This is the second moron I have herd spewing this nonsense. I guess we can expect to be dragged into a global carbon scheme in Paris next week.
http://www.torontosun.com/2015/11/23...climate-change
Printable View
This is the second moron I have herd spewing this nonsense. I guess we can expect to be dragged into a global carbon scheme in Paris next week.
http://www.torontosun.com/2015/11/23...climate-change
You do not think climate change is impacting human resources?
This is not new..it has, and always will be about carbon pricing (taxes). This has always been the plan, but they are using the climate change agenda to justify it and not make it look a tax grab. Alberta woke up with a sore rear end this AM..over the new carbon tax scheme....
In the cold hard light of day,your rhetoric doesn't make any sense. Cranking up the political BS tax machine will do ZERO to affect climate change. It will merely line the pockets of the "chosen few" who have figured out a way to make a very lucrative living espousing this BS. Climate change is a naturally occuring phenomena that has existed since the dawn of time. It's typical human arrogance and abject stupidity that allows some people to think we mere humans can effect Mother Nature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandwagon
Climate change is code/koolaid for the left's insatiable lust for neverending tax increases. None of the BS schemes they are about to attack us with work at reducing climate change. All they do is drain disposable income and damage economies. Until man can control the planet's orbit or the energy of the sun its a given there will be continuous climate change. The planet went through major climate periods before mankind had any impact. Can't blame the end of the ice age on Stephen Harper no matter how hard they try. Canada is now completely run by Liberals so just accept that the PS unions are going to rule until Canada collapses economically.
That about sums it up. Assume the Lotus position and relax. O-M-M-M-M.......Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
Hasnt been proven conclusively!!! Unless of course one only wants to listen to one side of the argument!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandwagon
Even if and WHEN it is, I wish someone could explain to me how pricing carbon(revenue tool) will have any major impact. If and I mean IF it's as bad as they all say, then huge reductions, world wide should be what all leaders try to accomplish. But alas there would be no money to be made if they took that route!
Well said terry. But not well enough for some to understand I fear. It's called tunnel vision, brain washing, afraid to entertain more than plausible explanation at the same time. Thankfully we are not all affected with that strange syndrome.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
But unfortunately we are outnumbered. The left has totally outplayed Conservatives in no small part because of the media and in Canada the CBC. Canada is now run by the Left so at best we have @ 8 more years of fraud and economic decay. Any sane person agrees we need to reverse the damage we inflict on the environment but these carbon schemes do no such thing. All they do is redistribute money from worker bees to parasites.Quote:
Originally Posted by bushman
Sad day when they fall for all the BS.
Fast forward a thousand years or so, when things start to cool once again. I'm sure our descendants will be taxed for not doing enough to warm the planet ;)
/wonders how all the intellectuals would have managed to tax the ice into submission and prevent it?
When the Dr Suzukis, Ms Wynnes, JTs can answer how they would have forestalled the ice age.........
Yup, just another tax grab ! Anyone thinking otherwise is delusional. Alberta's scheme will add 7 cents per litre of gas, oh goodie! Just what we need to save the planet.
Gotta be about taxes, the alternative is pathetic. You know, that the long but distinguished list of people are simple dumbazzes or can be so totally fooled by mickey mouse science or actually Goofy science. Pun intended.
Why are so many Americans skeptical about climate change? A study offers a surprising answer.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...3756&tid=ss_tw
It's one thing for big oil to spoon feed junk, it is another for people who enjoy the outdoors so much to eat it... with relish.
Essentially,this article cites corporate funding as being responsible for an anti-AGW/climate change sentiment. It makes no mention of funding provided by academia for PRO-AGW/climate change,does it? Of course not because there's thousands of academics and universities making billions of dollars from this scam. Without doubt,they've managed to reveal many ecological disasters and outright negligence by big industry that were quite content to keep up their nonsense to protect profits and it's a sure slam-dunk that it would still be happening if someone hadn't the juice to take them on and ultimately drag them into court and win. All I'm saying is that we must balance the rhetoric,examine motives and biases and take it all with a grain of salt.Quote:
Originally Posted by kickingfrog
One of the things that irritates me about this discussion is that we mix politics/ policy (ie. carbon linked revenue tools) with the SCIENTIFIC discussion of whether ANTHROPOMORPHIC climate change is fact or fiction. In the ensuing chorus of "Everything Liberal is STUPID" we lose track of the scientific discussion; lets concentrate on that.
