The Denial Machine (global warming?)

[CDNBear]

A coment from the link...




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Monbiot

Thanx for the info Jay.

I down load the pdf, and i will read it in its entirety. But from a breif skim, it begins to look more and more like the Kyoto Protocol, is based on junk science and misleading analysis. Not to mention that the stence of coersed funding to "developing" Nations was in fact the goal, not correcting a fraudulant wrong.

 

[Jay]

I found a petition I'm sure you will all want to sign...


http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm


:evil3:

 

[Curiosity]

Jay

Ya well there are a fair share of nutcrops in California and Oregon.... A prime example of the dangers of hemp affect on the neurotransmitters....

I'll read it with my eyes wide shut!

Our environment is a birthright we are given to protect from harm. Junk science does more damage than all the cars speeding up Five from Mexico to Canada.

Looks like the U.K. has swallowed the UN's plug for "possible future funding of whatever they have up their sleeves now".... but then the U.K. had all those chimneys puffing away coal crap for eons.... do they still have em??

 

[MMMike]

Junk science does more damage than all the cars speeding up Five from Mexico to Canada.

Junk science? Sounds like you've been listening to Bush too much. If you want to avoid this 'junk science', stick to the stuff written in peer-reviewed scientific publications. When you do, the picture will become clearer. There is no 'great debate' or controversy surrounding the science of global warming, no matter what some of these quack articles would have you believe.

 

[CDNBear]

Junk science? Sounds like you've been listening to Bush too much. If you want to avoid this 'junk science', stick to the stuff written in peer-reviewed scientific publications. When you do, the picture will become clearer. There is no 'great debate' or controversy surrounding the science of global warming, no matter what some of these quack articles would have you believe.

But I have seen nothing that clearly refutes the fact that 15,000 scientists have shown where the flaws are in the science that went into the Protocol. All I have seen is a bunch of BS, accusing the scientists that have shown this data to be flawed, of everything from being on Bush's payroll, to having a personal bias to members of the panel that put the Protocols science together, to the just nutz.

So why should I beleive what the pro Kyoto scientists say over what the anti Kyoto scientists say?

 

[Curiosity]

Mike

Listening to Bush too much?
Does he know about this problem?
Can he pronounce the large words?
I had no idea he was an authority !

Anything the U.N. is pushing is verbotten in my little corner of the world. It always involves a financial scam. With the U.S. asked to finance the program - or the guy doing all the global damage.

 

[Jay]

So why should I beleive what the pro Kyoto scientists say over what the anti Kyoto scientists say?

Apperantly if you don't all the children are going to die in the future...in the short term you will be labeled a Bush supporter.

 

[CDNBear]

Apperantly if you don't all the children are going to die in the future...in the short term you will be labeled a Bush supporter.

Funnt, even though I'm not a fan of Bush's, I get called that a lot.

 

[Curiosity]

Jay/Bear

Bush has become the elitist's "four letter expletive" !! Easy to remember and spell too~!:smilebox:

 

[MMMike]

But I have seen nothing that clearly refutes the fact that 15,000 scientists have shown where the flaws are in the science that went into the Protocol. All I have seen is a bunch of BS, accusing the scientists that have shown this data to be flawed, of everything from being on Bush's payroll, to having a personal bias to members of the panel that put the Protocols science together, to the just nutz.

So why should I beleive what the pro Kyoto scientists say over what the anti Kyoto scientists say?

Kyoto isn't a scientific document. It is an international agreement to limit ghg emissions. Nothing more, nothing less. I have never heard of 'pro or con' Kyoto scientists. Most seem to think the only major flaw in the accord is that it doesn't to enough, quickly enough. If that's what your point is I agree.

 

[Tonington]

You shouldn't really believe anything one group says over another Bear. I applaud you for reading what this group puts forward. Unfortunately in this debate there are many people who have pre-concieved notions and no matter what they see, that view seems rigid and unchanging.

The one thing that Monckton and I both agree on is the importance of the sun in climate change. I believe it to be the driving factor, but obviously dependant on what the other climactic variables are. I'm caught in between both sides here, though I do lean towards a human element in this equation. I don't think it's nearly as bad as the alarmists say, neither do I think it's all natural. Monckton would have you believe that our CO2 production is negligable. He cherry picked a formula which shows this to be true, but unfortunately for him the formual he used does not apply to us. That is a definition for junk science. As for those who say we'll be better off and the natural systems on Earth will take care of it, I'm not so sure about that. The majority of CO2 removed from the atmosphere is taken up during photosynthesis. However, as concentrations of CO2 increase, and the temperature and light intensity increase, the reaction reaches a maximum. The rate doesn't increase and the excess CO2 remains in the atmosphere. The oceans which take up more CO2 than terrestrial plants are limited by iron concentrations in the water.

There is no silver bullet here. Natural systems have fluccuated for milenia before we were here. Now that we are here, we change the entire balance in EVERYTHING we touch.

Really, what is th eproblem with gradual changes in diversifying our energy needs? The peak of cheap oil is approaching, do we sprint to the finish line without viable alternatives to replace our energy needs? I think that would be a very unwise thing to do, as our economy is driven by our energy demands. Slow diversification will allow us to transition more smoothly when that time comes.

 

[Curiosity]

Anything put forth by the U.N. has to have flaws in it

Nobody questioned the Oil for Food Program either.

