Karen Gordon says David Suzuki is stunned
Chom Noamsky
binge-drinking session:
"No more stunned than someone who thinks phytoplankton contribute more
oxygen to our air than do the trees of the Amazon rainforest."
"Plankton helps produce more than half of the world�s oxygen"
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/flash/Pretty_Picture.swf?scale=noscale
"Well, these microscopic plants are the base of the food chain and
account for half the production of organic matter on Earth. They also
remove carbon dioxide from the air and produce more than half the oxygen
we breathe." -- David Suzuki
gordo
wrote:
>Karen Gordon puked this onto Usenet after a particularly gluttonous
>binge-drinking session:
>
>"No more stunned than someone who thinks phytoplankton contribute more
>oxygen to our air than do the trees of the Amazon rainforest."
>
>"Plankton helps produce more than half of the world�s oxygen"
>
>http://www.davidsuzuki.org/flash/Pretty_Picture.swf?scale=noscale
>
>"Well, these microscopic plants are the base of the food chain and
>account for half the production of organic matter on Earth. They also
>remove carbon dioxide from the air and produce more than half the oxygen
>we breathe." -- David Suzuki
>
Nice to see you post what the good Dr. Suzukis says. He is right of
course. Also see.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0607_040607_phytoplankton.html
Chom Noamsky
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:32:42 -0700, Chom Noamsky<bea...@stew.tasty>
> wrote:
>
>> Karen Gordon puked this onto Usenet after a particularly gluttonous
>> binge-drinking session:
>>
>> "No more stunned than someone who thinks phytoplankton contribute more
>> oxygen to our air than do the trees of the Amazon rainforest."
>>
>>
>> http://www.davidsuzuki.org/flash/Pretty_Picture.swf?scale=noscale
>>
>> "Well, these microscopic plants are the base of the food chain and
>> account for half the production of organic matter on Earth. They also
>> remove carbon dioxide from the air and produce more than half the oxygen
>> we breathe." -- David Suzuki
>>
> Nice to see you post what the good Dr. Suzukis says. He is right of
> course. Also see.
>
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0607_040607_phytoplankton.html
Suzuki hasn't been right about much of anything, but he sure knows how
to suck money out of old people. Only two groups of people I know who
go around routinely announcing the end of the world: Jehova Witnesses
and the David Suzuki Foundation. Both have had exactly the same success
rate.
Anyway, this should tell you something about your green left ally Karen
Gorgoyle, who thinks facts are for dummies and right-wingers.
jerrybery
>Nice to see you post what the good Dr. Suzukis says. He is right of course.
What is right about it Gordo, you have not been right about anything
yet...including trying to use that green emotional propaganda, that is well
known for you brain-dead socialist to use...Those of you who can't even
think for yourselves anymore. Sure Gordo, you just lap up all the green
bullshit and pretend the world is a wonderful place, where magical glowing
butterflies, and Unicorns run wild in your field of dreams.
Just as that useful idiot KKKaren Jordon, is just another feminist kook, who
doesn't know a hole in the ground from her ass.
Dave Smith
>
> Suzuki hasn't been right about much of anything, but he sure knows how
> to suck money out of old people. Only two groups of people I know who go
> around routinely announcing the end of the world: Jehova Witnesses and
> the David Suzuki Foundation. Both have had exactly the same success rate.
I love how David Susuki flies all over to film programs to tell us about
how our travel habits are ruining the world.
merlin!
Dr. Suzuki is probably a fine biologist. Unfortunately, he is a terrible
politican and even worse climate scientist. If he stuck to what he knows
and stopped peddling the Thermageddon crappola then he would not be as
widely despised.
merlin!
And KKKaren is wrong, of course.
Rich
email.me:
> Karen Gordon puked this onto Usenet after a particularly gluttonous
> binge-drinking session:
>
> "No more stunned than someone who thinks phytoplankton contribute more
> oxygen to our air than do the trees of the Amazon rainforest."
>
> "Plankton helps produce more than half of the world�s oxygen"
>
> http://www.davidsuzuki.org/flash/Pretty_Picture.swf?scale=noscale
>
> "Well, these microscopic plants are the base of the food chain and
> account for half the production of organic matter on Earth. They also
> remove carbon dioxide from the air and produce more than half the
oxygen
> we breathe." -- David Suzuki
>
>
>
Someone should toss that enviro-Stalinist into a large school of
jellyfish.
gordo
wrote:
>On 6/28/2011 3:38 PM, gordo wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:32:42 -0700, Chom Noamsky<bea...@stew.tasty>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Karen Gordon puked this onto Usenet after a particularly gluttonous
>>> binge-drinking session:
>>>
>>> "No more stunned than someone who thinks phytoplankton contribute more
>>> oxygen to our air than do the trees of the Amazon rainforest."
>>>
>>> "Plankton helps produce more than half of the world�s oxygen"
>>>
>>> http://www.davidsuzuki.org/flash/Pretty_Picture.swf?scale=noscale
>>>
>>> "Well, these microscopic plants are the base of the food chain and
>>> account for half the production of organic matter on Earth. They also
>>> remove carbon dioxide from the air and produce more than half the oxygen
>>> we breathe." -- David Suzuki
>>>
>> Nice to see you post what the good Dr. Suzukis says. He is right of
>> course. Also see.
>>
>> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0607_040607_phytoplankton.html
>
>Suzuki hasn't been right about much of anything, but he sure knows how
>to suck money out of old people. Only two groups of people I know who
>go around routinely announcing the end of the world: Jehova Witnesses
>and the David Suzuki Foundation. Both have had exactly the same success
>rate.
>
>Anyway, this should tell you something about your green left ally Karen
>Gorgoyle, who thinks facts are for dummies and right-wingers.
I gave a scientific cite instead of using Dr. Suzuki as an authority.
It has nothing to do with Karen whomever. You can rely upon Dr. Suzuki
to reference good science but his authority comes from reliance on
scientific sources. Dr. Suzuki's 30 year run of science tv show called
the Nature of things used very little of his own science research but
was based upon other scientists.
With his own income he set up the Suzuki foundation. He does not run
the foundation which employs scientists as well as others. Dr.Suzuki
gains no personal revenue from the foundation.
gordo
<jerry...@gov.DRS.homeland.USZ> wrote:
>Gordo the magical socialist green clown said...
>
>>Nice to see you post what the good Dr. Suzukis says. He is right of course.
>
>What is right about it Gordo
I posted a science cite that was not Dr. Suzuki. Surely you went there
to confirm
> you have not been right about anything
>yet...including trying to use that green emotional propaganda, that is well
>known for you brain-dead socialist to use...Those of you who can't even
>think for yourselves anymore. Sure Gordo, you just lap up all the green
>bullshit and pretend the world is a wonderful place, where magical glowing
>butterflies, and Unicorns run wild in your field of dreams.
>
>Just as that useful idiot KKKaren Jordon, is just another feminist kook, who
>doesn't know a hole in the ground from her ass.
So you think that phytoplankton is not the major contributor to the
oxygen that we breath? You just joined KKK or whomever.
gordo
wrote:
He is widely despised?
You mean for winning the order of Canada? The order of BC? UNESCO�s
Kalinga Prize for science?
(1986)[22] and a long list of Canadian and international honours.
nominated as one of the top ten "Greatest Canadians" by viewers of the
CBC. In the final vote he ranked fifth. Clearly Dr. Suzuki is well
thought of.
Dr. Suzuki has done important work educating the public on the latest
scientific findings including AGW. You call it Thermageddon crappola
but this means that you are scientifically illiterate. It is GW caused
by GGs in the atmosphere because of burning fossil fuels.
Now you know what he was talking about.
gordo
wrote:
Yes she is wrong and David Suzuki is right and so was Chom.
Chom Noamsky
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 15:50:38 -0700, Chom Noamsky<bea...@stew.tasty>
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/28/2011 3:38 PM, gordo wrote:
>>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:32:42 -0700, Chom Noamsky<bea...@stew.tasty>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Karen Gordon puked this onto Usenet after a particularly gluttonous
>>>> binge-drinking session:
>>>>
>>>> "No more stunned than someone who thinks phytoplankton contribute more
>>>> oxygen to our air than do the trees of the Amazon rainforest."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.davidsuzuki.org/flash/Pretty_Picture.swf?scale=noscale
>>>>
>>>> "Well, these microscopic plants are the base of the food chain and
>>>> account for half the production of organic matter on Earth. They also
>>>> remove carbon dioxide from the air and produce more than half the oxygen
>>>> we breathe." -- David Suzuki
>>>>
>>> Nice to see you post what the good Dr. Suzukis says. He is right of
>>> course. Also see.
>>>
>>> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0607_040607_phytoplankton.html
>>
>> Suzuki hasn't been right about much of anything, but he sure knows how
>> to suck money out of old people. Only two groups of people I know who
>> go around routinely announcing the end of the world: Jehova Witnesses
>> and the David Suzuki Foundation. Both have had exactly the same success
>> rate.
>>
>> Anyway, this should tell you something about your green left ally Karen
>> Gorgoyle, who thinks facts are for dummies and right-wingers.
>
> I gave a scientific cite instead of using Dr. Suzuki as an authority.
> It has nothing to do with Karen whomever. You can rely upon Dr. Suzuki
> to reference good science but his authority comes from reliance on
> scientific sources. Dr. Suzuki's 30 year run of science tv show called
> the Nature of things used very little of his own science research but
> was based upon other scientists.
>
> With his own income he set up the Suzuki foundation. He does not run
> the foundation which employs scientists as well as others. Dr.Suzuki
> gains no personal revenue from the foundation.
The Nature of Things is one of the few CBC productions that actually
made money and earned its keep. It's quite flattering to be in a
foreign country, flip on the TV, and dang, it's David Suzuki's Nature of
Things. Yay, Canadian culture takes the world. I've learned a few
things watching his programs, mainly that pop scientists like to elevate
themselves way beyond their stature. The thing that bothers me
particularly is the condemnation of modern carbon-guzzling lifestyles,
but seeing absolutely no problem with his own modern carbon-guzzling
lifestyle. Does he prostrate himself before Gaia and beg for
forgiveness? It's right up there with Bono demanding corporations stop
tax dodging, or Noam Chomsky setting up a tax shelter for his loot.
jerrybery
>On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 16:02:38 -0700, "jerrybery"
<jerry...@gov.DRS.homeland.USZ> wrote:
>Gordo the magical socialist green clown said...
>
>>Nice to see you post what the good Dr. Suzukis says. He is right of
>>course.
>
>What is right about it Gordo
>I posted a science cite that was not Dr. Suzuki. Surely you went there to
>confirm
I've met David many times and I have had many heated discussions with him on
a variety of stuff and he has yet to convince myself of anything he says
> you have not been right about anything
>yet...including trying to use that green emotional propaganda, that is well
>known for you brain-dead socialist to use...Those of you who can't even
>think for yourselves anymore. Sure Gordo, you just lap up all the green
>bullshit and pretend the world is a wonderful place, where magical glowing
>butterflies, and Unicorns run wild in your field of dreams.
>
>Just as that useful idiot KKKaren Jordon, is just another feminist kook,
>who
>doesn't know a hole in the ground from her ass.
>So you think that phytoplankton is not the major contributor to the oxygen
>that we breath? You just joined KKK or whomever.
Gordo let's take you back to school and here are some examples for you to
suck on, besides your pointed pencil.
Rainforests are the major source of oxygen for the planet; .... among the
biggest contributors as trees are hard at work creating oxygen and purifying
the air we breathe.
A large portion and mostly all of the oxygen found on earth comes from
plants, trees, shrubbery, and A major source of oxygen for the Earth's
atmosphere is - The primal source is water, and plants split the hydrogen
from the oxygen in the process of photosynthesis.
So you and KKKaren are both kooks who need a brain adjustment...
Chom Noamsky
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 17:13:52 -0700, "merlin!"<nos...@thanksalot.com>
> wrote:
>
>> gordo wrote:
>>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:32:42 -0700, Chom Noamsky<bea...@stew.tasty>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Karen Gordon puked this onto Usenet after a particularly gluttonous
>>>> binge-drinking session:
>>>>
>>>> "No more stunned than someone who thinks phytoplankton contribute
>>>> more oxygen to our air than do the trees of the Amazon rainforest."
>>>>
>>>> "Plankton helps produce more than half of the world's oxygen"
>>>>
>>>> http://www.davidsuzuki.org/flash/Pretty_Picture.swf?scale=noscale
>>>>
>>>> "Well, these microscopic plants are the base of the food chain and
>>>> account for half the production of organic matter on Earth. They also
>>>> remove carbon dioxide from the air and produce more than half the
>>>> oxygen we breathe." -- David Suzuki
>>>>
>>> Nice to see you post what the good Dr. Suzukis says. He is right of
>>> course. Also see.
>>>
>>> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0607_040607_phytoplankton.html
>>
>> Dr. Suzuki is probably a fine biologist. Unfortunately, he is a terrible
>> politican and even worse climate scientist. If he stuck to what he knows
>> and stopped peddling the Thermageddon crappola then he would not be as
>> widely despised.
>>
> He is widely despised?
> Kalinga Prize for science?
> (1986)[22] and a long list of Canadian and international honours.
> nominated as one of the top ten "Greatest Canadians" by viewers of the
> CBC. In the final vote he ranked fifth. Clearly Dr. Suzuki is well
> thought of.
>
> Dr. Suzuki has done important work educating the public on the latest
> scientific findings including AGW. You call it Thermageddon crappola
> but this means that you are scientifically illiterate. It is GW caused
> by GGs in the atmosphere because of burning fossil fuels.
> Now you know what he was talking about.
The old 'yer scientifically illiterate if you don't accept what left
greenies say as gospel truth'. I find your condescending attitude
offensive because I happen to be a credentialed scientist, although not
in a field directly relevant to climate studies. But I certainly know
everything you do about scientific methodology. That's why -- when the
data shows temperature delta actually leads CO2 delta by 200-1,000
years, as shown by ice core reconstructions -- I say what kind of
horseshit is this? The phase relationship observed in ice core data
actually has to be REVERSED to support the theory that CO2 drives
climate change, which would basically be one big scientific fraud.
Interestingly, a terrific proxy for solar activity, beryllium 10, also
obtained from ice cores, provides a strikingly accurate record of past
climate changes. Who woulda ever thunk that enormous ball of nuclear
fire and its cyclical nature has anything to do with climate change?
About all we humans are doing is exacerbating a natural phenomena that
was going to happen anyway. Entertaining notions of us being climate
controllers is akin to hitting a moving freight train with a nerf
baseball bat and expecting it to stop. We have zero, absolutely zero
influence over the sun.
BTW, what are your scientific credentials, gordo, watching David Suzuki
pop science on TV?
merlin!
