The Denial Machine (global warming?)

[temperance]

As I watched the 5th estate, I realized what exactly is going on ,Exxon, Esso is paying scientists (not so practising) to tell us that global warming is no big deal ,,oh and how Canada just follow U.S into the depths of hell ,all the tecnology and know how is out there to reduce emmissions and use sun, wind as power ,what and who doesnt want it? ,this hydrogen program thats is suppose to be such a great thing still needs a power source ,its just a power holder not a source .



http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/index.html

 

[temperance]

Please ,I would really like to hear some views on this ,how do people feel? ,what do you think is it the truth are we being dubbed by the oil companies ,are our live grandchildren being forfited to line big wigs pockets ?

 

[Jay]

Well if the CBC said it, it must be true. It's not as if they are a left wing propaganda machine...

Why doesn't the CBC cover the other side of the equation?

 

[#juan]

Global warming is a myth. It is only an illusion that glaciers all over the world have melted. It is a lie that for the fifteenth year we've had the warmest year on record. That Greenland's sheet ice, that has been there, and not melted for thousands of years, has, and is melting means nothing. The melting and erosion of hundred thousand year old ice packs on both poles is likely meaningless. That polar bears are drowning trying to swim to the retreating ice packs is not really happening...very much. That Pine Beatles and other tree eating insects are moving north where they haven't been before, is just another coincidence. All this evidence is .probably junk science. Repeat after me, "Global warming is not happening", "Global warming is not happening". George W. Bush told me so.

http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_evd.htm#Disintegration

 

[Tonington]

Left wing propoganda, as opposed to right wing propoganda? I haven't actually seen any documentary which showcased the opposition to global warming. Have you watched this piece by the CBC? It's nothing new. I've seen that information in countless other sources. The Bush administration in their own words said theat they were reviewing and changing peer reviewed science as it pertained to policy. You tell me, what right does the government with people like oil executives and petro-chemical lawyers have to change peer reviewed studies? I'll tell you, none. They are not experts in the field, they were using propoganda to change public perception, and stiffling the research by their own government departments.

Lets look at the rewards of standing on either side of this issue. What does the Government and oil companies stand to gain by taking the position they have? What do the scientists have to gain by publishing the research that they are conducting? Lets start with government and oil tycoons. If the emissions were regulated, the oil companies would lose profit. Furthermore, if the warming trend is slowed, that means they will have to wait longer to get to the reserves which lie under a gigantic sheet of Ice to our north. Recent estimations by US energy commissions have stated that 1/4 of the earth's remaining petroleum products are under the Arctic basin. With large fields not being found anymorer, I would say that is a great incentive for them to take the handy position they have taken. What do the scientists with opposite views have to gain? Well, if the global warming problem goes away, they will actually have less money available for research. Once the problem is gone, research dollars will not be forthcoming to look at a problem that doesn't exist. What the scientists have to gain is the hope that we can turn it around. They are the ones out there gaining first hand knowledge of the situation. They can see the changes. They can measure the changes. They can model future changes.

I get a kick out of the whole leftist propoganda statements. When the "right-leaning" propoganda is so obvious and transparent. What do you hear from the conservative news agencies whenever they talk of global warming, they call it fear tactics. What the hell do you think the terror alert is? Today it's red, "Please take away my rights and keep me safe!" For all the whining by those who are against anthopogenic cause of global warming, I have yet to see any concrete proof to assert their position. All I see is political rhetoric, the worst kind of rhetoric. Spin doctors working away to change public perception. Selective use of facts, ignoring corresponding facts and ad hoc arguments. The burden of proof rests with those who wish to dispute the growing body of evidence. So I submit, prove it wrong.

 

[Jay]

Global warming is a myth. It is only an illusion that glaciers all over the world have melted. It is a lie that for the fifteenth year we've had the warmest year on record. That Greenland's sheet ice, that has been there, and not melted for thousands of years, has, and is melting means nothing. The melting and erosion of hundred thousand year old ice packs on both poles is likely meaningless. That polar bears are drowning trying to swim to the retreating ice packs is not really happening...very much. That Pine Beatles and other tree eating insects are moving north where they haven't been before, is just another coincidence. All this evidence is .probably junk science. Repeat after me, "Global warming is not happening", "Global warming is not happening". George W. Bush told me so.

Your like a broken record...if some disputes climate change is caused by humans you (and others) come back with the rhetoric of above...and add "GWB told me so" BS.

