As I'm sure many people are aware, the latest IPCC report is out and it gives us a predictably bleak picture of the environment.
To summarise, climate change has already probably been having a significant effect on our lives, and is due to have an even bigger effect as time passes.
Global Warming, the real threat to society
-
Outsider
- Ayatollah of Rock n' Rollah
- Posts: 1373
- Joined: 21 May 2003 21:30
- Location: Bridgewater, New Jersey
Yeah, global warming here has gotten so bad its even started to warm up other planets.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/ ... rming.html
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/glo ... 031307.htm
http://www.innovations-report.com/html/ ... 49939.html
But don't worry, guys, Jeremy will probably be able to dismiss all competing lines of thought and evidence, making the world safe for global warming again.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/ ... rming.html
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/glo ... 031307.htm
http://www.innovations-report.com/html/ ... 49939.html
But don't worry, guys, Jeremy will probably be able to dismiss all competing lines of thought and evidence, making the world safe for global warming again.
"The time has come to convert the unbelievers..."
Jonathan Schneider --- sometimes showers with his Lavers on (to clean them)
The Ministry of Silly Walks
NYFA
BAP
Jonathan Schneider --- sometimes showers with his Lavers on (to clean them)
The Ministry of Silly Walks
NYFA
BAP
-
mosher
- brutal footbag cronie
- Posts: 6177
- Joined: 22 Jan 2004 23:30
- Location: Toronto, Ontario
- Contact:
The problem isn't that Jeremy restricts free thought, it's that it's FUCKING STUPID to encourage people to feel like it's maybe okay for them to be wasteful and harmful.
As more articles come up that introduce doubt in the facts there are less and less people who are totally sold on the idea and willing to do something good.
It is ONLY HARMFUL.
Jeremy, please save the world from total idiots!
As more articles come up that introduce doubt in the facts there are less and less people who are totally sold on the idea and willing to do something good.
It is ONLY HARMFUL.
Jeremy, please save the world from total idiots!
Tom Mosher
hate is a waste of passion!
hate is a waste of passion!
Look, if people make individual efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, that's fantastic. There's no doubt that every little bit helps. However, as we've seen with other problems in the past, we cannot create the change we need through individual choice alone. We need more than that, we don't just need individuals to save power or drive less, we need them to lobby the government so that everybody has to make those changes.
For example energy saving florescent light bulbs have been available for years and years, yet only account for a minuscule amount of the market. Until now in Australia people have had the choice to make an effort to help the environment or not, and the majority have chosen not to. The same can be seen in every Western nation. Rather than asking people to help out, the government has now legislated so that incandescent light bulbs will no longer be sold in Australia, saving 4 million tonnes of CO2 in the next 5 years.
We can easily see the difference between asking people to make a difference, if they want to, and forcing them to make a difference.
We don't allow people to carry out harmful actions to society like murder, why do we allow them to carry out harmful actions to society like polluting?
Of course make a difference if you can, but the biggest difference you can make is lobbying your governments to make sure that everybody makes a difference.
For example energy saving florescent light bulbs have been available for years and years, yet only account for a minuscule amount of the market. Until now in Australia people have had the choice to make an effort to help the environment or not, and the majority have chosen not to. The same can be seen in every Western nation. Rather than asking people to help out, the government has now legislated so that incandescent light bulbs will no longer be sold in Australia, saving 4 million tonnes of CO2 in the next 5 years.
We can easily see the difference between asking people to make a difference, if they want to, and forcing them to make a difference.
We don't allow people to carry out harmful actions to society like murder, why do we allow them to carry out harmful actions to society like polluting?
Of course make a difference if you can, but the biggest difference you can make is lobbying your governments to make sure that everybody makes a difference.
I'm sorry, I totally misunderstood what was being said.
Jon, the apparent climate sceptic is trying to convince people that this evidence is showing that global warming is happening because of natural reasons and not human causes. Yet we read his articles posted and we come across this statistic as the very first line of the last article;
"At least 10 to 30 percent of global warming measured during the past two decades may be due to increased solar output rather than factors such as increased heat-absorbing carbon dioxide gas released by various human activities, two Duke University physicists report."
Let's be clear on that; the science says that 10% to 30% of temperature rises may be due to increased solar output. Even if they're right, that still doesn't account for at least 70% of the temperature rise. So according to the very articles that Jon posted, the majority of global warming is happening because of actions on Earth, and according to about 2000 climate scientists and the governments of 154 nations, including the US, Australia, China and Saudi Arabia, the evidence shows that the rise in temperatures on Earth is almost certainly mainly due to human activity.
So even if Jon is right, and those reports do not say that what is claimed is actually the case, they just say that it "may" be the case, we still have an enormous problem of our own activities, which are having a much more significant effect than the possible solar output effect.
Jon, the apparent climate sceptic is trying to convince people that this evidence is showing that global warming is happening because of natural reasons and not human causes. Yet we read his articles posted and we come across this statistic as the very first line of the last article;
"At least 10 to 30 percent of global warming measured during the past two decades may be due to increased solar output rather than factors such as increased heat-absorbing carbon dioxide gas released by various human activities, two Duke University physicists report."
Let's be clear on that; the science says that 10% to 30% of temperature rises may be due to increased solar output. Even if they're right, that still doesn't account for at least 70% of the temperature rise. So according to the very articles that Jon posted, the majority of global warming is happening because of actions on Earth, and according to about 2000 climate scientists and the governments of 154 nations, including the US, Australia, China and Saudi Arabia, the evidence shows that the rise in temperatures on Earth is almost certainly mainly due to human activity.
So even if Jon is right, and those reports do not say that what is claimed is actually the case, they just say that it "may" be the case, we still have an enormous problem of our own activities, which are having a much more significant effect than the possible solar output effect.