Look, we know you are a true believer, just like any other religious kook.
So give us a break, and accept the fact that there are a lot of people who
are not going to bow down to your priesthood.
merlin!
Or squid.
gordo
wrote:
>On 6/28/2011 9:16 PM, gordo wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 15:50:38 -0700, Chom Noamsky<bea...@stew.tasty>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/28/2011 3:38 PM, gordo wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:32:42 -0700, Chom Noamsky<bea...@stew.tasty>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Karen Gordon puked this onto Usenet after a particularly gluttonous
>>>>> binge-drinking session:
>>>>>
>>>>> "No more stunned than someone who thinks phytoplankton contribute more
>>>>> oxygen to our air than do the trees of the Amazon rainforest."
>>>>>
>>>>> "Plankton helps produce more than half of the world�s oxygen"
I know and Paul Watson burns a lot of bunker fuel chasing down the
Japanese whaling ships and he doesn't drive a prius. If your only
concern is condemnation of carbon-guzzling lifestyles maybe you should
consider this.
"The federal government continues to give billions of dollars in tax
breaks to the companies producing oil and gas in Canada. Analysis
shows a total of $1.4 billion per year in federal subsidies, $840
million of which are special tax breaks, with a disproportionate share
going to dirty fuels such as the Alberta Tar Sands."
This is from the Suzuki Foundation web page and says nothing about
your lifestyle which probably isn't gas guzzling anyway.
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/climate-change/
There is a nice meter on the page.
gordo
wrote:
>> You mean for winning the order of Canada? The order of BC? UNESCO�s
It is useless to argue with someone who refuses to accept the science.
If you are truly interested in learning about CO2 there is an
excellent site.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/faq.html
This is the center of the U.S. Department of Energy .
They are not left wing greenies whatever the hell that is.
>BTW, what are your scientific credentials, gordo, watching David Suzuki
>pop science on TV?
I have no quatlifications in climatology. I do depend on the experts
in the field.
For answers to your specific question I would direct you to
http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics
gordo
wrote:
The science of AGW is settled among the scientists. Every stable
country in the world signed on to reduce burning of fossil fuels at
Cancun. This on the advice of their own gov't scientists. I am not an
authority on AGW but there are scientists who are and you are not one
of them.
jerrybery1
>It is useless to argue with someone who refuses to accept the science.
Good then stop arguing with yourself and stop pushing green propaganda. As
it doesn't make you very smart at all Gordo.
In fact, it makes you look like another propagandist pushing outright lies
for a political agenda that makes no sense.
jerrybery1
said.
>The science of AGW is settled among the scientists. Every stable
>country in the world signed on to reduce burning of fossil fuels at
>Cancun. This on the advice of their own gov't scientists. I am not an
>authority on AGW but there are scientists who are and you are not one
>of them.
New Major Report
Estimates of Global Food Production in the Year 2050 -- Will We Produce
Enough to Adequately Feed the World?: Government leaders and policy makers
should take notice of the findings of this important new analysis of the
world food situation; for doing what climate alarmists claim is needed to
fight global warming will surely consign earth's human population to a world
of woe, while doing next to nothing in terms of altering the current warm
phase of the planet's surface temperature.
Editorial
A New Model Search for the "Missing Sink" of Anthropogenic CO2: Has it
actually found it?
Journal Reviews
Cold European Winters and Low Solar Activity: Are the two related in any
way?
Global Warming and the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation: How does
the former affect the latter?
Warming-Induced Microevolution in Tawny Owls: What was found? ... and why is
it important?
Live Coral Cover on Australia's Great Barrier Reef: How has it varied over
the past decade and a half?
Effects of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment on Forest Water Use: Do elevated
concentrations of atmospheric CO2 lead to more or less water use by forests?
The Productivity of China's Forests: 1961-2005: How did it vary over the
specified time period?
Ocean Acidification Database
The latest addition of peer-reviewed data archived to our database of marine
organism responses to atmospheric CO2 enrichment is Collector Urchin
[Tripneustes gratilla]. To access the entire database, click here.
Plant Growth Database
Our latest results of plant growth responses to atmospheric CO2 enrichment
obtained from experiments described in the peer-reviewed scientific
literature are: Black Alder (Hoosbeek et al., 2011) and Red Raspberry
(Martin and Johnson, 2011).
Medieval Warm Period Project
Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published by 986
individual scientists from 567 research institutions in 43 different
countries ... and counting! This issue's Medieval Warm Period Record comes
from Southern Okinawa Trough, East China Sea. To access the entire Medieval
Warm Period Project's database, click here.
World Temperatures Database
Back by popular demand and upgraded to allow patrons more choices to plot
and view the data, we reintroduce the World Temperatures section of our
website. Here, users may plot temperatures for the entire globe or regions
of the globe. A newly added feature allows patrons the ability to plot up to
six independent datasets on the same graph. Try it today. World Temperatures
Database.
Major Report
Carbon Dioxide and Earth's Future: Pursuing the Prudent Path: Ten of the
more ominous model-based predictions of what will occur in response to
continued business-as-usual anthropogenic CO2 emissions are compared against
real-world observations.
Video - Seeing is Believing
jerrybery1
>The science of AGW is settled among the scientists. Every stable
>country in the world signed on to reduce burning of fossil fuels at
>Cancun. This on the advice of their own gov't scientists. I am not an
>authority on AGW but there are scientists who are and you are not one
>of them.
Science vs. Propaganda
Persons who are not properly trained in science are not in a position to
promote the science of a subject, as the global warming issue demonstrates.
But proper evaluation and criticism are totally different things. Everyone
has a responsibility to criticize wherever they find a concern. This is
because the first concern of criticism is in standards which are independent
of details. Standards determine the difference between objective reality and
propaganda; and everyone is in a position to evaluate standards.
Also, reporters can and must describe every element of the subject including
the details and evidence. Reporting does not require scientific expertise,
though a little helps. If reporters don't describe the subject, who will?
Scientists cannot do what reporters do, because they don't have the time or
access to publishing. There is a lot of difference between representing an
argument and attempting to shape the argument. Part of the difference is in
what people expect. They don't expect reporting to be source material.
Al Gore's movie is blatant propaganda. I can say this without having seen
the movie, in part from the descriptions, but more importantly from the
social position it has acquired. It is being used as a reference,
particularly for children, who are not in a position to understand the
deceptions.
Al Gore has not the slightest ability to evaluate the science of global
warming, because he has spent a lifetime as a politician. There are certain
things a person needs to do to learn how to properly evaluate science.
First, a person needs to understand all of the basic principles of science
which apply to the subject. Quite a bit of study is required to get a good
grasp of the basics of science. Then a person needs to learn methodologies
through practice and discipline. One element is how to investigate a subject
properly. Another element is how to properly represent a subject. Another is
how to show evidence for claims. Another is how to remove subjectivity and
prejudices from an analysis.
Al Gore has not a clue that any of this matters. He shows ice melting and
claims humans must be the cause. Showing ice melting is photography, not
science.
People need to know what the evidence is for the claims. There is nothing
for evidence in the promotion of global warming hype. The agitators are
falling back upon consensus only. Is there no such thing as consensus which
is wrong? Nazism was based upon enforcement of consensus through worship of
a ruler. It's no different from the enforcement of a supposed consensus on
global warming based upon an official report being unquestionable. To impose
consensus is like torturing in the prisons; it's not a valid thing to do.
Once proper scientific communication exists including a description of
evidence, truth will invariably evolve forward. The problem is that proper
scientific communication is not significantly visible on the subject of
global warming. Not the least problem is that there is so much fraud in the
official science of global warming that journalists cannot separate the
facts from the frauds.
The fraud of the science is not in being wrong or in disagreeing; it is in
not showing evidence through proper communication and representation of
science principles.
Brainwashing the Kids
Kids are being brainwashed in the schools on global warming and other
subjects such as environmentalism, where they are not in a position to
evaluate those subjects or any other. It's not appropriate to go beyond
basics in education because of the inability of students to evaluate. Even
in college, proper evaluation is not possible until graduate school. Not
only do you need to have all of the basics understood before evaluating, but
you then need the time and opportunity to do your own independent research
to base proper evaluations on. Graduate students do this. While
undergraduates learn the process, they cannot properly form opinions due to
their limitations in background basics and lack of time and opportunity for
independent research. What undergrads do is learn the process by mimicking
opinions in journalism; but they can't properly evaluate those subjects
themselves.
There is nothing wrong with having opinions or promoting the opinions which
one has, at any age. Proper standards of criticism account for limitations.
The problem is indoctrination where there is supposed to be a study of
basics in the schools. Not only that, but the kids are told to act upon the
propaganda by doing and promoting the causes, such as global warming.
This standard is an attempt to reshape the social order by getting to the
minds of the most impressionable persons before they can properly evaluate
the material. The Nazis placed a strong emphasis on brainwashing the kids
this way. In Nazi Germany, the kids had to march after school for several
years before they even knew who the enemy was they were going to fight. It
is becoming more and more fashionable to brainwash school kids throughout
the western world in the same way the Nazis did. The parallel with Nazism
cannot be overstated. Global warming fraud is being forced down everyone's
throats through force and violence, while the price is a destroyed economy
and energy infrastructure. It's a covert war against the lower classes,
which is were the primary price is always paid for social destructivity.
jerrybery1
doesn't make it true and Gordo need to look further into it's brain as why
Gordo feel the need to buy that propaganda. What it says is Gordo is not to
bright and said.
>The science of AGW is settled among the scientists. Every stable
>country in the world signed on to reduce burning of fossil fuels at
>Cancun. This on the advice of their own gov't scientists. I am not an
>authority on AGW but there are scientists who are and you are not one
>of them.
Professor: Big Money Behind Global Warming Propaganda
A retired physics professor became the latest public figure to debunk the
myth of a "consensus" behind man-made global warming when he slammed big
money interests for pushing climate change propaganda that was at odds with
real science in a speech yesterday.
Howard C. Hayden, emeritus professor of physics from the University of
Connecticut, told a Pueblo West audience that he was prompted to speak out
after a visit to New York where he learned that scaremongering billboards
about the long-term effects of global warming were being purchased at a cost
of $700,000 a month.
"Someone is willing to spend a huge amount of money to scare us about global
warming," Hayden said. "Big money is behind the global-warming propaganda."
Hayden pointed out that global warming is taking place throughout the solar
system, underscoring the fact that natural causes and not human beings are
driving climate change, which has occurred throughout history.
"Yes, the polar ice caps are shrinking . . . on Mars," he said, "On Mars,
the ice caps are melting and small hills are disappearing," adding that
warming trends were also being observed on Jupiter, Saturn and Triton.
Citing the fact that human activity is responsible for just 3 per cent of
carbon-dioxide emissions on earth, Hayden said that carbon levels in the
atmosphere have been rising and falling for 400,000 years.
"We are at the lowest levels in the last 300,000 years," he said. "During
the Jurassic period, we had very high levels of carbon dioxide."
"About 97 percent of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere comes from natural
sources, not humans," Hayden concluded, adding that global warming is being
pushed not by grass roots advocacy groups, but by giant corporations who
stand to gain from selling concepts such as carbon tracking and carbon
trading.
As we reported last year, During the secretive Trilateral Commission group
meeting in March 2007, elitists gathered to formulate policy on how best
they could exploit global warming fearmongering to ratchet up taxes and
control over how westerners live their lives.
At the confab, European Chairman of the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberger
and chairman of British Petroleum Peter Sutherland, gave a speech to his
cohorts in which he issued a "Universal battle cry arose for the world to
address “global warming” with a single voice."
Echoing this sentiment was General Lord Guthrie, director of N.M. Rothschild
& Sons, member of the House of Lords and former chief of the Defense Staff
in London, who urged the Trilateral power-brokers to "Address the global
climate crisis with a single voice, and impose rules that apply worldwide."
A common charge leveled against those who question the official orthodoxy of
the global warming religion is that they are acting as stooges for the
western establishment and big business interests. If this is the case, then
why do the high priests of the elite and kingpin oil men continue to fan the
flames of global warming hysteria?
In his excellent article, Global warming hysteria serves as excuse for world
government, Daniel Taylor outlines how the exploitation of the natural
phenomenon of "global warming" was a pet project of the Club of Rome and the
CFR.
"In a report titled "The First Global Revolution" (1991) published by the
Club of Rome, a globalist think tank, we find the following statement: "In
searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that
pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the
like would fit the bill…. All these dangers are caused by human
intervention… The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."
"Richard Haass, the current president of the Council on Foreign Relations,
stated in his article "State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era,"
that a system of world government must be created and sovereignty eliminated
in order to fight global warming, as well as terrorism. "Moreover, states
must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the
international system is to function," says Haass. "Globalization thus
implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it
needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order
to protect themselves…"
The fact that global warming hysteria is being pushed by governments that
have been caught lying to the public on a regular basis, along with elitists
whose stated goal is to push fearmongering as a means of increasing taxation
and control over our lives, emphasizes the reality that, allied to the its
phony scientific foundation, global warming is just the latest hobby-horse
on which control freaks have piggy-backed their agenda to dominate and rule.
jerrybery1
into buying propaganda for greens with emotional fraud and said
>The science of AGW is settled among the scientists. Every stable
>country in the world signed on to reduce burning of fossil fuels at
>Cancun. This on the advice of their own gov't scientists. I am not an
>authority on AGW but there are scientists who are and you are not one
>of them.
James Corbett
The Corbett Report
November 5, 2009
As “reported” by the London Telegraph yesterday, scantily clad Miss Earth
contestants are the latest cultural vehicles for delivering the seemingly
omnipresent propaganda of the manmade climate change alarmists. In addition
to signs with innocuous (if brusquely worded) rejoinders to “Repair all
leaks promptly” and “Plants trees that are indigenous to your community”,
the contestants were also paraded in front of photographers with placards
warning of the dangers of carbon emissions and urging “adaptation and
mitigation” of climate change “NOW!” According to the Telegraph, this year’s
Miss Earth competition has adopted the theme “Beauties for a cause” and
encourages contestants to help raise awareness of environmental issues.
Photo of girls in their skiff's
http://www.infowars.com/images/climatebikini.jpg
The timing of such a photo op must make this propaganda especially welcome
to the proponents of the manmade global warming hoax. Momentum to achieve a
treaty to replace the Kyoto Accord at next month’s UNFCCC meeting in
Copenhagen has apparently begun to wane. Two days ago it was revealed how Al
Gore is poised to become the world’s first carbon billionaire and just
yesterday it was reported that he now acknowledges that carbon dioxide is
not responsible for the majority of global warming. The last few months has
seen more and more acknowledgement of the fact that the earth has in fact
been cooling for the past 11 years.