And you people wonder why we think YOUR brainwashed. You'll believe anything as long as GWB doesn't say it, and if he does say it then the opposite is what you will believe.

There is no proof that humans are causing global warming, and it has already been determined, in another thread here, that the human activity is so small compared to the natural forces occurring that there is nothing we can do about it.

So who is stupid here? The people wanting to take down industry and dump billions of tax dollars into some plan calling it a "climate change policy" or the people who understand that climate change is out of our hands and that any policy about climate change that doesn't deal with its effects rather than stopping it, is stupid.

You people act like children...if you can't put a dent in the corporate world you hate so much then you cry and make up stories and blame GWB.

 

[Jay]

I get a kick out of the whole leftist propoganda statements. When the "right-leaning" propoganda is so obvious and transparent.

As opposed to the entire world being duped into thinking humans caused global warming?


If you don't think the CBC is a leftist organization then you probably belong to the left wing spectrum.

We wouldn't have a problem with it so much if it wasn't funded by tax dollars....


And to address the who gains what aspect....yes what does the left gain out of duping the entire world into thinking we are causing things we aren't? What did the USSR gain out of 80 years of abject communism...these are interesting questions indeed. Didn't I already say that this whole "climate change" thing was politics?

 

[Curiosity]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm I wonder how much money was spent feeding all those people at the U.N. Meeting?

I guess their billion dollar mansion in New York isn't suitable?

The Kingmakers of the Modern World - the U.N.

 

[Tonington]

Again, I say, show me where the science has duped us, as opposed to politicians duping us. My political views are not what colours my view on this subject. I am studying science at university. Before this degree I was in a liberla arts program. From both programs, I have been programmed to look at facts and draw my own coclusions. Rarely do I see any media piece that makes me question my point of view, when it does, I go out and seek information to affirm or disprove what I have heard. My personal opinion of global warming is much different than what global warming stories in the media portray. I believe that the THC in the Atlantic will shut down and we will cool rapidly.

Lets talk about tax dollars being speant on refuting the science. Thats where I really have a problem. Quit calling it the left. Just because a scientist draws conclusions, or an open minded person agrees with said conclusions, does not make them a leftist. Being leftist would be if I blindly accepted the position just because my particular political party endorses it. I have no particular party that I vote for, I've voted for three different parties in my short time as a voter.

Climate change is political now. I don't argue againmst that. It is however something which has been made political. The science is not political. Science can be disproven, or shown to be wrong. Again I say, prove it wrong.

 

[#juan]

G.W.Bush was the first person I heard talk about "junk science". That little buzz phrase has been repeated by many, many, people who know nothing about science. It is clear that warming is happening. I'm only a lowly mechanical engineer but I can see that. What is in dispute, is what is causing it. Better scientists than me are saying it is man-made. The premises, on which the Kyoto Accord was based, seem to me to be reasonable. I have yet to hear a reasonable argument to show that man is not causing it. Since This involves my children, and grandchildren, I prefer to err on the side of caution.

 

[Curiosity]

November 17, 2006 - 4:25 PM

U.N. climate talks make progress on Kyoto overhaul




By Gerard Wynn and Daniel Wallis

NAIROBI (Reuters) - Ministers at U.N. climate talks agreed on Friday to a review, ending in 2008, of the Kyoto Protocol, a step that could pave the way to a broader long-term fight against global warming, senior officials said.

The deal to review the effectiveness of the pact could open the way to widening Kyoto when the first period ends in 2012.

The ministers' agreement has a good chance of approval by the 189 countries attending the talks, the head of the U.N.'s climate change body, Yvo de Boer, told Reuters in an interview.

"Those ministers here are representing the larger constituency in the (plenary) meeting, so the fact that they've reached an agreement makes me quite confident that we'll be able to reach agreement in the plenary as well," de Boer said.

Organisers also reported progress with a Russian proposal to create a new mechanism to let new countries sign up for cuts in greenhouse gas emissions under Kyoto -- another of the big unresolved areas that could scupper the talks.

"We're ready to go to the plenary with the Russian proposal as well," said de Boer.

But German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel said the talks, which have focused on fighting climate change and aiding Africa, had achieved too little in combating warming that many fear could lead to famine, drought, heatwaves and rising seas.

NOT ENOUGH

"It's not enough, what we've reached in the conference," he said. "We have heard many things about national interests ... but relatively seldom about climate change".

Many backers of Kyoto want to review the protocol, partly to demonstrate that its caps on emissions are inadequate to slow the rise in temperature. That in turn could put pressure on outsiders such as the United States, China and India to join.