-
Outsider
- Ayatollah of Rock n' Rollah
- Posts: 1373
- Joined: 21 May 2003 21:30
- Location: Bridgewater, New Jersey
Hey Slowsis,
This one is a special just for you and Mosher.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/ ... oling.html
Tropical Trees Cool Earth Most Effectively
Planting a tree for Earth Day may do more good if you live in Buenos Aires than if you live in New York. A new study finds that tropical trees are better at combating global warming than trees in higher latitudes.
“Our study shows that only tropical rainforests are strongly beneficial in helping slow down global warming,â€
This one is a special just for you and Mosher.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/ ... oling.html
Tropical Trees Cool Earth Most Effectively
Planting a tree for Earth Day may do more good if you live in Buenos Aires than if you live in New York. A new study finds that tropical trees are better at combating global warming than trees in higher latitudes.
“Our study shows that only tropical rainforests are strongly beneficial in helping slow down global warming,â€
"The time has come to convert the unbelievers..."
Jonathan Schneider --- sometimes showers with his Lavers on (to clean them)
The Ministry of Silly Walks
NYFA
BAP
Jonathan Schneider --- sometimes showers with his Lavers on (to clean them)
The Ministry of Silly Walks
NYFA
BAP
Assuming Slowsis and Tom were not planting trees in polar regions, above 60 degrees latitude North, then their tree planting would have had a positive effect on climate change according to the report.
It is, however, important to note that as the temperatures rise and there becomes less snow in the polar regions, that will create another positive feedback loop causing the temperatures to rise more.
We know from the wealth of scientific evidence that temperatures have been rising sharply because of human actions over the last century, and have been rising especially sharply over the last decade. We can see that the areas of permafrost have been steadily shrinking. This new study shows us that one of the effects of that shrinking permafrost will be faster rising temperatures.
It is, however, important to note that as the temperatures rise and there becomes less snow in the polar regions, that will create another positive feedback loop causing the temperatures to rise more.
We know from the wealth of scientific evidence that temperatures have been rising sharply because of human actions over the last century, and have been rising especially sharply over the last decade. We can see that the areas of permafrost have been steadily shrinking. This new study shows us that one of the effects of that shrinking permafrost will be faster rising temperatures.
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/po ... lation.htm
Government Report: Bio-Weapons Could Be Used To Combat Overpopulation
MoD dossier outlines nightmare vision of new world order, ethnic cleansing, class warfare, brain chips by 2035
Prison Planet | April 9, 2007
Paul Joseph Watson
A British government Ministry of Defence report outlines a nightmare future society in which the population are forced to accept brain chips, immigration and urbanization ravages communities, class warfare ensues, and biological and neutron weapons are used to combat overpopulation.
The MoD's Development, Concepts & Doctrine Center drew up the document to crystallize the "future strategic context" likely to face Britain's armed forces, according to a report in the London Guardian today.
Since every deliberate action of government and industry is working to realize this future, we should look at this as a strategy plan rather than a warning of things to come.
The report hypothesizes what the world will be like in under 30 years and is an "analysis of the key risks and shocks" the planet is likely to face. It's predictions include;
- The development of neutron weapons that destroy living organs but not buildings and "make a weapon of choice for extreme ethnic cleansing in an increasingly populated world." Such weapons would be dispersed by means of unmanned vehicles, leading to "application of lethal force without human intervention, raising consequential legal and ethical issues."
- Within 30 years implanted brain chips as standard for all citizens in developed nations.
- A mass revolt on behalf of the middle classes of the developed world in opposition to rampant immigration, an urban under-class and the deterioration of social order.
- The revival of Marxism as a replacement for religion in an increasingly morally relativist age.
- Unchecked globalization that effectively ends the nation state and leads to wars based on territorial belief systems rather than country against country.
- A sharp decline in the population of white Europeans but an 81% increase in the population of sub-Saharan Africa and that of Middle Eastern countries by 132%.
- Endemic unemployment, instability and threat to the social order as a result of population increase.
- The emergence of a "terrorist coalition," an alliance of belief systems that oppose the state, from environmentalists to "ultra-nationalists" and remnants of religious groups.
The clear implication from this report is that any political or religious group that expresses opposition to the atheistic and dictatorial agenda of the state will be collectively demonized as terrorists and targeted for elimination and ethnic cleansing.
This is the very new world order that the establishment have sought to create by allowing rampant immigration, using the progress of technology to enslave us, launching endless war and shaping the course of history to construct a prison planet.
The elite are deliberately steering world events and engaging in psychological warfare to achieve this self-fulfilling apocalypse. They are hell-bent on manufacturing an end-times scenario similar to that described in Revelations, and whether you believe in the Bible or not, our future is being decided by maniacal psychopaths sworn to destroy humanity.
Every time we study government white papers and strategy documents, whether it be RAND, PNAC or any other major think tank, we come across an obsession with thinning the population by means of horrific acts of ethnic cleansing. In this instance, the plan isn't even veiled under the umbrella of terrorism, it clearly implies that states will deploy weapons of mass destruction to wipe out huge swathes of the population, and particularly those who express opposition to government.
"...advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool."
Who wrote these words in their own strategy document? The Nazis? The regime of Pol Pot?
No, it was Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, William Kristol, Donald Rumsfeld and the rest of the Neo-Con collaborators that formed the Project For a New American Century - the ideological framework of the Bush administration.
Armed Forces Journal, a mouthpiece for the military-industrial complex, last year carried a strategy plan for completely redrawing the borders of the Middle East written by retired Major Ralph Peters.
The document cites peak oil, an economic crash in 2008 and global warming as reasons for a chaotic convergence that will require harsh action on behalf of government.
"Oh, and one other dirty little secret from 5,000 years of history," writes Peters, "Ethnic cleansing works."