As viewers of The Corbett Report’s recent interview with Lord Monckton of
Brenchley know, the coming Copenhagen treaty is in fact an attempt to
establish a world government on the back of the climate change scare…a
problem that isn’t even real.
But now along come a bevy of buxom beauties to not-so-subtly remind everyone
that carbon dioxide is in fact the greatest scourge facing the earth and all
the banksters and cap-and-trade hucksters can rest easy knowing that their
scheme to set up the swindle of the century is still on track.
[efoods]This shameless lowest-common-denominator climate propaganda is by no
means the only instance of pop culture being used to indoctrinate the public
on the pseudo-science of manmade global warming. Sports have been used as a
way to sell a phony message to an unsuspecting public as well, with the NFL,
the NHL and FIFA all helping to miseducate the public on the “necessity” of
paying billions of dollars in carbon indulgences to the bankers and
well-connected businessmen who engineered the current economic meltdown…and
every other market manipulation since the Great Depression. Rock stars,
movie stars and documentary filmmakers have all gotten into the carbon
indulgence act.
What this trend indicates is a much broader and more disturbing phenomenon
than any isolated incidence of propaganda. As The Corbett Report recently
demonstrated, the psychic assault that we are subjected to every day in all
the various corporate controlled media outlets amounts to nothing less than
the weaponization of culture. Culture becomes an instrument through which
the ruling oligarchs can attack the public’s common sense and perpetuate
their system of lies and control. For more information on this fascinating
topic, download Episode 105 of The Corbett Report podcast here or listen in
the player below: As researchers on this subject have pointed out,
infowarriors must continue to spread the truth on issues like the fake
manmade global warming scare by presenting the facts in a coherent,
effective manner. This helps to counteract the propaganda and reverse the
tide of the information war whereby this weaponized culture continues to
claim the minds of well-meaning but easily-swayed individuals. Only by
educating the public can we hope to create a valid cultural movement of
truth and liberty empowered by knowledge. Interested volunteers can start by
educating Miss El Salvador on the proper spelling of the word “clean.”
Erik�
No it isn't. Theories aren't 'settled science'. Only among numbskulls
who believe in a theory as a religion.
Chom Noamsky
You mean it's useless to argue with someone who applies a healthy dose
of scientific skepticism before jumping on bandwagons.
> http://cdiac.ornl.gov/faq.html
>
> This is the center of the U.S. Department of Energy .
> They are not left wing greenies whatever the hell that is.
Like most zealous religious greenies you are incapable of making a
distinction between natural cyclical climate change causes and
anthropogenic causes. I ask the question: Are the changes being
observed due to carbon emissions from human activity? There is not a
single honest scientist on the planet who will answer, yes, the changes
we are observing are due to carbon emissions from human activity. The
contributing factors in climate change are both natural AND
anthropogenic, and that is something honest scientists will universally
agree on. We can only be liable for the anthropogenic factors, but if
climate change is ultimately going to happen anyway -- just a bit faster
because of human activity -- then working ourselves up into a hysterical
green tizzy is only going to waste huge amounts of effort combatting the
inevitable. Effort and resources should be focused on preparing for a
future of change, rather than trying to halt change. The fossil record
shows the earth was much hotter, moister and tropical during past
climate warming cycles, and there was an unparalleled abundance of life
during these periods. Stress to life caused by environmental change is
the driver of evolution and the advancement of the human species, and
that's also something honest scientists will tell you.
>> BTW, what are your scientific credentials, gordo, watching David Suzuki
>> pop science on TV?
>
> I have no quatlifications in climatology. I do depend on the experts
> in the field.
You mean selectively depend on experts who share a green left political
opinion.
> For answers to your specific question I would direct you to
> http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics
You pointed me to a political advocacy website that has one goal:
misrepresenting the skeptics. Does it make you wonder why the backers
of that website need to so vehemently attack genuine healthy skepticism?
It's not just for the sake of proving they are right and the skeptics
wrong, but to squash any and all dissent like a bug. It's reminiscent
of early scientists being squashed by the church for going against the
established orthodoxy. The established religious orthodoxy has become
eco greenie enviro Gaia worship, and the dissenters are being dealt with
just like Galileo and Copernicus were. If you can't defeat the skeptics
then call them deniers and ridicule them; if the denier label doesn't
stick then baffle 'em with eco bullshit (did you know that Amazon
rainforests are the lungs of the earth?); if bullshit doesn't work then
appeal to emotion. Rationalism is going out the window for the sake of
special interest political agendas, and a lot more people are beginning
to see through the bullshit you guys are pushing.
Chom Noamsky
> The science of AGW is settled among the scientists. Every stable
> country in the world signed on to reduce burning of fossil fuels at
> Cancun. This on the advice of their own gov't scientists. I am not an
> authority on AGW but there are scientists who are and you are not one
> of them.
Argument from authority is a classic fallacy, i.e., statement is correct
because statement came from a person or body deemed authoritative. Just
because the Pope is the authoritative head of the Catholic Church, does
that mean everything he says is factual truth?
You are quickly approaching Karen Gordon's clown status...
Chom Noamsky
That's been Karen's modus operandi for the decade I've been following
can.politics.... she never checks facts, just makes shit up on the fly
and tells lies as casually and naturally as Pinocchio. Not a snowball's
chance in hell of the blue fairy ever turning her into a real boy....
gordo
wrote:
>>>> You mean for winning the order of Canada? The order of BC? UNESCO�s
I pointed you to a site where you can find answers to the most common
questions. It includes sources so that anyone can follow to the
source. I thought you might find it useful.
>misrepresenting the skeptics. Does it make you wonder why the backers
>of that website need to so vehemently attack genuine healthy skepticism?
> It's not just for the sake of proving they are right and the skeptics
>wrong, but to squash any and all dissent like a bug. It's reminiscent
>of early scientists being squashed by the church for going against the
>established orthodoxy. The established religious orthodoxy has become
>eco greenie enviro Gaia worship, and the dissenters are being dealt with
>just like Galileo and Copernicus were. If you can't defeat the skeptics
>then call them deniers and ridicule them; if the denier label doesn't
>stick then baffle 'em with eco bullshit (did you know that Amazon
>rainforests are the lungs of the earth?); if bullshit doesn't work then
>appeal to emotion. Rationalism is going out the window for the sake of
>special interest political agendas, and a lot more people are beginning
>to see through the bullshit you guys are pushing.
Stanford University has a good lecture on the cost of doing nothing.
gordo
We are talking about 95% confidence that CO2 is the cause of global
warming.
http://timeforchange.org/co2-concentration-causing-temperature-increase
gordo
wrote:
>On 6/29/2011 10:22 AM, gordo wrote:
No I am saying that scientists from NASA,NOAA and universities around
the globe are more to be believed than someone on the internet who
calls other people clowns.
jerrybery1
>We are talking about 95% confidence that CO2 is the cause of global
>warming.
bhahahahahahha, Gordo you are not right in the head...I hope you can be
deprogrammed soon...your cult is getting the better of you again.
jerrybery1
>No I am saying that scientists from NASA,NOAA and universities around
>the globe are more to be believed than someone on the internet who
>calls other people clowns.
Clown!!!!!!!
Chom Noamsky
> I pointed you to a site where you can find answers to the most common
> questions. It includes sources so that anyone can follow to the
> source. I thought you might find it useful.
It's a website designed to attack skepticism, not skeptics. Once you
discredit the role of skepticism then you can move on to burning
heretics at the stake.
> Stanford University has a good lecture on the cost of doing nothing.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxouKBGGtRY&feature=related
I absolutely agree that we need to act. That would be prepare for a
future of change, instead of undertaking carbon wars of futility. As
long as there are humans there will be human activity, and with the very
best of efforts we can just slightly affect carbon emissions. Just one
volcano in Iceland was enough to undo ALL the carbon reduction gains
made over the last five years.
You see, there are well over six billion carbon producing human units on
planet earth. Any carbon produced by people adds to the natural levels,
and is therefor a surplus driven by humanity. The ideological
progression is that the mere existence of humans on earth is the
problem. The next logical step is the development of anti-people
ideology. The politically correct version of GW dictates that gordo is
only ever permitted to say "global warming is bad for humanity." The
reality and truth is "humanity is bad for global warming". Finally, we
arrive at "kill people and save the earth."
What's your plan for planetary de-population, gordo? If climate change
is really a serious threat to humanity then it will be self-correcting.
Chom Noamsky
Back when scientists and universities were promoting eugenics as the
future salvation of humanity, gordo would have been right there going
yup yup yup, let's clean up the old gene pool... the authorities say
it's the way to go!
Scientists from "NASA, NOAA and universities around the globe" may be
deemed the most credible people on the matter, but that still doesn't
make them correct by virtue of being scientific authorities. It doesn't
mean they are wrong either, just that authority does not invariably
equate to being correct.
Hence, you still fail to understand the fallacy of argument from authority.
SaPeIsMa
news:iug4d1$21f$2...@speranza.aioe.org...
The Problem is that 95% confidence is ONLY by idiots like gordo, for whom
it's a religion.
Chom Noamsky
> We are talking about 95% confidence that CO2 is the cause of global
> warming.
> http://timeforchange.org/co2-concentration-causing-temperature-increase
I can shoot that graph full of holes without even breathing hard. For
starters, it's a very nice projection showing temperature graphed
against CO2 (more on this below). This is a sleight-of-hand graph that
says, "look, we have a correlation, so we have causation." Even rookie
science students are taught that correlation is not causation. It's one
of the most basic analytical errors you can make.
Next, at 1000ppm, a 95% confidence interval produces a window of nearly
4.5 decrees C. That's a window of "if" big enough to drive a Mack truck
through. If we do absolutely nothing, and CO2 goes to the
incomprehensible level of 1000ppm, at 95% the best case is less than 4C
of warming, and the worst case is just over 8C. The idiot who published
the page says, "The black line in the middle of the range is the most
likely relationship". NOT. The black line in the middle means nothing,
a 95% confidence interval means any position in that window is just as
likely an outcome as any other position.
Next, it's a projection based on JUST ONE VARIABLE - GHG concentration,
aka the "CO2 equivalent of". Yes, now were getting into equivalency
bullshit. Did you notice, gordo, that the graph doesn't actually show
CO2 ppm, but CO2 ppm GHG equivalency? Hahahah... no, you did not.
Next, where are the numerous other variables that affect global
temperature? Solar activity, water vapour, albedo, Milankovitch cycles,
axial tilt, etc etc etc.
I could go on, but you'll be dealing with the above for a while...
jerrybery1
>The Problem is that 95% confidence is ONLY by idiots like gordo, for whom
>it's a religion.
It more then just a socialist green religion, it's an outright Satanic Green
Cult, where the Gordo's of the world like population control and sanctifying
green children on the alter, but in Gordo mental state the brainwashing
children is good enough, yes children who are not old enough to know any
better. :-)
The global warming debate has always been a touchy one for both sides and
really for brainwashed Gordo, and when the world’s top global warming
activist is talking about the size of population and how that contributes to
the choices societies make, it might be worth taking note, on how their cult
works.
Gordo's Hero "Al the Frankenstein Gore" said in an appearance in New York
City, as the former Vice President, who is prominently known for his climate
change socialist fraud activism, took on the subject of yes you quest it,
the population size and the role of society in controlling to reduce the
world population, by any mean's.
He offered some ideas about what might be done for females, like Gordo in
the name of stabilizing population growth. And you know what that means hay!
“One of the things we could do about it is to change the technologies, to
put out less of this pollution, to stabilize the population, and one of the
principle ways of doing that is to empower and educate girls and women,” to
not have sex or have them fixed Gore said. “You have to have ubiquitous
availability of fertility management so women can choose how many children
have, which means china is a good example including forced abortions, that
way the spacing of the children in the world will be a benefit to all the
world.
A good example on how to help Gordo the green thumb sucker is this video in
which Gordo might get a real understanding of how Gordo is a true freak of
nature, oh wait... I can't blame Gordo for it's mental problems, due to that
extremist green feminism in the New World Order, it all a plot to brainwash
people like Goredo's of the world to be not able to think for themselves
anymore..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RDMXe_BY9Y&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RDMXe_BY9Y&feature=player_embedded
gordo
wrote:
>On 6/29/2011 1:37 PM, gordo wrote:
>
>> I pointed you to a site where you can find answers to the most common
>> questions. It includes sources so that anyone can follow to the
>> source. I thought you might find it useful.
>
>It's a website designed to attack skepticism, not skeptics. Once you
>discredit the role of skepticism then you can move on to burning
>heretics at the stake.
There is a role for skeptics but there are none left who are
climatologists.
>> Stanford University has a good lecture on the cost of doing nothing.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxouKBGGtRY&feature=related
This video is really worth watching.
>I absolutely agree that we need to act. That would be prepare for a
>future of change, instead of undertaking carbon wars of futility. As
>long as there are humans there will be human activity, and with the very
>best of efforts we can just slightly affect carbon emissions. Just one
>volcano in Iceland was enough to undo ALL the carbon reduction gains
>made over the last five years.
That is not true.
"Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes. "
http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming-intermediate.htm
This site is written by scientists.
>You see, there are well over six billion carbon producing human units on
>planet earth. Any carbon produced by people adds to the natural levels,
>and is therefor a surplus driven by humanity. The ideological
>progression is that the mere existence of humans on earth is the
>problem. The next logical step is the development of anti-people
>ideology. The politically correct version of GW dictates that gordo is
>only ever permitted to say "global warming is bad for humanity." The
>reality and truth is "humanity is bad for global warming". Finally, we
>arrive at "kill people and save the earth."
>What's your plan for planetary de-population, gordo? If climate change
>is really a serious threat to humanity then it will be self-correcting.
. The IPCC and all the countries of the world are working towards
mitigation solutions and reduction of burning of fossil fuels.
It finally rests with the governments of the world to agree on
solutions. There is no disagreement that reducing fossil fuels is
necessary.
Erik�
No one is talking about that except for you and your fellow camp-
followers. Not scientists. Science recognizes that there likely are
multiple reasons for longer-term changes in the planet's surface and
atmospheric temperature.
Besides, what you posted is another diversion. I was addressing your
claim that AGW science is settled. That's about as true as your claim
that Harper is cutting Environment Canada's budget by 50%.
gordo
wrote:
>On 6/29/2011 1:51 PM, gordo wrote:
The graph came from AR4 WGI, Chapter 10.8.. from the IPCC Fourth
Assessment Report, Working Group. I suggest you write a paper
rebutting the graph and submit it to the IPCC and also any scientific
journal for peer review.
It might mean you would have to actually read the IPCC report and
that should keep you going for some time.
jerrybery1
>The IPCC and all the countries of the world are working towards
>mitigation solutions and reduction of burning of fossil fuels.
>It finally rests with the governments of the world to agree on
>solutions. There is no disagreement that reducing fossil fuels is
>necessary.