But poorer states say the rich must continue to take the lead beyond 2012, and U.S. President George W. Bush, who pulled out of Kyoto in 2001, says he has no plans to sign up for a scheme he views as an economic straitjacket.

"If we get the ... review done in 2008 we are well on our way for a new climate change regime after 2012," said Barbara Helfferich, spokeswoman for the European Commission. The talks are likely to last into the early hours of Saturday.

Earlier, de Boer dismissed environmentalists' complaints that the 6,000 bureaucrats at the talks had achieved too little.

"I think the conference has made very significant progress for developing countries," de Boer said, pointing to incentives to promote clean energy such as solar or wind power under a scheme that could channel $100 billion to poor nations by 2012.

He also said the talks had set principles for a fund meant to help developing nations adapt to climate change. The fund is expected to grow sharply but is now worth just $3 million -- less than the $4 million cost of staging the Nairobi talks.

"Rich countries should have achieved more at this conference and made more firm commitments to combat climate injustice," said Sharon Looremeta, a Kenyan Maasai leader of the environmental group Practical Action.

Kyoto obliges rich nations to cut emissions to 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. Kyoto nations account for 30 percent of all emissions of greenhouse gases and want a more global deal.


Reuters (IDS)

Simply amazing how Annan keeps people at each other's throats while getting into their wallets at the same time! Of course - I should not have forgotten the Oil for Food Program !!! Nor should any of us.

 

[Jay]

Tonington,

Scientists told the House committee that humans are causing most of the
earth's warming ....

http://alaric3rh.home.sprynet.com/science/060720.congress_global_warming.txt

Do you agree with that statment?

 

[MMMike]

Well if the CBC said it, it must be true. It's not as if they are a left wing propaganda machine...

Why doesn't the CBC cover the other side of the equation?

Uh, because there is no 'other side of the equation'! Virtually all scientists agree that climate change is occuring and it is man-made. Yes, there are other much larger forces that affect the climate, but they act in a delicate balance. The rising concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are clearly man-made and are driving this change. Have you ever read up on the science of climate change, Jay?

 

[Jay]

Uh, because there is no 'other side of the equation'!

Of course not....





Just sign the frick'n papers and don't ask questions.

 

[gearheaded1]

Blink of an eye

In the big scheme of things, humans are only a blink of an eye in the Earth's life span. The earth through millions of years of its existance has undergone countless heating and warming cycles. With humans' industrial impact on the globe having only occurs for the last couple hundred years (being very conservative) it is highly unlikely that our own impacts will have a long term effect on the earth's effect. It's kind of like having a fruit fly bonk into an elephant and expecting the elephant to tip over. It's unlikely.

However if that elephant was tipping over already and a fruit fly ran into it, an observer might postulate that the fruit fly was the culprit of the tipping. Either way, you get my point. We are vain to think we've had much of an impact on the planet, by our nanosecond of existance thus far. Check back in a couple million years...

This is not to say that we should not endorse responsible development!! We do need to keep tabs on things like fresh water supplies, treatment of industrial wastes, particulate and smog control for air quality, responsible development of rainforest areas, and protection of species.

Responsible development is a way to co-exist with the Earth minimizing our impact and making our place to live more clean while we are around. Don't worry though, the Earth will be fine (and clean up our mess) long after we're gone!

Cheers!

 

[Tonington]

Jay, I agree that th escientists said that, I don't have access to who they were or the data they're using to make those claims. So I can't say one way or another what they are saying is true or not. I can say that the information I've seen in other studies echoes these sentiments.

Gearhead. Is it so vain to think we have not had large scale effects in our short period on this timeline? Lets look at other ways humans have fundamentally altered the face of the planet. First things first, ecological systems are highly sensative to even the smallest changes. This is how we have to look at the situation. By harming these eco-systems, we are harming ourselves. Over 2 billion people on this planet rely on marine species to meet their dietary protein needs. By 2050 at our current levels of fishing, nearly all commercial species will be collapsed.

How about the ozone hole? Halogenated hydrocarbons DO NOT exist in nature. We made them and manufactured them. In that short time they managed to put very large holes in our Ozone layer. DDT is another chemical we made and manufactured. In that short time, the chemical has spread throughout the biosphere, and now every human on the planet has bioaccumulated DDT in our own body.

A recent report was published which shows conclusively how harmful the loss of other species is. This report reviewed 111 studies from greenhouses, laboratories and the field. This report shows that biodiversity is extremely important. The functioning of any ecological system depends on that biodiversity to produce and move energy, break down organic matter, control pests and regulate greenhouse gases.