"There will be no peace. At any given moment for the rest of our lifetimes, there will be multiple conflicts in mutating forms around the globe. Violent conflict will dominate the headlines, but cultural and economic struggles will be steadier and ultimately more decisive. The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing."
Ethnic cleansing is also popular amongst the establishment scientific community who advocate mass scale eugenics programs to "cull" humanity down to manageable levels. One such example is Dr. Erik Pianka, who made headlines last year when he gave a speech to the Texas Academy of Science in which he advocated the need to exterminate 90% of the population through the airborne ebola virus. The vast majority of his audience, students, scientists and professors alike, stood and cheered when Pianka labeled humanity a bacteria that had to be eliminated.
Similar sentiments are echoed by people like Prince Philip, who in the foreword to his 1986 book If I Were an Animal, wrote, "In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation."
"The simplest answer is that the world's population should be about two billion, and we've got about six billion now," media mogul Ted Turner told E Magazine, an environmentalist publication.
Turner went even further in an interview with Audubon Magazine.
"A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."
In a 1991 interview with the UNESCO Courier, Jacques-Yves Cousteau, the famous Emmy award winning film producer who went on to be a kingpin of the environmental movement said,
"It's terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day."
The global elite and the military-industrial complex have already sworn to inflict genocide to ethnically cleanse world population down to levels that are more easy to control and enslave. This is the ultimate end game of the New World Order - giving birth to the apocalypse and manufacturing hell on earth.
No longer can this be dismissed as a paranoid conspiracy theory when the very architects of this horror are openly discussing it on a regular basis in their own planning documents.
-----------------------------------------
Government Report: Bio-Weapons Could Be Used To Combat Overpopulation
MoD dossier outlines nightmare vision of new world order, ethnic cleansing, class warfare, brain chips by 2035
Prison Planet | April 9, 2007
Paul Joseph Watson
A British government Ministry of Defence report outlines a nightmare future society in which the population are forced to accept brain chips, immigration and urbanization ravages communities, class warfare ensues, and biological and neutron weapons are used to combat overpopulation.
The MoD's Development, Concepts & Doctrine Center drew up the document to crystallize the "future strategic context" likely to face Britain's armed forces, according to a report in the London Guardian today.
Since every deliberate action of government and industry is working to realize this future, we should look at this as a strategy plan rather than a warning of things to come.
The report hypothesizes what the world will be like in under 30 years and is an "analysis of the key risks and shocks" the planet is likely to face. It's predictions include;
- The development of neutron weapons that destroy living organs but not buildings and "make a weapon of choice for extreme ethnic cleansing in an increasingly populated world." Such weapons would be dispersed by means of unmanned vehicles, leading to "application of lethal force without human intervention, raising consequential legal and ethical issues."
- Within 30 years implanted brain chips as standard for all citizens in developed nations.
- A mass revolt on behalf of the middle classes of the developed world in opposition to rampant immigration, an urban under-class and the deterioration of social order.
- The revival of Marxism as a replacement for religion in an increasingly morally relativist age.
- Unchecked globalization that effectively ends the nation state and leads to wars based on territorial belief systems rather than country against country.
- A sharp decline in the population of white Europeans but an 81% increase in the population of sub-Saharan Africa and that of Middle Eastern countries by 132%.
- Endemic unemployment, instability and threat to the social order as a result of population increase.
- The emergence of a "terrorist coalition," an alliance of belief systems that oppose the state, from environmentalists to "ultra-nationalists" and remnants of religious groups.
The clear implication from this report is that any political or religious group that expresses opposition to the atheistic and dictatorial agenda of the state will be collectively demonized as terrorists and targeted for elimination and ethnic cleansing.
This is the very new world order that the establishment have sought to create by allowing rampant immigration, using the progress of technology to enslave us, launching endless war and shaping the course of history to construct a prison planet.
The elite are deliberately steering world events and engaging in psychological warfare to achieve this self-fulfilling apocalypse. They are hell-bent on manufacturing an end-times scenario similar to that described in Revelations, and whether you believe in the Bible or not, our future is being decided by maniacal psychopaths sworn to destroy humanity.
Every time we study government white papers and strategy documents, whether it be RAND, PNAC or any other major think tank, we come across an obsession with thinning the population by means of horrific acts of ethnic cleansing. In this instance, the plan isn't even veiled under the umbrella of terrorism, it clearly implies that states will deploy weapons of mass destruction to wipe out huge swathes of the population, and particularly those who express opposition to government.
"...advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool."
Who wrote these words in their own strategy document? The Nazis? The regime of Pol Pot?
No, it was Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, William Kristol, Donald Rumsfeld and the rest of the Neo-Con collaborators that formed the Project For a New American Century - the ideological framework of the Bush administration.
Armed Forces Journal, a mouthpiece for the military-industrial complex, last year carried a strategy plan for completely redrawing the borders of the Middle East written by retired Major Ralph Peters.
The document cites peak oil, an economic crash in 2008 and global warming as reasons for a chaotic convergence that will require harsh action on behalf of government.
"Oh, and one other dirty little secret from 5,000 years of history," writes Peters, "Ethnic cleansing works."
"There will be no peace. At any given moment for the rest of our lifetimes, there will be multiple conflicts in mutating forms around the globe. Violent conflict will dominate the headlines, but cultural and economic struggles will be steadier and ultimately more decisive. The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing."
Ethnic cleansing is also popular amongst the establishment scientific community who advocate mass scale eugenics programs to "cull" humanity down to manageable levels. One such example is Dr. Erik Pianka, who made headlines last year when he gave a speech to the Texas Academy of Science in which he advocated the need to exterminate 90% of the population through the airborne ebola virus. The vast majority of his audience, students, scientists and professors alike, stood and cheered when Pianka labeled humanity a bacteria that had to be eliminated.