But here are the real facts to the IPCC and what they really are promoting.
IPCC Scientists Caught Producing False Data To Push Global Warming
Al Gore-linked Goddard Institute claimed “hottest October on record” after
using temperature figures from September
Climate scientists allied with the IPCC have been caught citing fake data to
make the case that global warming is accelerating, a shocking example of
mass public deception that could spell the beginning of the end for the
acceptance of man-made climate change theories.
On Monday, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), run by Al Gore’s
chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, announced that last month was the
hottest October on record.
“This was startling,” reports the London Telegraph. “Across the world there
were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from
the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China’s
official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its “worst snowstorm
ever”. In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for
the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.”
It soon came to light that the data produced by NASA to make the claim, and
in particular temperature records covering large areas of Russia, was merely
carried over from the previous month. NASA had used temperature records from
the naturally hotter month of September and claimed they represented
temperature figures in October.
When NASA was confronted with this glaring error, they then attempted to
compensate for the lower temperatures in Russia by claiming they had
discovered a new “hotspot” in the Arctic, despite satellite imagery clearly
showing that Arctic sea ice had massively expanded its coverage by 30 per
cent, an area the size of Germany, since summer 2007.
The figures published by Dr Hansen’s institute are one of the primary sets
of data used by the IPCC to promote its case for man-made global warming and
they are widely quoted because they consistently show higher temperatures
than other figures.
“Yet last week’s latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen’s
methodology has been called in question,” reports the Telegraph. “In 2007 he
was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for
US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century
was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.”
Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC and a close ally of Hansen, also
raised eyebrows recently during a presentation in Australia, during which he
claimed that global temperatures have recently been rising “very much
faster” than ever as he cited a graph showing purported temperature
increases over the last decade. In fact, as even the vast majority of
man-made global warming advocates will concede, temperatures since 1998 have
moved sideways and over the last 18 months they have clearly begun a
downward trend.
Whether such “mistakes” are made in genuine error or are part of a
politicized push for man-made global warming to be universally accepted, and
the evidence clearly suggests that latter is the case, the fact is that we
can no longer tolerate the cry that “the debate is over” on man-made global
warming in light of such gargantuan falsehoods.
Likewise, the push for carbon emissions to be reduced by 80 per cent or
more, a figure that would completely cripple western economies and lower
living standards to a near third world level, can no longer be accepted as a
reasonable course of action now that the primary authority on man-made
global warming, the UN IPCC, has been proven to be using fraudulent data to
make its case.
Foisted upon the public by means of giant multi-million dollar PR campaigns
and brainwashing mandates that have worked themselves into every sector of
society, including education, movies, television the arts and culture, all
the attention and funding is being lavished upon a manufactured hoax,
peddled with the aid of phony data, as governments prepare to suck what’s
left out of the middle class and poor with carbon taxes that do nothing to
help the environment, while all the real environmental problems are left in
the shadows.
jerrybery1
>The IPCC and all the countries of the world are working towards
>mitigation solutions and reduction of burning of fossil fuels.
>It finally rests with the governments of the world to agree on
>solutions. There is no disagreement that reducing fossil fuels is
>necessary.
A blunder of staggering proportions by the IPCC
Steve McIntyre has uncovered a blunder on the part of Pachauri and the IPCC
that is causing waves of doubt and calls for retooling on both sides of the
debate. In a nutshell, the IPCC made yet another inflated claim that:
…80 percent of the world‘s energy supply could be met by renewables by
mid-century…
Unfortunately, it has been revealed that this claim is similar to the
Himalayan glacier melt by 2035 fiasco, with nothing independent to back it
up. Worse, it isn’t the opinion of the IPCCper se, but rather that of
Greenpeace. It gets worse.
Steve McIntyre discovered the issue and writes this conclusion:
It is totally unacceptable that IPCC should have had a Greenpeace employee
as a Lead Author of the critical Chapter 10, that the Greenpeace employee,
as an IPCC Lead Author, should (like Michael Mann and Keith Briffa in
comparable situations) have been responsible for assessing his own work and
that, with such inadequate and non-independent ‘due diligence’, IPCC should
have featured the Greenpeace scenario in its press release on renewables.
Everyone in IPCC WG3 should be terminated and, if the institution is to
continue, it should be re-structured from scratch.
Those are strong words from Steve. Read his entire report here.
http://climateaudit.org/2011/06/14/ipcc-wg3-and-the-greenpeace-karaoke/
Elsewhere, the other side of the debate is getting ticked off about this
breach of ethics and protocol too. Mark Lynas , author of a popular pro-AGW
book, Six Degrees, has written some strong words also: (h/t to Bishop Hill)
New IPCC error: renewables report conclusion was dictated by Greenpeace
Here’s what happened. The 80% by 2050 figure was based on a scenario, so
Chapter 10 of the full report reveals, called ER-2010, which does indeed
project renewables supplying 77% of the globe’s primary energy by 2050. The
lead author of the ER-2010 scenario, however, is a Sven Teske, who should
have been identified (but is not) as a climate and energy campaigner for
Greenpeace International. Even worse, Teske is a lead author of the IPCC
report also – in effect meaning that this campaigner for Greenpeace was not
only embedded in the IPCC itself, but was in effect allowed to review and
promote his own campaigning work under the cover of the authoritative and
trustworthy IPCC. A more scandalous conflict of interest can scarcely be
imagined.
…
The IPCC must urgently review its policies for hiring lead authors – and I
would have thought that not only should biased ‘grey literature’ be
rejected, but campaigners from NGOs should not be allowed to join the lead
author group and thereby review their own work. There is even a commercial
conflict of interest here given that the renewables industry stands to be
the main beneficiary of any change in government policies based on the IPCC
report’s conclusions. Had it been an oil industry intervention which led the
IPCC to a particular conclusion, Greenpeace et al would have course have
been screaming blue murder.
And, Bishop Hill reports other rumblings in AGW land with a consensus that
the IPCC is “dumb”.
What a mess. The IPCC and Pachauri may as well give it up. After a series of
blunders,insults of “voodoo science” to people asking honest, germane,
questions, Africagate, and now this, they have no place to go, they’ve hit
rock bottom.
The credibility of the IPCC organization is shredded. Show these bozos the
door.
jerrybery1
>The IPCC and all the countries of the world are working towards
>mitigation solutions and reduction of burning of fossil fuels.
>It finally rests with the governments of the world to agree on
>solutions. There is no disagreement that reducing fossil fuels is
>necessary.
The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider
Lawrence Solomon
National Post
June 14, 2010
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and
public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on
manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate
scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that
claim was “only a few dozen experts,” he states in a paper for Progress in
Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.
“Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a
consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the
climate’ are disingenuous,” the paper states unambiguously, adding that they
rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.”
Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences
at the University of East Anglia – the university of Climategate fame — is
the founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and
one of the UK’s most prominent climate scientists. Among his many roles in
the climate change establishment, Hulme was the IPCC’s co-ordinating Lead
Author for its chapter on ‘Climate scenario development’ for its Third
Assessment Report and a contributing author of several other chapters.
Read entire article
jerrybery1
The IPCC and all the countries of the world are working towards
mitigation solutions and reduction of burning of fossil fuels.
It finally rests with the governments of the world to agree on
solutions. There is no disagreement that reducing fossil fuels is
necessary.
Scientific Siege Against UN-IPCC Farce Revealed
September 25, 2009
What I find frightening is the fact that most of the people will buy into
Human Caused Climate Change just because power speaks it… even though the
data and factual analysis show it to be untrue.
In 1998 a group of concerned scientists began a concerted effort to counter
this trend, and to stop the false UN-IPCC push to tax the people of the
world and blame climate change on humanity. This HUGE effort has gone
totally unreported by the mainstream media. It is the Global Warming
Petition Project.
This effort is NOT a political effort, it is PURELY SCIENTIFIC in it’s
thrust! All signers must be scientists with at least a Bachelor of Science
degree from an accredited school… there are over 31,478 signatories so far.
As we speak, 9029 with Phds are among them… and over 12,000 work directly in
climate related fields. (Since I first posted this, the number of scientists
have increased and still the GWPP is hidden by the media.)
Here is a direct link to the thinking and analysis on CO2 I did in a 2007
article.
The climate has always cycled over time. We are now in a cyclic warming
trend and the data shows its long cycle predictability. With
interdisciplinary communication, science has opened much of the climate
change complexity to the light of reason and out of the realm of fear. Fear
is what the UN-IPCC, the politicians, and their minions have chosen to foist
on us, a snake god operation in the name of anthropogenic climate change.
The IPCC has been unmasked as the political organization it is, with it’s
money making, world carbon tax, agenda/scam.
The proponants of human caused climate change rattle on about polar bears
being destroyed by humanities evil CO2, which is BS. They also go on about
island nations like Tuvalu being flooded by “humanity’s evil.” The data
shows that the sea level world wide was about 12 inches higher during the
Medieval Climate Optimum from about 750AD to 1200AD. During that time the
average ocean temperature reached 24.2 degrees C. Then the Earth plummeted
into the Little Ice Age which at it’s coldest dropped the ocean temperatures
to 21.8 degrees C in about 1750AD. This is when the Thames, the Delaware,
and Hudson rivers used to freeze solid every winter. We are now at 22.8
degrees C, which is below the 3,000 year average of just a tad under 23
degrees C. We are still coming out of the Little Ice age today! 1000 years
ago the Island Tuvalu was almost under water, and will be again, but not
because of human causes!
“Figure 1: Surface temperatures in the Sargasso Sea, a 2 million square mile
region of the Atlantic Ocean, with time resolution of 50 to 100 years and
ending in 1975, as determined by isotope ratios of marine organism remains
in sediment at the bottom of the sea (3). The horizontal line is the average
temperature for this 3,000-year period. The Little Ice Age and Medieval
Climate Optimum were naturally occurring, extended intervals of climate
departures from the mean. A value of 0.25 °C, which is the change in
Sargasso Sea temperature between 1975 and 2006, has been added to the 1975
data in order to provide a 2006 temperature value.
The average temperature of the Earth has varied within a range of about 3°C
during the past 3,000 years. It is currently increasing as the Earth
recovers from a period that is known as the Little Ice Age, as shown in
Figure 1. George Washington and his army were at Valley Forge during the
coldest era in 1,500 years, but even then the temperature was only about 1°
Centigrade below the 3,000-year average.
Figure 2: Average length of 169 glaciers from 1700 to 2000 (4). The
principal source of melt energy is solar radiation. Variations in glacier
mass and length are primarily due to temperature and precipitation (5,6).
This melting trend lags the temperature increase by about 20 years, so it
predates the 6-fold increase in hydrocarbon use (7) even more than shown in
the figure. Hydrocarbon use could not have caused this shortening trend.
The most recent part of this warming period is reflected by shortening of
world glaciers, as shown in Figure 2. Glaciers regularly lengthen and
shorten in delayed correlation with cooling and warming trends. Shortening
lags temperature by about 20 years, so the current warming trend began in
about 1800.
Figure 3: Arctic surface air temperature compared with total solar
irradiance as measured by sunspot cycle amplitude, sunspot cycle length,
solar equatorial rotation rate, fraction of penumbral spots, and decay rate
of the 11-year sunspot cycle (8,9). Solar irradiance correlates well with
Arctic temperature, while hydrocarbon use (7) does not correlate.
Atmospheric temperature is regulated by the sun, which fluctuates in
activity as shown in Figure 3; by the greenhouse effect, largely caused by
atmospheric water vapor (H2O); and by other phenomena that are more poorly
understood. While major greenhouse gas H2O substantially warms the Earth,
minor greenhouse gases such as CO2 have little effect, as shown in Figures 2
and 3. The 6-fold increase in hydrocarbon use since 1940 has had no
noticeable effect on atmospheric temperature or on the trend in glacier
length.
[efoods] While Figure 1 is illustrative of most geographical locations,
there is great variability of temperature records with location and regional
climate. Comprehensive surveys of published temperature records confirm the
principal features of Figure 1, including the fact that the current Earth
temperature is approximately 1 °C lower than that during the Medieval
Climate Optimum 1,000 years ago (11,12).”
http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/Review_Article_HTML.php
We have real environmental problems that this “thing”, this human caused
climate change “thing” is obfuscating, leading us away from things that need
to be addressed. The environmental movement has been hijacked/kidnapped by
the UN-IPCC and it’s Pied Piper, Algore. The fact that virtually all of our
leaders, on all sides have come out in support of this LIE, betrays them and
their allegiance to the NWO, the ruling elite, and their disregard for the
climate and disdain for the Constitution.
They spew the words placed in their mouths by their global carbon taxation
masters. There isn’t a dimes worth of difference between John McPuppet,
Barack O’Puppet, or AlGore Puppet they all regurgitate the same global
feudalistic talking points. Thus any discussion of their opinions has no
validity in a discussion of facts and actualities, which like truth holds
sway over OPINION even the OPINION of power busying itself selling climate
change snake oil in a package of fear.
Here is the summery of the 12 page letter that is circulated with the Global
Warming Petition Project petition.
http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php
For those who wish to peruse the actual letter, here is a link
http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/Review_Article_HTML.php
merlin!
>
>> Look, we know you are a true believer, just like any other religious
>> kook. So give us a break, and accept the fact that there are a lot
>> of people who are not going to bow down to your priesthood.
>
> country in the world signed on to reduce burning of fossil fuels at
> Cancun. This on the advice of their own gov't scientists. I am not an
> authority on AGW but there are scientists who are and you are not one
> of them.
I am something of an authority on phoney-baloney government research,
though.
here is a question for you:
You appear to understand that the scientists who are funded by the oil (or
whatever) industry might be biased. In other words, it is expected that
thos scientists might interpret their research slightly differently, due
to their funding source.
Did you ever stop and ask yourself if the same might be true of
government-funded scientists? Their research might also be interpeted in a
way that benefits government (carbon taxes, regulations, more grants,
etc.)
That was certainly true of the government scientists I had the displeasure
of dealing with. The entire putrid mess of lies disguised as 'research'
was designed to justify more funding for themselves and their friends, and
also swell government by turning the entire country into a fascists police
state with more bureaucrats and police watching everything we say and do.
Do you ever think about these things, or are you merely a parrot for the
religion?
gordo
wrote:
>On 6/29/2011 1:53 PM, gordo wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 11:28:20 -0700, Chom Noamsky<bea...@stew.tasty>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/29/2011 10:22 AM, gordo wrote:
>>>
>>>> The science of AGW is settled among the scientists. Every stable
>>>> country in the world signed on to reduce burning of fossil fuels at
>>>> Cancun. This on the advice of their own gov't scientists. I am not an
>>>> authority on AGW but there are scientists who are and you are not one
>>>> of them.