Personally I am sick of the God Oil - regardless of Kyoto and Global Warming - everyone should be directing their attention to the mitigation of that gloppy stuff forever....leave it stay buried in the
sand box of that ugly world.

Nobody even questions the fact there may be new energy resources right now available to production but the large
corporations have the ear of the government in the vastly corrupt world of oil mining.

We have been far too lazy for far too long. If anything good arises out of the middle east let it be goodbye Oil.

 

[Jay]

I have never heard of 'pro or con' Kyoto scientists.

You have never heard of scientists supporting the accord?

 

[MMMike]

You have never heard of scientists supporting the accord?

The debate amongst scientists (to the extent that there is any debate at all) is more about the broader issues of climate change and man's role in that change. When it comes to supporting the Kyoto protocol I would imagine much more disagreement over the compromises and flaws inherent in such a consensus document.

 

[Jay]

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=0f0c678f-6374-468e-9078-d7165ff85988

Tonight on the fifth estate, CBC Television, 9 p.m. ET: Forget the show, look for the answer to this question: Will the CBC run a correction of a major error?
Readers will recall last week's episode, a special titled The Denial Machine, starring Vancouver PR man James Hoggan. Mr. Hoggan made a number of disparaging remarks about a group of 60 scientists who signed a letter to Prime Minister Steven Harper urging him to review the science of climate change. According to Mr. Hoggan, the scientists who signed are not to be trusted. "We looked into the folks who were on that, and all but 19 were Americans and most of them are kind of infamous characters from the states who worked for the tobacco industry."
In fact, only 12 are Americans and at most two have done past science work on tobacco. About 20 are Canadians, while others are from about a dozen other countries, including France, Norway, Australia and the Netherlands. So Mr. Hoggan's statements on the scientists are dead wrong.
This is no small matter of incidental fact. Mr. Hoggan's statement, along with a few others, formed the basis for The Denial Machine's major theme, which was a claim that scientists who are skeptical of official global warming theory are part of an oil industry front that is made up of the same hack scientists who acted in the tobacco industry debacle a decade earlier. The Hoggan comments were a clinching anchor in the report. It even included a mock-up of the Financial Post, where the scientists' letter first appeared last April.
Mr. Hoggan has yet to personally correct his mistakes. However, on the climate blog run through his office (http://www.desmogblog.com/national-posts-corcoran-pops-his-cork) there's a dismissive acknowledgement of the error. "Yes," says a posting, "Jim misspoke himself."
Misspoke himself seems a touch too innocent. How about: Mangled the facts? Got it all wrong? Warped the truth? Invented information to suit his message?
One can see where Mr. Hoggan might not want to publicly confess to having seriously misled the fifth estate's audience, and to having misrepresented the reputations of the scientists who signed the letter. But what about the CBC's much-heralded journalistic standards? The network and the fifth estate, one assumes, will want to uphold the highest standards of accuracy by running a correction at the earliest opportunity.
That would be tonight at 9 p.m. ET.

 

[Tonington]

All I have to say about that is that both sides of this argument are guilty of the same crimes. That is why you don't listen to media types in these situations. They may have some valid points, on both sides, but both sides are guilty of fact twisting. If more people actually looked at some of the facts as they stand in published literature and made their own opinions rather than listening to whatever broadcaster you think is the most credible, we'd all be better off.

 

[jimmoyer]

Agreed Tonington.

I don't like the Left's almost religious tyranny on this Global Warming.
Nor do I like the Right's lassiez-faire attitude of doing nothing, leaving it all to market forces.

I don't care if humans are the cause. We're more like ants in this equation when the Left
factors out the Sun cycles and the molten core cycle and the epochal changes.

I do care about the environment.

I care we get rid of oil dependency as both an environmental crusade and terrorism prevention.

I care that business discover that the Market of Profit is going Green. Why not pioneer a new way
with energy ?

And let the Religious Right argue with the Fanatic Left in the typical fervor that defines both.

 

[Gonzo]

We're seeing the effects of global warming right now. It's the end of November in Ottawa and it's warm. Last year the canal was closed most of winter. We have record heat waves every year. We've had smog alerts in the winter.
I can't stand the lies I see on TV. Those commercials where oil companies are working with the locals to return the soil to the land. Since the Albertan oil sands have been opened the land has not been returned at all. Nothing has grown from them since. The environment is being destroyed there.
Pollution has caused a cancer epidemic. Everyone knows someone who has gotten cancer. People, who lead healthy lives, don’t smoke; get cancer from the crap in the air. The environment isn't a left or right wing issue. We're not destroying the planet. We're making it un-inhabitable for us. The planet will go on, just not with humans on it.

 

[Jay]

Since the Albertan oil sands have been opened the land has not been returned at all. Nothing has grown from them since.

Things grew there?

 

[gearheaded1]

What would you have us do?

Is it better we continue our reliance on the middle east then? Shall we not look to be self sufficient?

Certainly development in Ft.Mac is more responsible than Iraq. Having worked and lived in Ft.MM, the approach to development involves a good deal of stakeholder consultation and cooperation. It's not perfect, don't get me wrong - we could do better.

Being an alarmist doesn't get you anywhere. It's a balanced argument with all things. Suggest alternatives, please don't always spew the negatives. Seek to understand - please.

Be open minded - it's one of your best traits.