Similar sentiments are echoed by people like Prince Philip, who in the foreword to his 1986 book If I Were an Animal, wrote, "In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation."
"The simplest answer is that the world's population should be about two billion, and we've got about six billion now," media mogul Ted Turner told E Magazine, an environmentalist publication.
Turner went even further in an interview with Audubon Magazine.
"A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."
In a 1991 interview with the UNESCO Courier, Jacques-Yves Cousteau, the famous Emmy award winning film producer who went on to be a kingpin of the environmental movement said,
"It's terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day."
The global elite and the military-industrial complex have already sworn to inflict genocide to ethnically cleanse world population down to levels that are more easy to control and enslave. This is the ultimate end game of the New World Order - giving birth to the apocalypse and manufacturing hell on earth.
No longer can this be dismissed as a paranoid conspiracy theory when the very architects of this horror are openly discussing it on a regular basis in their own planning documents.
-----------------------------------------
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-
ObArA'BaRs
- Flower Child
- Posts: 2086
- Joined: 30 Jan 2006 19:05
- Location: Chicago burbs, IL
- Contact:
'It's terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day"
Wow. I guess I can agree with this statment. Im use to getting yelled at for this same response. The way I think about it AIDs and other disease's will take its toll. At least china knows what Im talking about. Please don't take this seriously guys. Its only a thought.
Wow. I guess I can agree with this statment. Im use to getting yelled at for this same response. The way I think about it AIDs and other disease's will take its toll. At least china knows what Im talking about. Please don't take this seriously guys. Its only a thought.
Im 20
Keep footbag'n till yo skins saggin.......
JSACK wrote: wrote:alright well me and obara'bars, shredded our dicks off, since we are both in high school, obviously there is some sort of talent show
Keep footbag'n till yo skins saggin.......
I think the discussion of global warming has been hijacked and turned into something way too political. People treat me like a Holocaust denier if I try to bring up information that goes against the current dogma of climate change. The fact is that some of the global warming of the past century is due to man made activity, and some is natural (increased solar output). Of the man-made portion, greenhouse gases are only one aspect. some is due to the fact that a greater % of the earth's surface is now impervious cover - an aspect that I never hear anyone talk about. The fact that all I hear is "CARBON CARBON CARBON" makes me suspicious when the science is indicating that it is WAY more complicated than that.
not to mention that the institution of a global carbon tax has gained popularity as a means of "saving the earth." my ass. talk about a government wet dream - a forced global tax on a commodity that nobody can live without (http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/05/carbontax.html). i'm all for alternative fuels, but i feel this has nothing to do with that. call me a cynic.
Oh and I may just be dense, but regarding that MoD article, I can't say that I fully understand its relevance in this thread. are you just pointing out the growing perspective that humans are just a scourge of the earth that needs to controlled (as some die hard global warming people contend)? spell it out to me.
not to mention that the institution of a global carbon tax has gained popularity as a means of "saving the earth." my ass. talk about a government wet dream - a forced global tax on a commodity that nobody can live without (http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/05/carbontax.html). i'm all for alternative fuels, but i feel this has nothing to do with that. call me a cynic.
Oh and I may just be dense, but regarding that MoD article, I can't say that I fully understand its relevance in this thread. are you just pointing out the growing perspective that humans are just a scourge of the earth that needs to controlled (as some die hard global warming people contend)? spell it out to me.
Cody Rushing
To be clear;
The first section of the fourth IPCC report looked extensively at all the reasons the climate of the Earth was rising (and falling) and expressed all those reasons. It found that the total net radiative forcing due to human activity (ie. extra energy the Earth is subject to) is 1.6 watts per square meter.
That's taking into account all greenhouse gasses, ozone, stratospheric water vapour, surface albedo, total aerosol, linear contrails, and also the natural effect of solar irradiance.
What this means is that even if the temperatures are naturally rising; human actions are still having a significant effect in making them rise more and faster.
The first section of the fourth IPCC report looked extensively at all the reasons the climate of the Earth was rising (and falling) and expressed all those reasons. It found that the total net radiative forcing due to human activity (ie. extra energy the Earth is subject to) is 1.6 watts per square meter.
That's taking into account all greenhouse gasses, ozone, stratospheric water vapour, surface albedo, total aerosol, linear contrails, and also the natural effect of solar irradiance.
What this means is that even if the temperatures are naturally rising; human actions are still having a significant effect in making them rise more and faster.
For the record, the IPCC research showed that the radiative forcing due to CO2 emissions is 1.66 W/m^2. The total effect of all the other climate changing factors (including surface albedo; ie light reflected by snow that Jon was talking about, "global cooling" mentioned in this topic and solar irradiance mentioned in this topic) is -0.6 W/m^2
That is to say that if humans weren't releasing carbon into the atmosphere, the temperatures would be very slightly dropping. The report is talking about anthropomorphic CO2; ie. CO2 released by human activity.
That is to say that if humans weren't releasing carbon into the atmosphere, the temperatures would be very slightly dropping. The report is talking about anthropomorphic CO2; ie. CO2 released by human activity.
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
note: When I write "Greens".....I mean environmentalist, global-warming true believers...not the political parties in Aus. and U.K.
morsecode is correct to be skeptical.
Even though he seems to accept the basic premise of manmade-warming, he distrusts rabid politicians attempts to pick every pocket, limit every modern convenience, and take away as many rights as possible.
Carbon taxes are a total sham, you don't actually receive clean air for it, and government schmucks get money they dont deserve (and wont use to reduce emissions).
Rightfully, carbon tax revenue should go into a giant bonfire, because the government is part of the emission problem, with so many vehicles and employees who wastefully use those vehicles.