>>>
>>> Argument from authority is a classic fallacy, i.e., statement is correct
>>> because statement came from a person or body deemed authoritative. Just
>>> because the Pope is the authoritative head of the Catholic Church, does
>>> that mean everything he says is factual truth?
>>>
>>> You are quickly approaching Karen Gordon's clown status...
>>
>> No I am saying that scientists from NASA,NOAA and universities around
>> the globe are more to be believed than someone on the internet who
>> calls other people clowns.
>
>Back when scientists and universities were promoting eugenics as the
>future salvation of humanity, gordo would have been right there going
>yup yup yup, let's clean up the old gene pool... the authorities say
>it's the way to go!
That is a sick and uncalled for remark.
>Scientists from "NASA, NOAA and universities around the globe" may be
>deemed the most credible people on the matter, but that still doesn't
>make them correct by virtue of being scientific authorities. It doesn't
>mean they are wrong either, just that authority does not invariably
>equate to being correct.
>
>Hence, you still fail to understand the fallacy of argument from authority.
The scientific authority of NASA put a man on the moon. The scientists
at NOAA predict hurricanes and allow people to take shelter. I would
take their authority about the science of AGW over your silly
statement about the fallacy of argument. The scientific disciplines
involved in the IPCC report is vast with thousands of scientific peer
reviewed papers. No one person can handle even a portion of the mix of
sciences involved, Consensus of the working groups must be had before
the report is published. About 130 countries along with their gov'ts
and scientists are involved in the IPCC reports. Read the bloody
reports that is where you find the science.
NoMoreCons
[snip]
According to report co-author Marlon Lewis, "Climate-driven phytoplankton declines are another
important dimension of global change in the oceans, which are already stressed by the effects
of fishing and pollution." The report, published in the July 29 edition of Nature, states that
phytoplankton have declined by about 40 per cent since 1950.
Meanwhile, arguments from deniers keep getting knocked down, to the point where one must
conclude that there really are only two types of denier: those who are paid by industry to
spread misinformation in attempts to confuse the public, which is criminal, and those who are
unable to see the evidence staring them in the face and who still cling to arguments that one
minute with Google would dispel, which is pathetic and stupid.
- David Suzuki
Chom Noamsky
Are you really that dense? The point is not about absolute totals, it's
about one volcano pumping out more carbon than the amount reduced by
five years of collective anti-carbon hysterics. If we reduce carbon
emissions by X MT, and one surprise volcanic event pumps out X MT, then
the net reduction is zero. Programmed greenies say, "Humans emit 100
times more CO2 than volcanoes". Irrelevant. What's relevant is the net
impact to GHG levels. One fit from mother nature and all the
carbon-scrimping for five years gets erased.
>> You see, there are well over six billion carbon producing human units on
>> planet earth. Any carbon produced by people adds to the natural levels,
>> and is therefor a surplus driven by humanity. The ideological
>> progression is that the mere existence of humans on earth is the
>> problem. The next logical step is the development of anti-people
>> ideology. The politically correct version of GW dictates that gordo is
>> only ever permitted to say "global warming is bad for humanity." The
>> reality and truth is "humanity is bad for global warming". Finally, we
>> arrive at "kill people and save the earth."
>
>> What's your plan for planetary de-population, gordo? If climate change
>> is really a serious threat to humanity then it will be self-correcting.
>
> . The IPCC and all the countries of the world are working towards
> mitigation solutions and reduction of burning of fossil fuels.
> It finally rests with the governments of the world to agree on
> solutions. There is no disagreement that reducing fossil fuels is
> necessary.
China and India seem to disagree, in fact they seem to disagree a lot.
These two countries will soon be the biggest consumers of energy in the
world. What do you think Afghanistan and control over Central Asia is
all about? They are not about to convert to greenie anti-development,
anti-carbon philosophy any time soon.
Erik�
I couldn't agree with you more. It's a long story, but I'll mention the
issue of the Banff Park Snail (once again). This story is worthy of a
properly sourced article (one day I'll get around to it) because I
believe it shows clearly how 'science' is tailored to meet government
objectives, by government-funded scientists.
This snail is found only in the sulfur-rich water running from Sulphur
Mountain in Banff National Park.
There have been three main problem areas:
The Upper Hot Spring, which is currently operated by Parks Canada as a
commercial hot pool; chlorinated, and augmented by boiler-heated piped-
in water when the springs dry up in the late winter.
The Cave and Basin springs, which were also a gov't run commercial
operation, which was closed due to dilapidated conditions of the
facilities and lack of funds to keep them up.
The Middle Spring: a crack in the side of the mountain leads to an
underground grotto pool which for decades was completely unregulated;
and for many years people who knew the trail to get in there visited it
for all kinds of nefarious activities.
Back in the 1990's Parks Canada threatened to close off the Middle
Spring - claiming that there was broken glass being left there.
Eventually, being Parks Canada, they took the 'scientific approach' by
designating that side of the base of Sulphur Mountain as a 'wildlife
corridor' - off limits to humans. This was around the time 'Middle
Springs 2', a large housing development, was being constructed a stone's
throw from the new corridor.
Curiously enough, around the same time they also designated the north
arm of the Lake Minnewanka loop access road just outside of Banff, as a
winter wildlife corridor. What was even more curious about that
designation was that although the road was closed, part of the mapped
corridor away from the paved road was and is still being used as a
track-set nordic ski trail in winter, traversed by Parks snowmobiles and
tracksetting equipment regularly. This includes the only geographical
'pinch point' on the entire corridor - where it passes through a narrow
gulch. A number of years ago a young woman was attacked and killed by a
cougar while skiing that wildlife corridor in that general area.
So it may not be too much of a stretch to suggest that that particular
'wildlife corridor' was designated as such so that Parks Canada wouldn't
have to spend the money to plow the road in the winter.
But back to the snails. The snails weren't a new discovery; they'd been
known about since the 1920's at least. But then Parks Canada hired on
Dr. Dwayne Lepitzky. Dr. Lepitzki has done for the Banff Park Snail
what others have done for the 'Spirit Bear'.
One of Dr. Leptzki's initial reports discounted reports that the snail's
shells had been found at the Upper Hot Spring in the late 1920's (he
didn't say why) and that besides, Parks Canada's large commercial
operation there, and the chlorination of the water, would pretty much
prohibit reintroduction. So much for science, or snails for that
matter.
Mr. Lepitzky has since then served (in public anyway) largely as an
undertaker and coroner for snails. See, some times young people like to
climb the fence and go for a swim at the old Cave and Basin pools, or at
the Middle Spring. With the motion sensor cameras they have installed
around both those areas now, this is not a good idea. And of course Dr.
Lepitzki is always on hand afterwards to estimate the 'catastrophic'
mortality among the snails who have passed on. It's quite amazing that
in the past, before Dr. Lepitzki and the various prohibitions, dozens,
or hundreds, or even thousands of people visited those pools daily.
Since people bathing in the pools are rarely a problem anymore - guess
what - time to blame global warming. Now, the fact that Sulphur
Mountain's hot springs tend to dry up for a few months every year has
been known for a long time, but Dr. Lepitzki has a theory: that global
warming is to blame for recent variations outside of what he considers
the norm. He's not a climatologist, or a geologist, but by gawd he's a
scientist, so what he says makes the papers.
When it was discovered that Dr. Leptzki's wife Brenda was having her
funding cut back by the gov't the screams became even louder - the
scientific community was drowning out the cries for help from the local
endangered species in order to protect one of their own.
Almost finally: about that 'other wildlife corridor' again. It actually
extends down to the old Banff airstrip, which was decommissioned, and
pilots have actually been charged with landing there illegally. Yet
they keep it mowed, they keep the windsock, and those same three private
aircraft sit in hangars off in the woods past the west end of the strip.
I wonder who owns them.
Meanwhile, life goes on - Parks contracted helicopters continue to annoy
the hell out of wildlife by buzzing the place constantly in summer
months, and the same wealthy out of town owners of vacation homes
continue to enjoy them in utter violation of the National Parks Act,
while the local authorities look the other way.
Government science in a nutshell. errmmm... snailshell.
merlin!
He who pays the piper, calls the tune.
gordo
wrote:
I was courteous enough to send you a scientific site with graphs and
explanations so could you return the favour and show me a scientific
site that shows your point to be valid. I will look at it.
>>> You see, there are well over six billion carbon producing human units on
>>> planet earth. Any carbon produced by people adds to the natural levels,
>>> and is therefor a surplus driven by humanity. The ideological
>>> progression is that the mere existence of humans on earth is the
>>> problem. The next logical step is the development of anti-people
>>> ideology. The politically correct version of GW dictates that gordo is
>>> only ever permitted to say "global warming is bad for humanity." The
>>> reality and truth is "humanity is bad for global warming". Finally, we
>>> arrive at "kill people and save the earth."
>>
>>> What's your plan for planetary de-population, gordo? If climate change
>>> is really a serious threat to humanity then it will be self-correcting.
>>
>> . The IPCC and all the countries of the world are working towards
>> mitigation solutions and reduction of burning of fossil fuels.
>> It finally rests with the governments of the world to agree on
>> solutions. There is no disagreement that reducing fossil fuels is
>> necessary.
>
>China and India seem to disagree, in fact they seem to disagree a lot.
>These two countries will soon be the biggest consumers of energy in the
>world. What do you think Afghanistan and control over Central Asia is
>all about? They are not about to convert to greenie anti-development,
>anti-carbon philosophy any time soon.
I also sent you a video from Sanford University that goes into quite a
bit of detail about China. You never watched it but I recommend it. It
is longer than a sound byte but worth the effort.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxouKBGGtRY&feature=related
gordo
>gordo wrote...
>>
>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 10:59:58 -0700, Erik� <er...@loosends.org> wrote:
>>
>> >gordo wrote...
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 22:58:51 -0700, "merlin!" <nos...@thanksalot.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >Look, we know you are a true believer, just like any other religious
>> >kook.
>> >> >So give us a break, and accept the fact that there are a lot of people who
>> >> >are not going to bow down to your priesthood.
>> >
>> >> The science of AGW is settled among the scientists.
>> >
>> >No it isn't. Theories aren't 'settled science'. Only among numbskulls
>> >who believe in a theory as a religion.
>
>> We are talking about 95% confidence that CO2 is the cause of global
>> warming.
>> http://timeforchange.org/co2-concentration-causing-temperature-increase
>
>No one is talking about that except for you and your fellow camp-
>followers. Not scientists. Science recognizes that there likely are
>multiple reasons for longer-term changes in the planet's surface and
>atmospheric temperature.
I have no camp followers. I refer to the top scientist not in just the
US but the world. Now please provide one recent peer reviewed
climatologist paper disputing GG and specifically CO2 as the prime GG
in GW.
>Besides, what you posted is another diversion. I was addressing your
>claim that AGW science is settled. That's about as true as your claim
>that Harper is cutting Environment Canada's budget by 50%.
I provided the cites for Harpers cuts. Merlin provided no evidence.
He is bitter. I have no interest in his trial now that I have read
about it.
We are now talking about the science being settled. I also provided
cites so it is your turn . Where is a recent cite showing a peer
reviewed study in a science journal disputing CO2 from burning fossil
fuels as not being the cause of Global warming. My evidence is in the
thousands of papers provided by studies done and submitted to the
IPCC. Now lets see your one paper.
gordo
wrote:
I resent your refference to science as being a religion. There is the
Cornwall Alliance who made this charge even though they are a
religious cult themselves and are funded by dirty coal in the US
Then we have Christopher Brooker in the UK who says a similar thing in
his book Scared to Death. Page 331. He also disputes that dioxin is a
hazard as well as asbestos,leaded gas and second hand smoke .
So are you a faithful follower of the Cornwall Alliance or Brooker?
No you are a bitter person who really does not wish to discuss
science. The police state is coming with the building of more jails.
Erik�
>
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 20:15:06 -0700, Chom Noamsky <bea...@stew.tasty>
> >China and India seem to disagree, in fact they seem to disagree a
lot.
> >These two countries will soon be the biggest consumers of energy in the
> >world. What do you think Afghanistan and control over Central Asia is
> >all about? They are not about to convert to greenie anti-development,
> >anti-carbon philosophy any time soon.
> I also sent you a video from Sanford University that goes into quite a
> bit of detail about China. You never watched it but I recommend it. It
> is longer than a sound byte but worth the effort.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxouKBGGtRY&feature=related
Is Sanford University the place where they archive your submission to
the Brundland Commision?
Erik�
> >> We are talking about 95% confidence that CO2 is the cause of global
> >> warming.
> >> http://timeforchange.org/co2-concentration-causing-temperature-increase
> >
> >No one is talking about that except for you and your fellow camp-
> >followers. Not scientists. Science recognizes that there likely are
> >multiple reasons for longer-term changes in the planet's surface and
> >atmospheric temperature.
>
> I have no camp followers.
Diversion. I didn't say you did. I said you are.
> I refer to the top scientist not in just the
> US but the world.
Who is he/she?
> Now please provide one recent peer reviewed
> climatologist paper disputing GG and specifically CO2 as the prime GG
> in GW.
Why? Most people know GG exists (well, GG Allin doesn't exist,
anymore).
I'd be happy to clarify this issue with you except for one little
problem: you've boasted about a submission you made to something you
call the Brundland Commision. I'd like to read it.
Given that we here on usenet have taught you (finally) to leave a space
between sentences when you type something, that your spelling is
atrocious, and that you seem to have no clear idea of what's going on in
the world outside your back yard unless someone tells you, I think your
submission would be a fun read.
> >Besides, what you posted is another diversion. I was addressing your
> >claim that AGW science is settled. That's about as true as your claim
> >that Harper is cutting Environment Canada's budget by 50%.
> I provided the cites for Harpers cuts.
Except you forgot to post anything to back up your 50% lie. Face it -
you lie constantly, gordo.
> Merlin provided no evidence.
> He is bitter. I have no interest in his trial now that I have read
> about it.
Which is why you brought it up here, right?
> We are now talking about the science being settled. I also provided
> cites so it is your turn . Where is a recent cite showing a peer
> reviewed study in a science journal disputing CO2 from burning fossil
> fuels as not being the cause of Global warming. My evidence is in the
> thousands of papers provided by studies done and submitted to the
> IPCC. Now lets see your one paper.
You've decided to (in your masterly way) turn the issue back to the
original claim I challenged you on.
You made the claim that AGW science is settled - now back it up. Surely
the IPCC will have produced a document by now to that effect. And post
a link to your Brundland Commision reportage as well.
merlin!
If they build one nearby for the truly obtuse, I will come and visit you.