Let's talk about the science.
I'm not going to do any spoon feeding; so someone else find the info so that it is not tainted by my bias.
Find the following info:
1. What was the makeup of the earth's VERY early atmosphere?
-What was it like? (temp, livability...)
(spoiler alert)
2. Where did all the carbon go?
3. What is the carbon cycle?
4. What is the relationship between fossil fuels and the carbon cycle?
5. Does the burning of fossil fuels upset the relationship seen in question 4.?
Sorry, just realized that this is in the politics forum :ashamed:. My bad, carry on with the bashing :shades:
The minute any government is involved, and revenue realized all neutrality is lost.
There has been way more temperature(greenhouse) in the past than now.
Big governments needs tax food to survive and will create problems in order to tax it.
"Science" has been repeatedly caught in lies along with well known "leaders" and there life style. From suzuki and the Santa. polar bear fiasco and gore's waistful energy on his estate, boat and jet trips to odumbo keeping the oval office set at 86 deg F(30C). However he wants me to check my auto tires for proper inflation....I can't post my response to that idiot.
Not to mention that royal dufas wingnut headed charles and the good air he breathes
That's the spirit! ;)
x2 - especially in this province.Quote:
Originally Posted by skypilot
In Ontario....with our leader???
https://scontent-yyz1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...fd&oe=56FA8292
Anyway.... I blame the dinosaurs for the climate change.... hey if politicians can blame someone that hasn't been in power for 20 years why not! Think of all that methane!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ce-flatulence/
Speaking of climate change... anyone seen the new Antarctic ice decline.... NOT.
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard...ecord-maximum/
I like it when the idiots blamed that Cows fart too much causing too much methane. LOL Maybe,we need to eat more cheeseburgers.Quote:
Originally Posted by mosquito
A couple good articles to pass on to any of your friends that have been sucked in by the climate change BS.
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog...o-science.aspx
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/1...nge-modelling/
The climate is and has been changing for ever we cant deny that but what pisses me off is how some lunatics can blame climate change for creating ISIS.??? that in itself shows just how desperate these clowns are in trying to get the world to buy into a carbon trading scam. Only thing this will accomplish is make rich people richer and provide governments with more money all on the backs of taxpayers.
I agree that we need to take better care of our planet but a worldwide scheme that will be fraudulent as all hell is not the answer .Remember when global warming was the buzzword/fear mongering term of the day until it was proven we are not really warming so they had to change the name to suit the agenda. Climate change!! it is hard to argue that the climate isn't changing no.?
Prince Charles just declared that climate change is responsible for creating ISIS. this is the same goof that once so poetically said to That Rottweiler Camilla that he would like to be her tampon.
No offence to Rottweiler's
Prince Charles is proof of why cousins shouldn't marry. Little bit too much chlorine in that gene pool. Man is a useless idiot.
Glen Murray also believes Climate change is responsible for the rise of ISIS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tz4r...ature=youtu.be
HAHAHAHAHAHa.....hahahQuote:
Originally Posted by Rugger
We have onlywiped multiples species off the face of earth...... guess that was just mothernature....Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
I was speaking to climate change, I could care less about taxes. No onedoubts natural climate change but to say we are not accelerating it orexpanding the highs and lows needs to get there head out of the sand. I am far from stupid.....
It took a while but that was worth it, Thanks for sharing JakezillaQuote:
Originally Posted by Jakezilla
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandwagon
Please read Jakezillas first link rational optimist
Have so many forgotten what the tobacco companies claimed for decades?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kickingfrog
Agreed, they were getting rich off the misery of others, then the liebrals of the free world figured out how to do the same thing with climate change.
species of plants , animals , birds have been disappearing from this planet for millions of years before man could walk upright or discovered fire. Some would call it evolution but the left would rather just blame Harper. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandwagon
From the article linked above:Quote:
Originally Posted by mosquito
Sounds like an overall decline to me.Quote:
The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of the magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.
