for his documentary.
Wayne T. Schams
Pingtung
A funeral for Taiwan?
We are at a crossroads again in Taiwan. We are either witnessing a smooth transition of power from one leader to another, as has happened in the US 43 times since 1789, or we are witnessing the death of Taiwan. Perhaps we will not know for some time.
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has promised to safeguard national sovereignty, but he has already said things that might scare an ordinary Taiwanese citizen. For instance, he used Singapore, a city-state that is known more for its repressive dictatorial authoritarian rule, as a model for Taiwan to emulate. This is a warning sign.
Also, within days of Ma’s inauguration, Wu, the chairman of the KMT is due to meet Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party head Hu Jin-tao (胡錦濤) for “party to party” talks. Why on Earth should there be “party to party” talks between one of the world’s most repressive parties and the KMT? If the KMT is in power, what is the reason for party-level talks?
This raises questions about what the KMT is planning, plotting or agreeing to and on whose behalf. If talks are “party to party” rather than “country to country,” then we can expect the KMT to revert immediately to its old dictatorial ways. No surprise there.
Ma has also promised to open up the nation to investment in real estate by Chinese businesspeople and has promised to lift limitations on Taiwanese investment in China.
Without these restrictions, Taiwan may end up ravaged and emptied, a thought that should scare the public.
That many members of the public believe the nation’s future is best pursued hand in hand with China is also reason for concern.
That Taiwan must deal with China goes without saying and it has spent years just surviving China’s daily onslaught. But to dream that Taiwan could be spared the kind of abuse inflicted on Tibet these past 50 years is utterly naive. Taiwan has voted for an uncertain future, with a president known more for equivocation than determination or decisiveness. To entrust Ma with preserving national sovereignty in the face of Beijing is a terrifying thought, yet here we are. All we can do now is hold our breath and hope for the next four years that the nation is not dying a little bit each day.
Those of us who love freedom and appreciate the freedoms Taiwanese enjoy — freedoms that the Chinese public is denied — must remain vigilant against the rebirth of tyranny and raise our voices when necessary if the KMT goes back to its old tricks.
As for me, I wore black on inauguration day. I hope these four years will pass without killing Taiwan and that Tuesday was not actually the nation’s funeral.
Lee Long-hwa
New York
WHO’s ignoring Taiwan?
W. Andy Knight makes a convincing case for granting Taiwan membership in the WHO (“Taiwan should gain WHO status,” May 19, page 8). Taiwan’s highly developed health care system is a model worthy of emulation, as is its generosity in assisting other countries.
The next deadly virus will be as ignorant about the “one China” policy as it will be about national identities in general. The WHO should welcome Taiwan to the table before that virus arrives.
William E. Cooper
Richmond, Virginia
Pat Gelsinger took the reins as Intel CEO three years ago with hopes of reviving the US industrial icon. He soon made a big mistake. Intel had a sweet deal going with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), the giant manufacturer of semiconductors for other companies. TSMC would make chips that Intel designed, but could not produce and was offering deep discounts to Intel, four people with knowledge of the agreement said. Instead of nurturing the relationship, Gelsinger — who hoped to restore Intel’s own manufacturing prowess — offended TSMC by calling out Taiwan’s precarious relations with China. “You don’t want all of
A chip made by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) was found on a Huawei Technologies Co artificial intelligence (AI) processor, indicating a possible breach of US export restrictions that have been in place since 2019 on sensitive tech to the Chinese firm and others. The incident has triggered significant concern in the IT industry, as it appears that proxy buyers are acting on behalf of restricted Chinese companies to bypass the US rules, which are intended to protect its national security. Canada-based research firm TechInsights conducted a die analysis of the Huawei Ascend 910B AI Trainer, releasing its findings on Oct.
In honor of President Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday, my longtime friend and colleague John Tkacik wrote an excellent op-ed reassessing Carter’s derecognition of Taipei. But I would like to add my own thoughts on this often-misunderstood president. During Carter’s single term as president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, despite numerous foreign policy and domestic challenges, he is widely recognized for brokering the historic 1978 Camp David Accords that ended the state of war between Egypt and Israel after more than three decades of hostilities. It is considered one of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the 20th century.
As the war in Burma stretches into its 76th year, China continues to play both sides. Beijing backs the junta, which seized power in the 2021 coup, while also funding some of the resistance groups fighting the regime. Some suggest that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is hedging his bets, positioning China to side with the victors regardless of the outcome. However, a more accurate explanation is that China is acting pragmatically to safeguard its investments and ensure the steady flow of natural resources and energy for its economy. China’s primary interest is stability and supporting the junta initially seemed like the best
RSS