Destroying the revenue/wealth would be better for the environment, than to use it to fund limosines, private jets, and to heat Al Gore's swimmng pool.
And the revenue should not go to underdeveloped poor countries either, because that encourages and enables their breeding, thus producing more "useless eaters".
-----------------------------------------
To spell it out a bit for morsecode: I put that Mod article (and may include more later) up for dual-purpose.
One purpose, is to trap the sensitive environmentalists on this board into advocating, and supporting different schemes of mass murder on a scale never seen in human history.
I think we would be suprised, how many Greens can be coaxed into that.
Even if you don't support genocide, I'll bet conditions can be set up, to make it easy for you to ignore it.
Notice how Dr. Pianka didn't advocate for using a painless "solution" in his speech.
He supported inflicting onto billions of people, one of the most horrific painful deaths possible: a hemoraging Ebola-like death.
The second purpose is to show how Hysterical Greens advance the agenda of big oil men, and socialist globalist elites.
They know greens can be duped into giving up their rights and sovereignty, and greens can possibly be "elected" into positions of power so as to surrender everybody elses' freedoms.
Global taxes on gas for example, could well fund a U.N., or EU army, or a One World Facist government.
-n
morsecode is correct to be skeptical.
Even though he seems to accept the basic premise of manmade-warming, he distrusts rabid politicians attempts to pick every pocket, limit every modern convenience, and take away as many rights as possible.
Carbon taxes are a total sham, you don't actually receive clean air for it, and government schmucks get money they dont deserve (and wont use to reduce emissions).
Rightfully, carbon tax revenue should go into a giant bonfire, because the government is part of the emission problem, with so many vehicles and employees who wastefully use those vehicles.
Destroying the revenue/wealth would be better for the environment, than to use it to fund limosines, private jets, and to heat Al Gore's swimmng pool.
And the revenue should not go to underdeveloped poor countries either, because that encourages and enables their breeding, thus producing more "useless eaters".
-----------------------------------------
To spell it out a bit for morsecode: I put that Mod article (and may include more later) up for dual-purpose.
One purpose, is to trap the sensitive environmentalists on this board into advocating, and supporting different schemes of mass murder on a scale never seen in human history.
I think we would be suprised, how many Greens can be coaxed into that.
Even if you don't support genocide, I'll bet conditions can be set up, to make it easy for you to ignore it.
Notice how Dr. Pianka didn't advocate for using a painless "solution" in his speech.
He supported inflicting onto billions of people, one of the most horrific painful deaths possible: a hemoraging Ebola-like death.
The second purpose is to show how Hysterical Greens advance the agenda of big oil men, and socialist globalist elites.
They know greens can be duped into giving up their rights and sovereignty, and greens can possibly be "elected" into positions of power so as to surrender everybody elses' freedoms.
Global taxes on gas for example, could well fund a U.N., or EU army, or a One World Facist government.
-n
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
http://www.desmogblog.com/slamming-the- ... eptic-scam
Slamming the Climate Skeptic Scam
1 Dec 05
There is a line between public relations and propaganda - or there should be. And there is a difference between using your skills, in good faith, to help rescue a battered reputation and using them to twist the truth - to sow confusion and doubt on an issue that is critical to human survival.
And it is infuriating - as a public relations professional - to watch my colleagues use their skills, their training and their considerable intellect to poison the international debate on climate change.
That's what is happening today, and I think it's a disgrace. On one hand, you have the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the largest and most rigorously peer-reviewed scientific consensus in history, advising that:
* climate change is real;
* it is caused by human activity; and
* it is threatening the planet in ways we can only begin to imagine.
On the other hand, you have an ongoing public debate - not about how to respond, but about whether we should bother, about whether climate change is even a scientific certainty.
Few PR offences have been so obvious, so successful and so despicable as the attack on the scientific certainty of climate change.
This is a triumph of disinformation. It is a living proof of the success of one of the boldest and most extensive PR campaigns in history, primarily financed by the energy industry and executed by some of the best PR talent in the world. As a public relations practitioner, it is a marvel - and a deep humiliation - and I want to see it stop.
Here's the way it works: Public relations is not a process of telling people what to think; people are too smart for that, and North Americans are way too stubborn. Tell a bunch of North Americans what they are supposed to think and you're likely to wind up the only person at the party enjoying your can of New Coke.
No, the trick to executing a good PR campaign is twofold: you figure out what people are thinking already; and then you nudge them gently from that position to one that is closer to where you want them to be. The first step is research: you find out what they know and understand; you identify the specific gaps in their knowledge. Then you fill those gaps with a purpose-built campaign. You educate. If people are afraid to take Tylenol (as they were after someone poisoned some pills), you explain the extensive safety precautions now typical in the pharmaceutical industry. If people think Martha Stewart is arrogant and uncaring, you create opportunities for her to show a more human side.
In the best cases - the cases that are most personally rewarding - the advice you give to clients actually drives corporate behavior. That is, if a client wants to protect or revive their reputation, if they want to convince the public that they're running a responsible company and doing the right thing, the most obvious public relations advice is that they should do the right thing.
It's the kind of advice that, historically, has been a hard sell in the tobacco industry, in the asbestos industry - and too often in the automotive industry. Those sectors have provided some of the most famous examples of PR disinformation: "smoking isn't necessarily bad for you;" "it's not an absolute certainty that asbestos will give you cancer;" "your seatbelt might actually kill you if you're the one person in five million who flips his car into a watery ditch."
But few PR offences have been so obvious, so successful and so despicable as the attack on the scientific certainty of climate change. Few have been so coldly calculating and few have been so well documented. For example, Ross Gelbspan, in his books, The Heat is On and Boiling Point sets out the whole case, pointing fingers and naming names. PR Watch founder John Stauber has done similarly exemplary work, tracking the bogus campaigns and linking various pseudo scientists to their energy industry funders.