The phenomenon is explained in the same article
http://youtu.be/J_WWXGGWZBE
How convenient that the oil companies took up the other side before the left figured it out eh.Quote:
Originally Posted by skypilot
So, true stated hypocrisy as usual from a lefty, it's bad for big oil and SHAREHOLDERS but good for big red liebrals to lie to the masses? sheeshQuote:
Originally Posted by kickingfrog
Hey now Mooboy, there's no room for science in this discussion. Besides, your source is no good! You see the people in the video you linked to have Dr. in front of their names which means they spent around 8 years in liberalist institutions being brainwashed by leftist ideology. This is only compounded by the fact that the more educated a person is the more stupid they become because they graduate into the realm of yuppy, frufru, idologs, who are no longer in touch with reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by mooboy76
Better to go looking for fact in the Costco fiction section ;)
I will take the slight global warming to an ice age any time...
anyone have a REALLY REALLY REALLY long ice auger????
http://static5.businessinsider.com/i...ugh-the-us.jpg
http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-...g-freeze/30336
This warm spell is already 11,600 years old, and it must surely, in the normal course of things, come to an end. In the early 1970s, after two decades of slight cooling, many scientists were convinced that the moment was at hand. They were “increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age,” said Time in 1974. The “almost unanimous” view of meteorologists was that the cooling trend would “reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century,” and “the resulting famines could be catastrophic,” said Newsweek in 1975.
Since then, of course, warmth has returned, probably driven at least partly by man-made carbon-dioxide emissions. A new paper, from universities in Cambridge, London and Florida, drew headlines last week for arguing that these emissions may avert the return of the ice age. Less noticed was the fact that the authors, by analogy with a previous warm spell 780,000 years ago that’s a “dead ringer” for our own, expect the next ice age to start “within about 1,500 years.” Hardly the day after tomorrow.
Still, it’s striking that most interglacials begin with an abrupt warming, peak sharply, then begin a gradual descent into cooler conditions before plunging rather more rapidly toward the freezer.
I have seen enough short term studies that are extrapolated into exaggerated and error prone predictions to realize that:
1) If it is true... so what
2) Is it a bad thing.... no one knows but there is alot of guesses with alot of counter guesses.
3) Most of the rhetoric is fear mongering to get people to change their lifestyle and pay more taxes.
4) They are ignoring real issues (air pollution, water pollution, invasive species, decline in wildlife and green areas that would absorb some of that carbon, over crowding, terrorism, education...etc) and wasting billions to do studies that are often no more than guesses... and most often look like tax and funding grabs and ideologically and power driven instead of thought out, planned and fact based. For example Suzuki's recent comparison to the oil industry to slavery, rhetoric, fear mongering.. I would even say delusional.
Yep, complete immersion in liberalism from cradle to grave( school, TV, liberal rag newspapers, more liberal brainwashing in school, more liberal TV, newspapers, overdose of liberal bs in college........Quote:
Originally Posted by Rugger
yep no way you could be a brainwashed liberal as a mod or a scientist.
Dr don't mean anything other than you succumbed to the liberal bs or endured to the end.
Touché
However, given the fact that "school, TV, liberal rag newspapers, more liberal brainwashing in school, more liberal TV, newspapers, overdose of liberal bs in college........" (that's 7 different things according to Republican math LOL) http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/p...ent-of-his-own
Those things you mentioned, as we know them, have only been around for a couple hundred years while "The bookS of scripture" have been around for thousands, is it not POSSIBLE that you are the one who was brainwashed?
Just a possibility, just something to think about, just some more babble from your local brainwashed mod :D
Some might find this interesting:
http://www.upworthy.com/one-guy-with...e-plus-epa?g=2
Some will not.