Chom Noamsky
Science is never settled, the people claiming this about AGW are
revealing they don't understand scientific method or how the scientific
community works. Gordo actually said it himself, that science can never
be absolutely certain about anything, and he used that to back up the
IPCC's assessment of very high confidence when I said that level of
confidence is still too uncertain. The IPCC defines very high confidence
as being a 9 out of 10 chance of being correct. It's interesting how
gordo has gone from 'science is never certain' to 'the science is
settled' in just two threads.
Now, if the science was really 'settled', there would be unity in the
world on AGW and nobody would be debating it. Obviously, the science is
not settled.
Chom Noamsky
You've gone from 'science is never certain' to 'the science is settled'
and now on to 'the science is so complex that no one person could ever
grasp the enormity of it'. One thing I agree upon with the others here
is that government scientists are fueled by government research money,
and I have 'very high confidence' they will produce reports and analysis
that promote the interests of the people funding the research. Those
interests are carbon tax revenues and more bureaucracy. Science is
science and data is data, but the analysis and prognosis always leave a
lot of room for opinion and politicization. There is also room for just
plain shoddy work and errors, and if you Google "IPCC errors" you'll get
more than a few screens full of hits. In fact, you'll get almost 1.2
million hits:
http://www.google.ca/#q=ipcc+errors&fp=2c36d0d8094798a8
Click it and you'll see just how 'settled' the science is.
Chom Noamsky
I suggest that if you know so much about science then you should be able
to clear up the points I posted above. How interesting it is, that when
somebody actually starts talking about science you run away with your
tail between your legs. You've never had a single hour of
post-secondary science training in your life, have you gordo.
Chom Noamsky
Here's the no-nonsense CO2 facts about China and India:
"But the world as a whole is no closer to real reduction in carbon
dioxide emissions. Since 2007 the rich countries' CO2 emissions have
dropped by 1.1 billion tons. Meanwhile, Chinese emissions have grown by
a whopping 1 billion tons per year to 8 billion tons by the Dutch
calculation -- which, even on a per capita basis, is a higher emissions
rate than France's and not far below Britain's -- while Indian emissions
are up by 210 million tons. So the rich countries' intentional and
unintended efforts have been offset by rising emissions elsewhere, and
world emissions have still risen: from 22.5 billion tons in 1990, to
24.2 billion tons at the Kyoto signature in 1997; then to 31.1 billion
tons in 2007, and even with the crisis, to 31.3 billion tons last year."
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=116&subid=149&contentid=255174
Chom Noamsky
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 22:04:46 -0700, Chom Noamsky<bea...@stew.tasty>
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/28/2011 9:16 PM, gordo wrote:
>>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 15:50:38 -0700, Chom Noamsky<bea...@stew.tasty>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/28/2011 3:38 PM, gordo wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:32:42 -0700, Chom Noamsky<bea...@stew.tasty>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Karen Gordon puked this onto Usenet after a particularly gluttonous
>>>>>> binge-drinking session:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "No more stunned than someone who thinks phytoplankton contribute more
>>>>>> oxygen to our air than do the trees of the Amazon rainforest."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Plankton helps produce more than half of the world�s oxygen"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.davidsuzuki.org/flash/Pretty_Picture.swf?scale=noscale
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Well, these microscopic plants are the base of the food chain and
>>>>>> account for half the production of organic matter on Earth. They also
>>>>>> remove carbon dioxide from the air and produce more than half the oxygen
>>>>>> we breathe." -- David Suzuki
>>>>>>
>>>>> Nice to see you post what the good Dr. Suzukis says. He is right of
>>>>> course. Also see.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0607_040607_phytoplankton.html
>>>>
>>>> Suzuki hasn't been right about much of anything, but he sure knows how
>>>> to suck money out of old people. Only two groups of people I know who
>>>> go around routinely announcing the end of the world: Jehova Witnesses
>>>> and the David Suzuki Foundation. Both have had exactly the same success
>>>> rate.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, this should tell you something about your green left ally Karen
>>>> Gorgoyle, who thinks facts are for dummies and right-wingers.
>>>
>>> I gave a scientific cite instead of using Dr. Suzuki as an authority.
>>> It has nothing to do with Karen whomever. You can rely upon Dr. Suzuki
>>> to reference good science but his authority comes from reliance on
>>> scientific sources. Dr. Suzuki's 30 year run of science tv show called
>>> the Nature of things used very little of his own science research but
>>> was based upon other scientists.
>>>
>>> With his own income he set up the Suzuki foundation. He does not run
>>> the foundation which employs scientists as well as others. Dr.Suzuki
>>> gains no personal revenue from the foundation.
>>
>> The Nature of Things is one of the few CBC productions that actually
>> made money and earned its keep. It's quite flattering to be in a
>> foreign country, flip on the TV, and dang, it's David Suzuki's Nature of
>> Things. Yay, Canadian culture takes the world. I've learned a few
>> things watching his programs, mainly that pop scientists like to elevate
>> themselves way beyond their stature. The thing that bothers me
>> particularly is the condemnation of modern carbon-guzzling lifestyles,
>
> I know and Paul Watson burns a lot of bunker fuel chasing down the
> Japanese whaling ships and he doesn't drive a prius. If your only
> concern is condemnation of carbon-guzzling lifestyles maybe you should
> consider this.
>
> "The federal government continues to give billions of dollars in tax
> breaks to the companies producing oil and gas in Canada. Analysis
> shows a total of $1.4 billion per year in federal subsidies, $840
> million of which are special tax breaks, with a disproportionate share
> going to dirty fuels such as the Alberta Tar Sands."
>
> This is from the Suzuki Foundation web page and says nothing about
> your lifestyle which probably isn't gas guzzling anyway.
> http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/climate-change/
>
> There is a nice meter on the page.
Good one, divert to the 'awl cumpanies'. I let you in on a little
secret: oil companies don't matter because consumption is driven by
consumers. Suzuki is a consumer; I'm a consumer; you're a consumer. If
nobody consumes then oil companies don't have a market, this is one case
where the tail really does wag the dog.
And if carbon emissions are the problem, then the only possible solution
is to consume less. Suzuki demonstrates his leadership on this by
living a large carbon footprint lifestyle. I want to see some real
leadership, I want to see David Suzuki live like average people will be
living when they are consuming less to save the planet. Much restricted
travel, that's one thing for certain.
If we are 'all in this together' then there should be no exceptions,
especially for high profile pop scientists pushing smaller footprints.
Suzuki's own real estate footprint on planet earth is less than modest.
Let's see: a property in Toronto; another in Australia; a spot on
Quadra Island; water front in Point Grey; a cabin in northern BC.
Yes, we should all tread this wonderful earth with a smaller footprint,
just not me, because I'm David Suzuki! They talk the talk but they
don't walk the walk.
Chom Noamsky
Damn, eh Karen, you got busted for telling lies, AGAIN! Maybe if you
checked facts before opening your yap you wouldn't look like a complete
drooling idiot.
gordo
wrote:
>On 6/28/2011 11:38 PM, gordo wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 22:04:46 -0700, Chom Noamsky<bea...@stew.tasty>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/28/2011 9:16 PM, gordo wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 15:50:38 -0700, Chom Noamsky<bea...@stew.tasty>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/28/2011 3:38 PM, gordo wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:32:42 -0700, Chom Noamsky<bea...@stew.tasty>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Karen Gordon puked this onto Usenet after a particularly gluttonous
>>>>>>> binge-drinking session:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "No more stunned than someone who thinks phytoplankton contribute more
>>>>>>> oxygen to our air than do the trees of the Amazon rainforest."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Plankton helps produce more than half of the world�s oxygen"
Nice rant about Dr. Suzuki and so sorry that you think that being rich
is a crime. I don't know if he does anything to offset his carbon
footprint but I hope he does.
I asked you to consider that we are giving billions of dollars in tax
subsidies to the oil companies. I think it should be stopped after all
they are making billions on their own. So did you consider it?
gordo
Look at the video and learn something.
The Brundland Commission was 28 years ago has nothing to do with this
thread.
gordo
wrote:
A good cite and I am not disputing any of it. The video from Sanford
does show China in a different light than what I had understood and
does give rise to some optimism.
Chom Noamsky
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 07:07:42 -0700, Chom Noamsky<bea...@stew.tasty>
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/28/2011 11:38 PM, gordo wrote:
>>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 22:04:46 -0700, Chom Noamsky<bea...@stew.tasty>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/28/2011 9:16 PM, gordo wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 15:50:38 -0700, Chom Noamsky<bea...@stew.tasty>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/28/2011 3:38 PM, gordo wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:32:42 -0700, Chom Noamsky<bea...@stew.tasty>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Karen Gordon puked this onto Usenet after a particularly gluttonous
>>>>>>>> binge-drinking session:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "No more stunned than someone who thinks phytoplankton contribute more
>>>>>>>> oxygen to our air than do the trees of the Amazon rainforest."
>>>>>>>>
Where did I say being rich was a crime? You're getting as bad as Karen,
making shit up to put in people's mouths. It certainly is unethical to
promote small footprint living while trodding around in big carbon boots.
> I don't know if he does anything to offset his carbon
> footprint but I hope he does.
You mean like buying 'carbon credits'? Isn't that just another way of
letting the wealthy pollute?
> I asked you to consider that we are giving billions of dollars in tax
> subsidies to the oil companies. I think it should be stopped after all
> they are making billions on their own. So did you consider it?
The Liberals spent over $8 billion on oil and gas subsidies between 1996
and 2002, so I say they aren't doing anything the Liberal government
didn't do. In fact, you'll find this government has not favoured the
oil and gas industry much differently than the Liberals did. The
Liberals signed Canada up for Kyoto and then patted their buddies in
Alberta on the back, said don't worry, we're not going to actually DO
anything. And they didn't, as CO2 climbed 37% above the 1990 Kyoto
target. Adn I'd have to say oil and gas is probably the one industry
where governments are most likely to get back all the subsidies, and
then some, in the form of tax revenues and resource royalties across the
economy.
Chom Noamsky
> A good cite and I am not disputing any of it. The video from Sanford
> does show China in a different light than what I had understood and
> does give rise to some optimism.
Here's the beef: What is the point of us killing our own economies just
so that China and India can turn into carbon bombs? Every gain we've
ever made has been more than offset by increases in China and India.
Are you going to be the one to tell them they are not entitled to cars
with air conditioning, or the same standard of living we've enjoyed for
decades?
gordo
wrote:
My education is not in question. What you are questioning is the work
of the IPCC.
Why should I have to clear up any points about a graph copied from the
IPCC report?You assume that the variables were not taken into account
before the simple graph was made. The graph was from a much larger
report and the original has been peer reviewed and published with the
consent of the working groups of the IPCC.
Yes I know about Solar activity, water vapour, albedo, Milankovitch
cycles, axial tilt, etc etc etc.
We are talking about 95% confidence that CO2 is the cause of global
warming. The graph was not even about that. The graph was about the
confidence that CO2 of a level will result in a particular global
temperature. You could have attacked the graph for being the wrong
graph. Too bad when I have to correct my own error.
NoMoreCons
> On 6/30/2011 11:52 AM, gordo wrote:
>> A good cite and I am not disputing any of it. The video from Sanford
>> does show China in a different light than what I had understood and
>> does give rise to some optimism.
"Chom Noamsky" <bea...@stew.tasty> wrote in message news:iuihhe$c6p$1...@dont-email.me...
> Here's the beef: What is the point of us killing our own economies just so that China and
> India can turn into carbon bombs? Every gain we've ever made has been more than offset by
> increases in China and India.
>
> Are you going to be the one to tell them they are not entitled to cars with air conditioning,
> or the same standard of living we've enjoyed for decades?
Harper thinks its okay to export unsafe materials and jobs to China - so what's YOUR beef with
his policies?
_________________________________________________
On pure emissions alone, the key points are:
• China emits more CO2 than the US and Canada put together - up by 171% since the year 2000
• The US has had declining CO2 for two years running, the last time the US had declining CO2 for
3 years running was in the 1980s
• The UK is down one place to tenth on the list, 8% on the year. The country is now behind Iran,
South Korea, Japan and Germany
• India is now the world's third biggest emitter of CO2 - pushing Russia into fourth place
• The biggest decrease from 2008-2009 is Ukraine - down 28%. The biggest increase is the Cook
Islands - up 66.7%
But that is only one way to look at the data - and it doesn't take account of how many people
live in each country. If you look at per capita emissions, a different picture emerges where:
• Some of the world's smallest countries and islands emit the most per person - the highest
being Gibraltar with 152 tonnes per person
• The US is still number one in terms of per capita emissions among the big economies - with 18
tonnes emitted per person
• China, by contrast, emits under six tonnes per person, India only 1.38
• For comparison, the whole world emits 4.49 tonnes per person
Chom Noamsky
> My education is not in question. What you are questioning is the work
> of the IPCC.
Yet everyone else's science education seems to be in question by you...
>
> Why should I have to clear up any points about a graph copied from the
> IPCC report?You assume that the variables were not taken into account
> before the simple graph was made. The graph was from a much larger
> report and the original has been peer reviewed and published with the
> consent of the working groups of the IPCC.
Because you offered it as proof and/or evidence of something, that's why
you should clear it up. And no, the graph does not take into account
any other variable except GHG CO2 equivalency, expressed in volumetric
ppm. If the graph did reflect variables other than GHGs then it would
be a categorically fraudulent graph.
And, did you know the bundle of GHGs the graph represents does not
include WATER VAPOUR??? What kind of science involving GHGs ignores the
single most abundant GHG there is? For that reason alone it's garbage.
> Yes I know about Solar activity, water vapour, albedo, Milankovitch
> cycles, axial tilt, etc etc etc.
Did you read what the IPCC WGI says about water vapour feedback? I
thought it was a joke when I read it. It starts out by saying that
water vapour feedback can amplifying warming by a factor of 3.5 with a
doubling of CO2. Then at the end of the section they say it's
inconclusive whether water vapour has a positive or negative feedback.
So, they start the section making the claim of 3.5 times amplification
with a doubling of CO2, then conclude the section saying they don't know
if feedback is positive or negative. That is some extremely flaky shit,
considering water vapour is the single most abundant, most relevant, and
most influential GHG in the atmosphere.
> We are talking about 95% confidence that CO2 is the cause of global
> warming. The graph was not even about that. The graph was about the
> confidence that CO2 of a level will result in a particular global
> temperature. You could have attacked the graph for being the wrong
> graph. Too bad when I have to correct my own error.
The graph wasn't about confidence at all, you idiot. It was an
assumptive best estimate bounded by the likely range of temperature
increase for a given GHG CO2 equivalency concentration. The graph has
absolutely nothing to do with your first assertion or your revised
assertion. Ignore the associated commentary in the link you provided,
it's total garbage.
gordo
>gordo wrote...