I thnk it is naive of us to think that we are not causing irreversible damage, on every single aspect of the biosphere we are in contact with. These systems have been fine tuned since time immortal to us, and now we are changing the composition of these systems in a way unseen since the early days of collisions and volcanoes. The thought that "Hey, we're pretty smart, the scientists will figure something out when we need it" or the way we love to say how ingenious we are, that is trully vain. People don't want to accept that our actions are similar to an invasive species.

What is responsible development, the destroying of one wetland for development to be replaced by an inferior manmade one somewhere else? Even our agricultural practices aren't responsible. The majority of agricultural land has soil that is so depleted that we are using chemical fertilizers to enhance the mixture of nutrients in the soil. Responsible agriculture would involve frequent fallowing, spreading the manures from the animals which we feed the grain too back onto the soil where the nutrients were first removed, more farmers markets where local goods aren't transported across oceans and continents.

The Earth will be fine once we're gone. Who here wants that to happen?

 

[gearheaded1]

Touche!

Tonigton, touche! I love to poke a hornet's nest and see what happens. Does the devil need another advocate? It's refreshing to have some good conversation.

True, I was hoping someone would fine the loophole in the "earth will be fine" comment. Yes we do indeed have an impact (and indeed a rather measurable one), I acknowledge that. We'll soon be wearing reflective outfits on the poles if someone builds anther refridgerator filled with CFC's. Actually CFC's may be the world "best" invention of something completely detrimental to our well being. It's an absolute ozone chomper.

I do however believe that conservation and development can exist on a large scale, it will take some more thoughtfullness and tougher legislation from governments and acceptance from industry to get on with it.

Our dependance on petrochemicals is almost narcotic-like, and it will indeed take a good kick-in-the-pants (a.k.a. severe shortage causing all kinds of undesirable inconveniences) to take a REAL look at some alternative fuels and development styles. We do have to maintain a constructive outlook, on the other hand, and a good deal of the go-enviroment crowd, tend to play the alarmist "the sky is falling" card, a bit too often. A few more thoughtful perspectives would be a good change. (They might not make the mainstream evening news however...)


Sometimes being naive is safer. Where did I leave my tin foil helmet anyway?

Thanks for the counter-argument.

 

[Tonington]

You're very welcome. It's fun to play devils advocate! I think you just nailed it on the head

Our dependance on petrochemicals is almost narcotic-like

That explains much of the opposition doesn't it. I can't remember, which step is denial? I can't wait until we get to the thirteenth step. Hopefully I'll still be around.

 

[gearheaded1]

Which step am I on?

It's hard to find the sequence of steps of acceptance, I tried to Google it. Any help out there in internet land? I think as a collective society we're wandering somewhere between denial and oblivion. With a few mixed nuts and chicken littles in there for flavour.

We have to be careful when we use terms like "people" and "them" as we tend to use our own frame of reference to lump people (!) together, in an unfair category. One's frame of reference is typically shaped by their experiences and limited views thus far.

The realist bit (and the aptly used cliche "you can't handle the truth") is that rapid change is unlikely without a rather unpleasant experience to stimulate change. The 911 reaction is a rather good example. The USA was attacked, they retaliated without knowing the enemy, lots of people noticed, people (!) got involved, everyone fosters an opinion, people get mad, others are in denial, and so it goes. The hopeful bit, is somehow, once we manage to get the heck out of the countries we've "occupied", and restore them (or our own opinions perhaps) to some kind of useful balance, we will have learned something, and will come to appreciate the delicacy of the world in which we live.

Anyway, without a big oil/energy shortage, that causes discomfort (and likely some deaths), it is unlikely to see rapid change on the environment front, in our lifetimes. Certainly there will be some comendable efforts, though the masses will continue to belch until we can belch pollution and waste no longer. At this point, we'll come to what I think is the next step. "Now what?" At which point we will either find some other resource to "exploit" or we will turn to sustainable method of living.

The tricky bit is that we've already discovered nuclear power... we're in for a long haul yet, folks. Hang on, it's going to be a rough ride.

I think I'm getting off topic. No wonder I got in so much trouble at school.

 

[Jay]

Our dependance on petrochemicals is almost narcotic-like, and it will indeed take a good kick-in-the-pants (a.k.a. severe shortage causing all kinds of undesirable inconveniences) to take a REAL look at some alternative fuels and development styles.

And I suppose that's what we call "market forces".