Horse Shyte
That guy sounds like he works for GM with their infamous "risk management" policies and we all know how that worked out,don't we?Quote:
Originally Posted by kickingfrog
The Liberal government and climate change
http://business.financialpost.com/fp...-policy-agenda
interesting?? I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by kickingfrog
factual?? hardly, more of the same empty , leftist fear mongering.
plausible, only god knows.
Again, as I've asked before. Can someone please tell me how carbon taxes or cap and trade, (revenue tools) will solve anything. Anything other than taking more money out of our pockets for the corrupt elite politicians to blow on their social engineering schemes.
Im all for doing anything to help Mother Earth. Taxing and spending endlessly, with none of it reducing emissions or addressing "said problems) to me is insane!!!
This knee jerk, fuzzy feel good rhetoric, that some spew endlessly with big smiles on their faces, just doesn't do anything for me!!
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rugger
The Bible also teaches being good stewards of God's Creation and as you posted and has been around long before the liberal rags, liberal schools and liberal tv.
Perhaps you have been so exposed 24/7 to the "Liberal Platform" that it has actually become your "religion."
Just a possibility, just something to think about, just some more babble from your local brainwashed member :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by bushman
That's the problem..No one can answer how taxing the Shyte out of everything in the name of climate change will solve anything. We are just told it is needed to save the planet and mankind.LOL
Well played sir. Lol ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by skypilot
Ezra talking to a climatologist..... you won't hear this on CBC..
http://www.therebel.media/climate_ch...sts_fight_back
Maybe, just maybe, that if you have to pay more for something that hurts the environment, you may use less of it. Just sayin.
The issue is whom decides that fact or truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
To the Liberals, the TRUTH is fluid and dynamic, always changing, never definable. That way they can never be caught in a lie and that in itself furthers their self righteous elitism but further rots their morality.
Oh, I read the BOOK, the world isn't destroyed by climate.
We should all be good stewards of Creation.
However that doesn't preclude we must fall prey to the lies, misinformation, taxes, and to the manufacturing killing pseudo-science and philosophy of liberalism not to mention their morality and moral compass or lack of.
Fuel for a vehicle to travel to work? Energy to heat a home? Most people can't reduce consumption of this and the reduction of disposable income means money comes out of something else. These cuts are a drop in consumption and that contracts demand and shrinks the economy. Result is increased unemployment and debt and then erosion of services. Every good and service has a carbon footprint and the money stolen in carbon taxes will not be invested in environmental cleanup technology. Never has and never will.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Your saviour Trudope, has a much larger carbon footprint than all members of this board combined ! I would hazard a guess that Queen Wynne is the same ! This is nothing more than another Liberal tax grab plain and simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Quote:
Originally Posted by skypilot
The problem isn't that the climate is changing it does all the time, this Paris climate change is about wealth. It sounds like there is more "carbon footprint" created by the jets, limos, idling cars etc. at a "climate change" party (what it really is) than some nations. It is more about manipulation of the population, wealth distribution and taxes (and the huge clueless waste we see from the left)
Billions spent on travelling to shows, studies etc. while there is a shortage of clean water, waste recycling (Trupoo and millions of litres dumped in the St. Lawrence), air pollution etc., all while saying C02 is pollution... guess what you and every living animal have been polluting every time you breathe out! A billion dollars spent on smoke stack chimneys, waste processing and planting and desert forestation or algea projects in the ocean would make a difference, a billion dollars on jet fuel, studies and politicians just makes the problem worse!!
You all have the answers , what would you do about how humans are raping and pillaging the planet? Do nothing... to our certain demise? Kill every third person?
Let's cut to the chase. Why do you think your beloved Justin and the Libby's and the rest of the 60's flower children who never grew up have never made polluting the earth illegal and toss them all in prison? Why are they continually inventing ways to tax the crap out of everything that moves under the guise of "the environment needs the money?" That's a much simpler solution than all this kevetching,whining and navel gazing that there all so famous for,isn't it? These guys have made the pinciples of :sucking and blowing at the same time an art form. Their capacity for hypocrisy and bullshyte defies all logic and boggles the mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
I wonder if Costco dares to label "the other" bestseller as "fiction book"Quote:
Originally Posted by Rugger
You have not said what should be done, or what you would do to change the path of destruction we are on. Well any ideas?