All the science of AGW will never be settled. That burning fossil
fuels producing CO2 in the atmosphere as the main reason for global
warming at the present time is settled. There is an excellent lecture
by Stephen Schneider at Sanford. This lecture will answer many
questions but you really have to take the time to listen.
http://academicearth.org/lectures/global-warming-stephen-schneider
gordo
wrote:
>On 6/29/2011 10:52 PM, Erik® wrote:
>> gordo wrote...
>>>
All the science will never be settled. That burning fossil fuels
produces CO2 and that is the main reason for the present GW is not in
dispute by any climatologist or any other scientist. If you have a
recent peer reviewed paper from a reputable journal disputing this
please post a cite to it.
NoMoreCons
>> According to report co-author Marlon Lewis, "Climate-driven phytoplankton declines are
>> another
>> important dimension of global change in the oceans, which are already stressed by the effects
>> of fishing and pollution." The report, published in the July 29 edition of Nature, states
>> that
>> phytoplankton have declined by about 40 per cent since 1950.
>>
>> Meanwhile, arguments from deniers keep getting knocked down, to the point where one must
>> conclude that there really are only two types of denier: those who are paid by industry to
>> spread misinformation in attempts to confuse the public, which is criminal, and those who are
>> unable to see the evidence staring them in the face and who still cling to arguments that one
>> minute with Google would dispel, which is pathetic and stupid.
>>
>> - David Suzuki
"Chom Noamsky" <bea...@stew.tasty> wrote in message news:iui2u6$1b8$1...@dont-email.me...
> Damn, eh Karen, you got busted for telling lies, AGAIN! Maybe if you checked facts before
> opening your yap you wouldn't look like a complete drooling idiot.
No, Dobranski - same source as yours - David Suzuki - and he's got you pegged in the second
paragraph above, hasn't he?
Good thing your kids are getting an education outside your home.
gordo
wrote:
I was speaking of all the scientific disciplines involved. You know
like biology,oceanography,climatology,glaciology,chemistry and many
more. It is a fair comment that the experts in one are not experts in
all the others.
> One thing I agree upon with the others here
>is that government scientists are fueled by government research money,
>and I have 'very high confidence' they will produce reports and analysis
>that promote the interests of the people funding the research. Those
>interests are carbon tax revenues and more bureaucracy. Science is
>science and data is data, but the analysis and prognosis always leave a
>lot of room for opinion and politicization.
So you have a large conspiracy theory involving universities and
governments around the globe.
> There is also room for just
>plain shoddy work and errors, and if you Google "IPCC errors" you'll get
>more than a few screens full of hits. In fact, you'll get almost 1.2
>million hits:
>
>http://www.google.ca/#q=ipcc+errors&fp=2c36d0d8094798a8
>
>Click it and you'll see just how 'settled' the science is.
I get 19 million when I ask for fox news lies.
I get 494,000 when I ask for Chom lies
I get 18,500,000 when I ask for Erik lies, almost as much as fox news
I get 1,960,000 when I ask for Gordo lies
The only one I really think is accurate is Fox news lies.
Chom Noamsky
> All the science will never be settled. That burning fossil fuels
> produces CO2 and that is the main reason for the present GW is not in
> dispute by any climatologist or any other scientist. If you have a
> recent peer reviewed paper from a reputable journal disputing this
> please post a cite to it.
You don't understand something very basic and fundamental here, gordo.
It's not the job of the skeptics to disprove anything, the onus lies
100% with the proponents - YOU. That means you have to convince me on
CO2 theory, not me disprove you. The negative proof you demand is
actually a common religious fundie tactic when they want to argue the
existence of God. Prove God doesn't exist, and now gordo say prove AGW
doesn't exist. And you claim your philosophy isn't a form of religion?
NoMoreCons
>> All the science will never be settled. That burning fossil fuels
>> produces CO2 and that is the main reason for the present GW is not in
>> dispute by any climatologist or any other scientist. If you have a
>> recent peer reviewed paper from a reputable journal disputing this
>> please post a cite to it.
"Chom Noamsky" <bea...@stew.tasty> wrote
> You don't understand something very basic and fundamental here, gordo. It's not the job of the
> skeptics to disprove anything, the onus lies 100% with the proponents - YOU. That means you
> have to convince me on CO2 theory, not me disprove you.
Nobody has to do a thing for you, Chumpsky. I imagine when you go hunting with your pals,
you're okay with them pissing in the creek while you're drinking downstream?
Chom Noamsky
"No more stunned than someone who thinks phytoplankton contribute more
oxygen to our air than do the trees of the Amazon rainforest." -- Karen
Gordon dissing David Suzuki gospel
Erik®
> I get 19 million when I ask for fox news lies.
> I get 494,000 when I ask for Chom lies
> I get 18,500,000 when I ask for Erik lies, almost as much as fox news
Well, I'll have to speak with Google about that...
NoMoreCons
>>>> According to report co-author Marlon Lewis, "Climate-driven phytoplankton declines are
>>>> another important dimension of global change in the oceans, which are already stressed by
>>>> the effects
>>>> of fishing and pollution." The report, published in the July 29 edition of Nature, states
>>>> that phytoplankton have declined by about 40 per cent since 1950.
>>>>
>>>> Meanwhile, arguments from deniers keep getting knocked down, to the point where one must
>>>> conclude that there really are only two types of denier: those who are paid by industry to
>>>> spread misinformation in attempts to confuse the public, which is criminal, and those who
>>>> are
>>>> unable to see the evidence staring them in the face and who still cling to arguments that
>>>> one
>>>> minute with Google would dispel, which is pathetic and stupid.
>>>>
>>>> - David Suzuki
>> "Chom Noamsky"<bea...@stew.tasty> wrote in message news:iui2u6$1b8$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> Damn, eh Karen, you got busted for telling lies, AGAIN! Maybe if you checked facts before
>>> opening your yap you wouldn't look like a complete drooling idiot.
>> No, Dobranski - same source as yours - David Suzuki - and he's got you pegged in the second
>> paragraph above, hasn't he?
>> Good thing your kids are getting an education outside your home.
"Chom Noamsky" <bea...@stew.tasty> wrote in message news:iuj1po$ql6$1...@dont-email.me...
> "No more stunned than someone who thinks phytoplankton contribute more oxygen to our air than
> do the trees of the Amazon rainforest." -- Karen Gordon dissing David Suzuki gospel
Or Kim Dobranski not wanting to relate to Suzuki's description of him:
>>>> "there really are only two types of denier: those who are paid by industry to
>>>> spread misinformation in attempts to confuse the public, which is criminal, and those who
>>>> are
>>>> unable to see the evidence staring them in the face and who still cling to arguments that
>>>> one
>>>> minute with Google would dispel, which is pathetic and stupid.
Scientists are now studying what happens when warming oceans kill phytoplankton, which account
for half of the Earth’s oxygen and — most important — form the basis of marine ecosystems.
Interestingly, trees can play a role here, too. By planting more trees and halting
deforestation, we’ll reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing the oceans to warm and
oxygen-producing plankton to die.
This is another reason trees are often called “the lungs of the world.”
Chom Noamsky
> Scientists are now studying what happens when warming oceans kill phytoplankton, which account
> for half of the Earth’s oxygen and — most important — form the basis of marine ecosystems.
>
> Interestingly, trees can play a role here, too. By planting more trees and halting
> deforestation, we’ll reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing the oceans to warm and
> oxygen-producing plankton to die.
>
> This is another reason trees are often called “the lungs of the world.”
http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jun/08/world/fg-amazon8
The death of a myth begins with stinging eyes and heaving chests here on
the edge of the Amazon rain forest.
Every year, fire envelops the jungle, throwing up inky billows of smoke
that blot out the sun. Animals flee. Residents for miles around cry and
wheeze, while the weak and unlucky develop serious respiratory problems.
When the burning season strikes, life and health in the Amazon falter,
and color drains out of the riotous green landscape as great swaths of
majestic trees, creeping vines, delicate bromeliads and hardy ferns are
reduced to blackened stubble.
But more than just the land, these annual blazes also lay waste to a
cherished notion that has roosted in the popular mind for decades: the
idea of the rain forest as the "lungs of the world."
Ever since saving the Amazon became a fashionable cause in the 1980s,
championed by Madonna, Sting and other celebrities, the jungle has
consistently been likened to an enormous recycling plant that slurps up
carbon dioxide and pumps out oxygen for us all to breathe, from Los
Angeles to London to Lusaka.
Think again, scientists say.
Far from cleaning up the atmosphere, the Amazon is now a major source
for pollution. Rampant burning and deforestation, mostly at the hands of
illegal loggers and of ranchers, release hundreds of millions of tons of
carbon dioxide into the skies each year.
Brazil now ranks as one of the world's leading producers of greenhouse
gases, thanks in large part to the Amazon, the source for up to
two-thirds of the country's emissions.
"It's not the lungs of the world," said Daniel Nepstad, an American
ecologist who has studied the Amazon for 20 years. "It's probably
burning up more oxygen now than it's producing."
Scientists such as Nepstad prefer to think of the world's largest
tropical rain forest as Earth's air conditioner. The region's humidity,
they say, is vital in climate regulation and cooling patterns in South
America -- and perhaps as far away as Europe.
The Amazon's role as a source of pollution, not a remover of it, is
directly linked to the galloping rate of destruction in the region over
the last quarter-century.
The dense and steamy habitat straddles eight countries and is home to up
to 20% of the world's fresh water and 30% of its plant and animal species.
Brazil's portion accounts for more than half the entire ecosystem.
Official figures show that, on average, 7,500 square miles of rain
forest were chopped and burned down in Brazil every year between 1979
and 2004. Over the 25 years, it's as if a forest the size of California
had disappeared from the face of the Earth.
Greg Carr
> On 6/28/2011 3:38 PM, gordo wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Karen Gordon puked this onto Usenet after a particularly gluttonous
> >> binge-drinking session:
>
> >> oxygen to our air than do the trees of the Amazon rainforest."
>
>
> >>http://www.davidsuzuki.org/flash/Pretty_Picture.swf?scale=noscale
>
> >> "Well, these microscopic plants are the base of the food chain and
> >> account for half the production of organic matter on Earth. They also
> >> remove carbon dioxide from the air and produce more than half the oxygen
> >> we breathe." -- David Suzuki
>
> > Nice to see you post what the good Dr. Suzukis says. He is right of
> > course. Also see.
>
>
> Suzuki hasn't been right about much of anything, but he sure knows how
> to suck money out of old people. Only two groups of people I know who
> go around routinely announcing the end of the world: Jehova Witnesses
> and the David Suzuki Foundation. Both have had exactly the same success
> rate.
>
> Anyway, this should tell you something about your green left ally Karen
> Gorgoyle, who thinks facts are for dummies and right-wingers.
Since you mentioned the JW's I thought I would mention that I will be
attending all three days of their convention in Abbotsford this
weekend. It is free and all are invited. No collection will be taken
but their will be collection boxes on the concourse and appeals for
cheques from the speakers podium.
NoMoreCons
> >> Scientists are now studying what happens when warming oceans kill phytoplankton, which
> >> account
>> for half of the Earth’s oxygen and — most important — form the basis of marine ecosystems.
>>
>> Interestingly, trees can play a role here, too. By planting more trees and halting
>> deforestation, we’ll reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing the oceans to warm
>> and
>> oxygen-producing plankton to die.
>>
>> This is another reason trees are often called “the lungs of the world.”
"Chom Noamsky" <bea...@stew.tasty> wrote in message news:iuj603$ist$1...@dont-email.me...
What part didn't you understand in that article, Dobranski? The part that burning the Amazon
rain forests for profit are reducing the 'lungs of the planet'?
Just as the oil companies are damaging Canada's - and ultimately the world's - environment, so
too does the quest for corporate profits and human greed affect the Amazon rain forest.
The only part that's confusing to the majority in this country, is why there are still dinosaurs
like yourself trying to challenge what is obvious and fully proven. The Harper Cons are totally
responsible for many of the ills that are now affecting Canadians. And they can only succeed
when they're supported by fools like you.
Chom Noamsky
> Since you mentioned the JW's I thought I would mention that I will be
> attending all three days of their convention in Abbotsford this
> weekend. It is free and all are invited. No collection will be taken
> but their will be collection boxes on the concourse and appeals for
> cheques from the speakers podium.
During the last JW congregation in my town the local liquor store was
sold dry. So, I have a pretty good idea of what a lot of you will be
doing at that there JW convention. Stay out of the lockup, would ya.
NoMoreCons
> Suzuki hasn't been right about much of anything, but he sure knows how
> to suck money out of old people. Only two groups of people I know who
> go around routinely announcing the end of the world: Jehova Witnesses
> and the David Suzuki Foundation. Both have had exactly the same success
> rate.
>
> Anyway, this should tell you something about your green left ally Karen
> Gorgoyle, who thinks facts are for dummies and right-wingers.
>> "Greg Carr" <gregcarr...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>> news:80649977-24f7-4065-bfd8->>96a6dd...@y13g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>> Since you mentioned the JW's I thought I would mention that I will be
>> attending all three days of their convention in Abbotsford this
>> weekend. It is free and all are invited. No collection will be taken
>> but their will be collection boxes on the concourse and appeals for
>> cheques from the speakers podium.
Now I see where your contempt for gays comes from, Carr - the Jehovah's Witness closed-minded
edicts and teachings. You'd do better to get yourself clean of the JWs and start to lose some
of your prejudices.
Chom Noamsky
The part that's confusing to you is that YOU are the problem. The reason
the Amazon is being consumed it to make way for population expansion,
which is exactly the same reason the place you live in was deforested
and continues to be deforested. You bozo quasi-greenies always point
the finger at the corporations, the oil companies, Stephen Harper, blah
blah blah, but it's YOU. Your mere existence and the existence of over
6.5 billion just like you are the problem. If you want to stop the
degradation, cease your existence and remove your footprint from this
earth. You have absolutely nothing to tell a poor Amazonian rancher
trying to eak out a living.
gordo
wrote:
>On 6/30/2011 11:35 AM, gordo wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 07:07:42 -0700, Chom Noamsky<bea...@stew.tasty>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/28/2011 11:38 PM, gordo wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 22:04:46 -0700, Chom Noamsky<bea...@stew.tasty>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/28/2011 9:16 PM, gordo wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 15:50:38 -0700, Chom Noamsky<bea...@stew.tasty>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/28/2011 3:38 PM, gordo wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:32:42 -0700, Chom Noamsky<bea...@stew.tasty>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Karen Gordon puked this onto Usenet after a particularly gluttonous
>>>>>>>>> binge-drinking session:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "No more stunned than someone who thinks phytoplankton contribute more
>>>>>>>>> oxygen to our air than do the trees of the Amazon rainforest."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Plankton helps produce more than half of the world’s oxygen"
You are obsessed with this Karen. You did mention that Dr. Suzuki
owned all that property so I assume you object to that.