One of the best examples - the most compelling proofs that the disinformation generation is no accident - came in a November 2002 memo from political consultant Frank Luntz to the U.S. Republican Party. Luntz followed the rules: he did the research; he identified the soft spots in public opinion; and he made a clever critical judgment about which way the public could be induced to move.
In a section entitled "Winning the Global Warming Debate," Luntz says this (and all the points of emphasis are his own):
"The Scientific Debate Remains Open. Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field."
If you download the memo and read the whole thing, you will notice that Luntz never expressly denies the validity of the science. In fact, he says, "The scientific debate is closing [against us] but is not yet closed."
" ... not yet closed"? Among those who disagree with that assessment are the 2,500 scientists in the IPCC, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society of London and the Royal Society of Canada Donald Kennedy, editor-in-chief of Science magazine, says, "We're in the middle of a large uncontrolled experiment on the only planet we have." And to back up his sense of certainty, he reported that Science had analysed the 928 peer-reviewed climate studies published between 1993 and 2003 and found not a single one that disagreed with the general scientific consensus.
Journalists have consistently reported the updates from the best climate scientists in the world juxtaposed against the unsubstantiated raving of an industry-funded climate change denier - as if both are equally valid.
Notwithstanding, Luntz wrote: "There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science." He recommended that his Republican Party clients do just that. He urged them to marshal their own "scientists" to contest the issue on every occasion. He urged them to plead for "sound science" a twist of language of the sort that George Orwell once said was "designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidarity to pure wind."
Luntz's goal - embraced with unnerving enthusiasm by the Bush Administration - is to manufacture uncertainty and to politicize science. Like all tragedy, it would be hilarious if you could play it for laughs.
It's an open question as to whether Luntz and company are being willfully blind or grossly negligent in the way they have ignored the science - and the potential catastrophic risks that they promote. But whichever way you cut it, their actions reflect badly on the whole public relations industry.
Conspiracy theorists will be happy to hear that I'm not suggesting that Frank Luntz or even a dubious cabal of ethics-free PR people are solely to blame for the public confusion on climate change. They have received extensive, if clumsy assistance from the media, which in a lazy and facile attempt to provide "balance" is willing to give any opinion equal time as long as it is firmly in contradiction with another.
This is not just a feature of the point/counterpoint talking heads that have emerged as the principal vehicle for television news. Newspaper reporters are just as guilty of canvassing "both sides" of every argument, often without providing any critical judgment as to the validity or relative weight of either side. On the issue of climate change, journalists have consistently reported the updates from the best climate scientists in the world juxtaposed against the unsubstantiated raving of an industry-funded climate change denier - as if both are equally valid. This is not balanced journalism. It is a critical abdication of journalistic responsibility. Any reporter who cannot assess the relative merits of a global scientific consensus - especially in contradiction to an "expert" that the coal industry is paying to help "clear the air" - deserves to have his pencil taken away in solemn ceremony and broken into bits.
There is yet more blame to go around. You could criticize scientists for the dense, cautious and conditional language that they use in talking about the threats of climate change. But in science, credibility is a currency (this, in apparent contradiction to the state of affairs in journalism or PR). A scientist who strays, even momentarily, off the path of certainty or who wanders from hard science into policy is immediately dismissed as someone with an axe to grind.
You could also criticize environmentalists, whose tendency has been to stray too far in the other direction, extrapolating scientific assumptions to create scare stories so dispiriting that they create apathy rather than activism. These, in turn, have made easy targets for the energy industry's climate change deniers.
The important thing at this point, however, is not to assign blame. It is to educate yourself and to join this increasingly urgent policy debate. This is not one of those relatively low-level PR boondoggles. We're not talking about single individuals dying because the auto industry held out against seat belt laws. We're not even talking about many 100s of thousands of people dying of lung cancer because the tobacco industry held out for "sound science" while actively increasing the amount of addictive nicotine in their product. We're talking about the future of the planet.
So please read on. Read everything. Check out the sites that deny the reality of climate change and then check on www.sourcewatch.org to see who paid for those opinions. Don't accept the word of people who pass themselves off as "skeptics." Be skeptical yourself. Ask yourself what motive the scientific community has to gang up and invent a phony climate crisis. Compare that to the motives that ExxonMobile or Peabody Coal might have to deny that burning fossil fuels indiscriminately could change irrevocably our existence on the planet.
And if you still leave the lights on when you're done, make sure they're shining in the shamed faces of the PR pros who are still trying to prevent sound, sensible policy change to affect this, perhaps the biggest threat humankind has ever faced.
Slamming the Climate Skeptic Scam
1 Dec 05
There is a line between public relations and propaganda - or there should be. And there is a difference between using your skills, in good faith, to help rescue a battered reputation and using them to twist the truth - to sow confusion and doubt on an issue that is critical to human survival.
And it is infuriating - as a public relations professional - to watch my colleagues use their skills, their training and their considerable intellect to poison the international debate on climate change.
That's what is happening today, and I think it's a disgrace. On one hand, you have the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the largest and most rigorously peer-reviewed scientific consensus in history, advising that:
* climate change is real;
* it is caused by human activity; and
* it is threatening the planet in ways we can only begin to imagine.
On the other hand, you have an ongoing public debate - not about how to respond, but about whether we should bother, about whether climate change is even a scientific certainty.
Few PR offences have been so obvious, so successful and so despicable as the attack on the scientific certainty of climate change.
This is a triumph of disinformation. It is a living proof of the success of one of the boldest and most extensive PR campaigns in history, primarily financed by the energy industry and executed by some of the best PR talent in the world. As a public relations practitioner, it is a marvel - and a deep humiliation - and I want to see it stop.