Learn from our mistakes and next time blow the Lieberals out of the water Federally and Provincially in the next election!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Humans on earth equate to an ant on the a s s of an elephant. We don't drive the old girl she drives us. Get your head around that.
What path of destruction? What exactly and where exactly is the world destruction? I have yet to find the Bible wrong and the Bible describes how the world ends as we now know it, but certainly not from climate change.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
I have invested a enormous of time money and human energy involved in the environment field, and on the government's edicts toward compliance, and I have NO DOUBT that this is all about money and control of national manufacturing/industry..
The government isn't at all interested in emissions or their reduction other than as a monetary and control device.
Observe who gets the Federal money, disaster assistance, federal help in general in the States. It won't be the coal states or the Gulf Coast offshore oil states.
I have worked closely with the Feds during EPA Title 5 permitting compliance which includes WCS from cloud burst or ground burst and the resulting blast over pressures and release from terrorist attacks and how to mitigate and what those detailed mitigations are.
I can testify completely and honestly that governments do not care about pollution other than from a controlling point on industry. I have literally spent weeks educating inspectors and their Supervisors on processes and showing them where and how to improve and or completely eliminate the emission at the source only to have them ignore the tree by focusing on the insignificant splinter.
It's about revenue and control.
1) Spend less on windmills and more on sewage treatment, more efficient transportation and better quality housing (materials, standards and inspections).Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Accomplishments:
i) more economical and environmentally friendly than the required materials in a windmill
ii) cleaner water.
iii) cleaner air, less manhours wasted, less exhaust fumes
iv) less wasted electricity and gas during heating and cooling seasons.
v) personal results of more money in a persons pocket, reduced debt, better economy
2) Less bureaucrats and more field personnel and smarter priorities (not like this nonsense over the raw milk where 20+ hazmat staff show up...)
i) better inspections of manufacturing and construction
ii) better inspections of waste from factories (no off hour dumping...)
iii) better environmental standards and results
iv) cleaner water, less hazardous waste
v) end to off hours dumping to avoid inspections
3) ... already been done.
http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/canada/story/1.2517710
The Conservative government has introduced legislation that would dramatically bump up the amount of liability coverage required for nuclear plants and offshore oil and gas operations.
The new $1-billion liability replaces the current $75-million minimum for nuclear operators and liability thresholds of between $30 million and $40 million for energy companies and offshore shippers, depending on where they operate
That would be a good environmental start and step 4 on making a better Canada...Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxx
Liberals OK massive sewage dump in Montreal,
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-co...r-for-humanity
Former Conservative environment minister Peter Kent announced last October that the government was planning to spend about $1 billion over three years, as part of the plan’s $3.5-billion budget, to focus on cleaning up 1,100 high priority sites and to evaluate the state of about 1,650 sites
http://o.canada.com/news/cleanup-bil...unting-records
It's too bad these threads don't have a "LIKE" button. Good post.Quote:
Originally Posted by mosquito
Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Thanks, I had one more note to add after watching some TV tonight. People just don't realize how much affects climate, orbit, sun activity, volcanoes.... the show I watched was on the Iceland volcanoes. The one big one having not erupted for 100 years, but erupts every 50 years on average. The recent small one interrupted air travel but think what a larger one could do, clouds of ash disrupting much larger areas, clouds of sulphuric acid and yes even global climate change.... the recent Iceland eruption was short but they said it looks like some could last a year and affect the climate for years.
For those that are interested, I did find a small clip on the 1783 eruption.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeBGd4mRxXk
and the larger show I watched
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ablW3VBh8SM
Humans are still,after all these mellenia walking upright,dumber than a bag of hammers when it comes to all things related to Mother Nature. Not long ago,humans would cower in fear and make sacrifices to the Gods when a hurricane or tornado struck or commit mass suicide during a solar eclipse. Listening to all these "chicken littles" claiming global warming is the end of the world provides proof of how little we have evolved.