>> I don't know if he does anything to offset his carbon
>> footprint but I hope he does.
>
>You mean like buying 'carbon credits'? Isn't that just another way of
>letting the wealthy pollute?
I have no idea how he would offset his carbon footprint or if he does.
Its possible he does. It is a way for the wealthy to pollute and the
polluter should pay.
>> I asked you to consider that we are giving billions of dollars in tax
>> subsidies to the oil companies. I think it should be stopped after all
>> they are making billions on their own. So did you consider it?
>
>The Liberals spent over $8 billion on oil and gas subsidies between 1996
>and 2002, so I say they aren't doing anything the Liberal government
>didn't do. In fact, you'll find this government has not favoured the
>oil and gas industry much differently than the Liberals did. The
>Liberals signed Canada up for Kyoto and then patted their buddies in
>Alberta on the back, said don't worry, we're not going to actually DO
>anything. And they didn't, as CO2 climbed 37% above the 1990 Kyoto
>target.
This is true but why jump there when I was asking your opinion on
Billion dollar subsidies to the oil companies.
> Adn I'd have to say oil and gas is probably the one industry
>where governments are most likely to get back all the subsidies, and
>then some, in the form of tax revenues and resource royalties across the
>economy.
So I guess your answer is that you approve of billion dollar subsidies
to the oil industry.
NoMoreCons
> On 6/30/2011 6:07 PM, NoMoreCons wrote:
>> The only part that's confusing to the majority in this country, is why there are still
>> dinosaurs
>> like yourself trying to challenge what is obvious and fully proven. The Harper Cons are
>> totally
>> responsible for many of the ills that are now affecting Canadians. And they can only succeed
>> when they're supported by fools like you.
"Chom Noamsky" <bea...@stew.tasty> wrote in message news:iuj748$ofh$1...@dont-email.me...
> The part that's confusing to you is that YOU are the problem. The reason the Amazon is being
> consumed it to make way for population expansion, which is exactly the same reason the place
> you live in was deforested and continues to be deforested.
And you're wrong again. No bloody wonder your kid has to educate you. The population isn't
expanding in the Amazon rain forests. They're being ripped apart through greed and exploitation
by foreign countries wanting prime timber and by ignorance. Like yours.
_______________________________________
Why is the Brazilian Amazon being Destroyed?
In many tropical countries, the majority of deforestation results from the actions of poor
subsistence cultivators. However, in Brazil only about one-third of recent deforestation can be
linked to "shifted" cultivators. Historically a large portion of deforestation in Brazil can be
attributed to land clearing for pastureland by commercial and speculative interests, misguided
government policies, inappropriate World Bank projects, and commercial exploitation of forest
resources. For effective action it is imperative that these issues be addressed. Focusing solely
on the promotion of sustainable use by local people would neglect the most important forces
behind deforestation in Brazil.
Brazilian deforestation is strongly correlated to the economic health of the country: the
decline in deforestation from 1988-1991 nicely matched the economic slowdown during the same
period, while the rocketing rate of deforestation from 1993-1998 paralleled Brazil's period of
rapid economic growth. During lean times, ranchers and developers do not have the cash to
rapidly expand their pasturelands and operations, while the government lacks funds to sponsor
highways and colonization programs and grant tax breaks and subsidies to forest exploiters.
A relatively small percentage of large landowners clear vast sections of the Amazon for cattle
pastureland. Large tracts of forest are cleared and sometimes planted with African savanna
grasses for cattle feeding. In many cases, especially during periods of high inflation, land is
simply cleared for investment purposes. When pastureland prices exceed forest land prices (a
condition made possible by tax incentives that favor pastureland over natural forest), forest
clearing is a good hedge against inflation.
Such favorable taxation policies, combined with government subsidized agriculture and
colonization programs, encourage the destruction of the Amazon. The practice of low taxes on
income derived from agriculture and tax rates that favor pasture over forest overvalues
agriculture and pastureland and makes it profitable to convert natural forest for these purposes
when it normally would not be so.
__________________________________
> You bozo quasi-greenies always point the finger at the corporations, the oil companies,
> Stephen Harper, blah blah blah, but it's YOU. Your mere existence and the existence of over
> 6.5 billion just like you are the problem. If you want to stop the degradation, cease your
> existence and remove your footprint from this earth. You have absolutely nothing to tell a
> poor Amazonian rancher trying to eak out a living.
The word is 'eke' not eak. And now you're advocating the the less stupid amongst us should be
the ones to be eliminated from this planet to help the environment? How 'bout we get rid of
those who kill animals when they don't need food and those who support the governments who
support the worst polluters? I think that would work out so much better . . . . .
Chom Noamsky
> Now I see where your contempt for gays comes from, Carr - the Jehovah's Witness closed-minded
> edicts and teachings. You'd do better to get yourself clean of the JWs and start to lose some
> of your prejudices.
Karen Gordon on homosexuals, 1998:
-----------------
Subject: Re: Two major NDP priorities ...
Date: 3 Jul 1998 08:19:34 GMT
From: ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Karen Gordon)
Organization: The National Capital FreeNet
Newsgroups: bc.politics
x-no-archive: yes
(K): Let me jump in here for a second..... I don't think anyone has ever
begrudged homosexuals the right to those rights and privileges that most
heterosexuals enjoy. But the 'gay rights' movement has gone well beyond
wanting to be recognized as just 'other' human beings. They want every-
one to believe that their way of life is NORMAL. They would like every-
one to believe that their way of life is NATURAL and HEALTHY. They
would like every kid in the country to think of their lifestyle as an
alternative to that of hetersexuals. They have no problem with
introducing this view to kids in kindergarten.
Right now in BC, businesses are being forced to add washrooms into their
premises which accommodate those who aren't fully male, yet haven't
quite gotten around to having the operation that would make them female
(and vice versa). Because they aren't quite comfortable with going into
either a ladies or gents washroom, they are now forcing businesses to
provide a transsexual washroom. Hello?
And let's just think a little about those wonderful 'gay rights'
parades.... You know, the ones where gay guys dress up like floozies and
whores from the 1900s. Makes their portrayal of 'feminine' just so
easy to accept - especially by females.
And then there's the Human Rights Commission itself. Nice piece of
work, that. Headed up by a Chinese homosexual, and second-in-command we
have a very visible minority.
gordo
wrote:
>On 6/30/2011 11:52 AM, gordo wrote:
>
>> A good cite and I am not disputing any of it. The video from Sanford
>> does show China in a different light than what I had understood and
>> does give rise to some optimism.
>
>Here's the beef: What is the point of us killing our own economies just
>so that China and India can turn into carbon bombs? Every gain we've
>ever made has been more than offset by increases in China and India.
The point is a valid one.
I believe that China is dead serious about cutting emissions but it
took the lecture that I posted for me to see how serious they are.
>Are you going to be the one to tell them they are not entitled to cars
>with air conditioning, or the same standard of living we've enjoyed for
>decades?
No I am not and they don't listen to me. We in the west really don't
know much about China but the video put China in a different light
from my perception.
NoMoreCons
"Chom Noamsky" <bea...@stew.tasty> wrote in message news:iuj7v2$sfn$1...@dont-email.me...
Chom Noamsky
Then why don't you go lecture Brazil on its forest management practices?
That's what green eco-colonialism is all about, teaching them filthy
savages how to manage them trees proper like we good white men do, right
Karen?
Chom Noamsky
Erik®
Hold on a second... she actually re-posted your re-post of my re-post of
her own post from 13 years ago, while at the same time posting a thread
where she's been attacking people who choose not to attend TO's Pride
parade? Is she bragging about her hypocrisy?
Lemme clean my glasses off and read this again - wait - I don't wear
glasses...
Chom Noamsky
> I get 19 million when I ask for fox news lies.
> I get 494,000 when I ask for Chom lies
> I get 18,500,000 when I ask for Erik lies, almost as much as fox news
> I get 1,960,000 when I ask for Gordo lies
>
> The only one I really think is accurate is Fox news lies.
But we're not talking about me, you, Erik or Fox News, nor are we
talking about lies - the point was "IPCC errors".
Just picking one at random:
http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/moderr.htm
gordo, in a nutshell, GHGs are used as the basis for the IPCCs climate
change modeling. Problem: GHG's do not produce a very good correlation
with observed temperature fluctuations, in fact the correlation is
really quite poor. There is actually a much stronger, more obvious
correlation when solar is used as the basis for accounting for
temperature fluctuations. Because GHGs are just assumed by the IPCC to
be the prime factor, they have a tendency to exaggerate the effects of
CO2 and minimize the effects of all other factors, like solar.
Just read the link, among other things it shows how the IPCC has been
deliberately minimizing the effects of solar while exaggerating the
effects of GHGs....
gordo
wrote:
>On 6/30/2011 12:51 PM, gordo wrote:
>
>> My education is not in question. What you are questioning is the work
>> of the IPCC.
>
>Yet everyone else's science education seems to be in question by you...
>
>>
>> Why should I have to clear up any points about a graph copied from the
>> IPCC report?You assume that the variables were not taken into account
>> before the simple graph was made. The graph was from a much larger
>> report and the original has been peer reviewed and published with the
>> consent of the working groups of the IPCC.
>
>Because you offered it as proof and/or evidence of something, that's why
>you should clear it up. And no, the graph does not take into account
>any other variable except GHG CO2 equivalency, expressed in volumetric
>ppm. If the graph did reflect variables other than GHGs then it would
>be a categorically fraudulent graph.
>
>And, did you know the bundle of GHGs the graph represents does not
>include WATER VAPOUR??? What kind of science involving GHGs ignores the
>single most abundant GHG there is? For that reason alone it's garbage
>> Yes I know about Solar activity, water vapour, albedo, Milankovitch
>> cycles, axial tilt, etc etc etc.
>
>Did you read what the IPCC WGI says about water vapour feedback? I
>thought it was a joke when I read it. It starts out by saying that
>water vapour feedback can amplifying warming by a factor of 3.5 with a
>doubling of CO2. Then at the end of the section they say it's
>inconclusive whether water vapour has a positive or negative feedback.
>So, they start the section making the claim of 3.5 times amplification
>with a doubling of CO2, then conclude the section saying they don't know
>if feedback is positive or negative. That is some extremely flaky shit,
>considering water vapour is the single most abundant, most relevant, and
>most influential GHG in the atmosphere.
>
> > We are talking about 95% confidence that CO2 is the cause of global
>> warming. The graph was not even about that. The graph was about the
>> confidence that CO2 of a level will result in a particular global
>> temperature. You could have attacked the graph for being the wrong
>> graph. Too bad when I have to correct my own error.
>
>The graph wasn't about confidence at all, you idiot. It was an
>assumptive best estimate bounded by the likely range of temperature
>increase for a given GHG CO2 equivalency concentration. The graph has
>absolutely nothing to do with your first assertion or your revised
>assertion. Ignore the associated commentary in the link you provided,
>it's total garbage.
I pointed the error out not you. The link provided had nothing to do
with my assertion which was 95% confidence that CO2 is the cause of
global warming. Confidence was mentioned in the graph and so was 95%.
But nothing showing confidence that this is the cause of GW. It is.
So have the last word.
gordo
wrote:
>On 6/30/2011 2:53 PM, gordo wrote:
The basis of science is to disprove what has been proposed. You know
that is how science is done. So would those who endorse the IPCC
reports which says that CO2 is a GG and caused by burning fossil fuels
mean anything.
A partial list is Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
GravFox
> On 6/30/2011 3:20 PM, gordo wrote:
>
> > I get 19 million when I ask for fox news lies.
> > I get 494,000 when I ask for Chom lies
> > I get 18,500,000 when I ask for Erik lies, almost as much as fox news
> > I get 1,960,000 when I ask for Gordo lies
> >
> > The only one I really think is accurate is Fox news lies.
>
> But we're not talking about me, you, Erik or Fox News, nor are we
> talking about lies - the point was "IPCC errors".
>
> Just picking one at random:
>
> http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/moderr.htm
>
> gordo, in a nutshell, GHGs are used as the basis for the IPCCs climate
> change modeling. Problem: GHG's do not produce a very good correlation
> with observed temperature fluctuations, in fact the correlation is
> really quite poor. There is actually a much stronger, more obvious
> correlation when solar is used as the basis for accounting for
> temperature fluctuations. Because GHGs are just assumed by the IPCC to
> be the prime factor, they have a tendency to exaggerate the effects of
> CO2 and minimize the effects of all other factors, like solar.
>
But why where you on the side of AGW a while ago when it came to how warming has
increased the killing of the forests near where you live due to the pine beetle
infestation?
Has the ghost of Terry Pearson taken over your mind? Why have you suddenly in
more than a few cases, objectivly turned around and suddenly decided to adopt the
opposite views that you once held?
Chom, at one time you were essentially a moderate, now you're raging against
"Leftists" and acting like a different person, trolling the line.
Only kooks go after Gore or Suzuki, it's tantamount to scientists attacking Lord
Monckton or discredited Geography professor Tim Ball! Are you a conspiracy kook
like racist Richard Anderson (aka $24 Trillion, and the guy who trolled here about
the death of a police officer, lying and saying that the kid who was driving was
black)?
You're starting to sound like the "Media" who the other day remarked that US
Senator Michelle Bachmann insinuating that John Wayne was born in Waterloo Iowa was
so bad, when in fact it was Serial Killer John Wayne Gacey. And John McCain said
that John Wayne was some kind of American hero. I guess he was, if you consider
the actor who played "Dudley Do-Right" a REAL FUCKING RCMP!
Erik®
>
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:30:39 -0700, Chom Noamsky <bea...@stew.tasty>
> wrote:
>
> >On 6/30/2011 2:53 PM, gordo wrote:
> >
> >> All the science will never be settled. That burning fossil fuels
> >> produces CO2 and that is the main reason for the present GW is not in
> >> dispute by any climatologist or any other scientist. If you have a
> >> recent peer reviewed paper from a reputable journal disputing this
> >> please post a cite to it.
> >
> >You don't understand something very basic and fundamental here, gordo.
> >It's not the job of the skeptics to disprove anything, the onus lies
> >100% with the proponents - YOU. That means you have to convince me on
> >CO2 theory, not me disprove you. The negative proof you demand is
> >actually a common religious fundie tactic when they want to argue the
> >existence of God. Prove God doesn't exist, and now gordo say prove AGW
> >doesn't exist. And you claim your philosophy isn't a form of religion?
>
> The basis of science is to disprove what has been proposed. You know
> that is how science is done. So would those who endorse the IPCC
> reports which says that CO2 is a GG and caused by burning fossil fuels
> mean anything.
Pretty amazing that life existed on the planet at all before we began
burning fossil fuels in that case.
CO2 is 'caused' by burning fossil fuels. What will these scientists
think up next?