Here's the way it works: Public relations is not a process of telling people what to think; people are too smart for that, and North Americans are way too stubborn. Tell a bunch of North Americans what they are supposed to think and you're likely to wind up the only person at the party enjoying your can of New Coke.
No, the trick to executing a good PR campaign is twofold: you figure out what people are thinking already; and then you nudge them gently from that position to one that is closer to where you want them to be. The first step is research: you find out what they know and understand; you identify the specific gaps in their knowledge. Then you fill those gaps with a purpose-built campaign. You educate. If people are afraid to take Tylenol (as they were after someone poisoned some pills), you explain the extensive safety precautions now typical in the pharmaceutical industry. If people think Martha Stewart is arrogant and uncaring, you create opportunities for her to show a more human side.
In the best cases - the cases that are most personally rewarding - the advice you give to clients actually drives corporate behavior. That is, if a client wants to protect or revive their reputation, if they want to convince the public that they're running a responsible company and doing the right thing, the most obvious public relations advice is that they should do the right thing.
It's the kind of advice that, historically, has been a hard sell in the tobacco industry, in the asbestos industry - and too often in the automotive industry. Those sectors have provided some of the most famous examples of PR disinformation: "smoking isn't necessarily bad for you;" "it's not an absolute certainty that asbestos will give you cancer;" "your seatbelt might actually kill you if you're the one person in five million who flips his car into a watery ditch."
But few PR offences have been so obvious, so successful and so despicable as the attack on the scientific certainty of climate change. Few have been so coldly calculating and few have been so well documented. For example, Ross Gelbspan, in his books, The Heat is On and Boiling Point sets out the whole case, pointing fingers and naming names. PR Watch founder John Stauber has done similarly exemplary work, tracking the bogus campaigns and linking various pseudo scientists to their energy industry funders.
One of the best examples - the most compelling proofs that the disinformation generation is no accident - came in a November 2002 memo from political consultant Frank Luntz to the U.S. Republican Party. Luntz followed the rules: he did the research; he identified the soft spots in public opinion; and he made a clever critical judgment about which way the public could be induced to move.
In a section entitled "Winning the Global Warming Debate," Luntz says this (and all the points of emphasis are his own):
"The Scientific Debate Remains Open. Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field."
If you download the memo and read the whole thing, you will notice that Luntz never expressly denies the validity of the science. In fact, he says, "The scientific debate is closing [against us] but is not yet closed."
" ... not yet closed"? Among those who disagree with that assessment are the 2,500 scientists in the IPCC, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society of London and the Royal Society of Canada Donald Kennedy, editor-in-chief of Science magazine, says, "We're in the middle of a large uncontrolled experiment on the only planet we have." And to back up his sense of certainty, he reported that Science had analysed the 928 peer-reviewed climate studies published between 1993 and 2003 and found not a single one that disagreed with the general scientific consensus.
Journalists have consistently reported the updates from the best climate scientists in the world juxtaposed against the unsubstantiated raving of an industry-funded climate change denier - as if both are equally valid.
Notwithstanding, Luntz wrote: "There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science." He recommended that his Republican Party clients do just that. He urged them to marshal their own "scientists" to contest the issue on every occasion. He urged them to plead for "sound science" a twist of language of the sort that George Orwell once said was "designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidarity to pure wind."
Luntz's goal - embraced with unnerving enthusiasm by the Bush Administration - is to manufacture uncertainty and to politicize science. Like all tragedy, it would be hilarious if you could play it for laughs.
It's an open question as to whether Luntz and company are being willfully blind or grossly negligent in the way they have ignored the science - and the potential catastrophic risks that they promote. But whichever way you cut it, their actions reflect badly on the whole public relations industry.
Conspiracy theorists will be happy to hear that I'm not suggesting that Frank Luntz or even a dubious cabal of ethics-free PR people are solely to blame for the public confusion on climate change. They have received extensive, if clumsy assistance from the media, which in a lazy and facile attempt to provide "balance" is willing to give any opinion equal time as long as it is firmly in contradiction with another.
This is not just a feature of the point/counterpoint talking heads that have emerged as the principal vehicle for television news. Newspaper reporters are just as guilty of canvassing "both sides" of every argument, often without providing any critical judgment as to the validity or relative weight of either side. On the issue of climate change, journalists have consistently reported the updates from the best climate scientists in the world juxtaposed against the unsubstantiated raving of an industry-funded climate change denier - as if both are equally valid. This is not balanced journalism. It is a critical abdication of journalistic responsibility. Any reporter who cannot assess the relative merits of a global scientific consensus - especially in contradiction to an "expert" that the coal industry is paying to help "clear the air" - deserves to have his pencil taken away in solemn ceremony and broken into bits.
There is yet more blame to go around. You could criticize scientists for the dense, cautious and conditional language that they use in talking about the threats of climate change. But in science, credibility is a currency (this, in apparent contradiction to the state of affairs in journalism or PR). A scientist who strays, even momentarily, off the path of certainty or who wanders from hard science into policy is immediately dismissed as someone with an axe to grind.
You could also criticize environmentalists, whose tendency has been to stray too far in the other direction, extrapolating scientific assumptions to create scare stories so dispiriting that they create apathy rather than activism. These, in turn, have made easy targets for the energy industry's climate change deniers.
The important thing at this point, however, is not to assign blame. It is to educate yourself and to join this increasingly urgent policy debate. This is not one of those relatively low-level PR boondoggles. We're not talking about single individuals dying because the auto industry held out against seat belt laws. We're not even talking about many 100s of thousands of people dying of lung cancer because the tobacco industry held out for "sound science" while actively increasing the amount of addictive nicotine in their product. We're talking about the future of the planet.
So please read on. Read everything. Check out the sites that deny the reality of climate change and then check on www.sourcewatch.org to see who paid for those opinions. Don't accept the word of people who pass themselves off as "skeptics." Be skeptical yourself. Ask yourself what motive the scientific community has to gang up and invent a phony climate crisis. Compare that to the motives that ExxonMobile or Peabody Coal might have to deny that burning fossil fuels indiscriminately could change irrevocably our existence on the planet.
And if you still leave the lights on when you're done, make sure they're shining in the shamed faces of the PR pros who are still trying to prevent sound, sensible policy change to affect this, perhaps the biggest threat humankind has ever faced.
Yeah that blog is a very good one (about climate change).
It's also important to note that the "scientists" who are opposing climate change are not only being paid by the oil industry, but many of the same "scientists" were also paid by the tobacco industry to claim that smoking does not cause cancer.
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/clima ... 62,00.html
It's also important to note that the "scientists" who are opposing climate change are not only being paid by the oil industry, but many of the same "scientists" were also paid by the tobacco industry to claim that smoking does not cause cancer.
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/clima ... 62,00.html
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
Now would be a perfect time to mention that I remember reading earlier that Jeremy said he worked for one of Australia's largest environmental charities. Is that true?
If so, is he not being paid by the warming industry?
Does advancing the G.W. hysteria result in increased tax revenue to that charity?
Will this take money out of the pocket of the poorest folks, and enrich Jeremys' bosses?
Should we view him the same way as a tobacco lobbyist, advancing the position of his meal-ticket ?
I have been wondering this for a while.
His position at the charity seems to lend his opinions advanced credibility, while at the same time, possible bias never gets even a passing thought.
---------------
Secondly, the IPCC is again portayed as the, end-all-be-all of scientific knowledge.
However, all their recent reports have been termed: "Summary for Policymakers".
All we had was a summary, but that was enough for the media, and the kooks, to argue 100% scientific certainty.
So for months now , they appear to have released a Summary of a Summary of a Summary.
Where is their huge release of the scientific proof?
I am just finishing reading the AR4WGI "summary" and will post more questions later.
-n
If so, is he not being paid by the warming industry?
Does advancing the G.W. hysteria result in increased tax revenue to that charity?
Will this take money out of the pocket of the poorest folks, and enrich Jeremys' bosses?
Should we view him the same way as a tobacco lobbyist, advancing the position of his meal-ticket ?
I have been wondering this for a while.
His position at the charity seems to lend his opinions advanced credibility, while at the same time, possible bias never gets even a passing thought.
---------------
Secondly, the IPCC is again portayed as the, end-all-be-all of scientific knowledge.
However, all their recent reports have been termed: "Summary for Policymakers".
All we had was a summary, but that was enough for the media, and the kooks, to argue 100% scientific certainty.
So for months now , they appear to have released a Summary of a Summary of a Summary.
Where is their huge release of the scientific proof?
I am just finishing reading the AR4WGI "summary" and will post more questions later.
-n
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
Wow , that summary does have some juicy targets in it.
I will prepare a brief report of why that summary , and it's conclusions, are full of crap.
That summary is going to crash and burn, like a Zero being hit by 6, 50-caliber machine guns.
-n
I will prepare a brief report of why that summary , and it's conclusions, are full of crap.
That summary is going to crash and burn, like a Zero being hit by 6, 50-caliber machine guns.
-n
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
I am paid the exact same amount regardless of how much money our charity earns, and the same applies to everybody who works in management. I have no wage incentives or bonuses, apart from the incentive of wanting to help the environment. Not only that, but my organisation is celebrated its 30th birthday last year, so it's been working to save the environment for a longer than global warming has been viewed as a serious problem.HighDemonslayer wrote:Now would be a perfect time to mention that I remember reading earlier that Jeremy said he worked for one of Australia's largest environmental charities. Is that true?
If so, is he not being paid by the warming industry?
Does advancing the G.W. hysteria result in increased tax revenue to that charity?
Will this take money out of the pocket of the poorest folks, and enrich Jeremys' bosses?
Should we view him the same way as a tobacco lobbyist, advancing the position of his meal-ticket ?
I have been wondering this for a while.
His position at the charity seems to lend his opinions advanced credibility, while at the same time, possible bias never gets even a passing thought.
---------------
-n
Prior to my involvement with this organisation I've been a volunteer with the Greens political party and helped organise and run an environment and social justice club at high school. One of the reasons I hold my job is because I could demonstrate a strong passion for the environment which I was not paid for.
Of course I should also point out that as far as I know nobody has ever donated money to my charity because of what I write here, and indeed I'm fairly careful not to mention who I work for, because the opinions I express are my own opinions, and not the opinions of my work, or anybody else.
Also the information I present is not information that my charity paid for, or had any part in commissioning. IPCC scientists are not paid to present a particular view, rather they are paid to give a picture of what is really happening.
On the other hand, the "tobacco is safe" scientists who have now become "climate change is natural" scientists are paid specifically to express doubt over the issues. It's not that they expressed their views, and then the oil companies said they'd pay them to keep saying it; the oil companies approached them and said they'd pay them to express the view that the oil companies wanted.
It's also important to note that I have always disclosed the fact that I work for an environmental charity. I have not attempted to hide the fact. However the climate skeptics scientists do not present their view including the fact that they've been paid by multinational oil companies to say what they're saying. That's a clear difference.
-
junkyardjew
- BSOS Beast
- Posts: 457
- Joined: 08 Dec 2004 09:47
- Location: Kingston, ON
- Contact:
sorry all I do is post comics, but really, they generally summarise my points fairly well.
and its true, even if global warming is a sham (it isn't, don't kid yourself) are we just going to drive around in our hummers until we suck the last drop of oil out of the ground and burn it? What if that happens within your lifetime?
Jared MacKay