Well, it wouldn't be the first mass extinction event in our planets history. Of course were talking about 100's of millions of years here.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
But, non the less... wouldn't be the first.
Yep,I guess we're w-a-a-a-y overdue,then,like more puff of smoke from a volcano and it's all over......next week.Quote:
Originally Posted by upnorth
There are things like the Kat la volcano and family in Iceland, the mega volcano in Yosemite, Solar flares like the 1859 event, one large meteor....those and more would all trashcan our civilization and millions or billions dead....if the 1783 volcano repeated itself the show suggested over 100,000 in Europe dying and that wasn't one of the large eruptions they think ...... heck the world isn't a safe place... barring Jesus return....you won't get out alive! <insert maniacal laugh here>Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
P.S. I know...can we find someone that thinks it might work and let them sacrifice our current leaders in Ottawa and Toronto!!!
Chump change 2.6 Large
http://globalnews.ca/news/2365737/tr...509149a7de5e97
International Welfare based on lame propaganda.
Early snow in Beijing this year... along with smog.... wait didn't Trupoo say their dictatorship was great because they were changing their environmental problems?????
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/be...on-of-the-year
City authorities issued a rare orange alert, the second highest of four danger levels. Schools suspended outdoor activities and polluting factories were required to reduce production.
Visibility was cut to several hundred meters, as buildings receded into thick smog. People complained of a smoky, pungent odour, and many wore tight-fitting face masks.
“I felt like my lungs were blocked,” said Xu Pengfei, a security guard at an office building in downtown Beijing. “We have to stand in the open for many hours a day, and the pollution really affects us.”
The city said the levels of hazardous tiny PM2.5 particles in the air exceeded 600 micrograms per cubic meter at several monitoring sites late Monday afternoon. The U.S. Embassy in Beijing reported 666 micrograms per cubic meter at 8 p.m.
Outside Beijing, the readings were was as high as 976 micrograms in the suburban region of Liulihe.
The World Health Organization considers the safe level of PM2.5 particles to be 25 micrograms per cubic meter on a 24-hour average basis.
Let's see safe is 25 and there were readings as high as 976..... yikes!
I like the followup video betterQuote:
Originally Posted by kickingfrog
http://youtu.be/AE6Kdo1AQmY
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooboy76
... and the winner of ignoring reality, failure to think beyond a microscopic box and misrepresentation.... is the propagandist wonderingmind42... who ever he is . I'm just wondering where his mind is that he didn't think about:
1) The implications that there are far greater environmental issues.
2) His quick dismissal for the fact that far greater climate changes have been seen in paleoclimatic studies.
3) Who says the climate change is bad for mankind, world climates have been warmer and vary and which is worse than an ice age?
4) Many of the environmental programs that would have made a difference in the real world have been ignored to fund studies and pipe dreams about global warming.
For example...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...arming-crisis/
Taken together, these four skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36 percent of scientists who believe global warming is human caused and a serious concern.
and then there are the 30,000+ signatures by scientists including over 9,000 Phds... I think this sums it up nicely
http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php
The United Nations IPCC also publishes a research review in the form of a voluminous, occasionally-updated report on the subject of climate change, which the United Nations asserts is “authored” by approximately 600 scientists. These “authors” are not, however – as is ordinarily the custom in science – permitted power of approval the published review of which they are putative authors. They are permitted to comment on the draft text, but the final text neither conforms to nor includes many of their comments. The final text conforms instead to the United Nations objective of building support for world taxation and rationing of industrially-useful energy.
or there is the good old comments about Climategate... 1000 scientists dissent... thats 20X the IPCC scientists.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/more-th...claims/5403284
Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!” — NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself — Climate is beyond our power to control…Earth doesn’t care about governments or their legislation. You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.”— Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
“In essence, the jig is up. The whole thing is a fraud. And even the fraudsters that fudged data are admitting to temperature history that they used to say didn’t happen…Perhaps what has doomed the Climategate fraudsters the most was their brazenness in fudging the data”— Dr. Christopher J. Kobus, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University, specializes in alternative energy, thermal transport phenomena, two-phase flow and fluid and thermal energy systems.
“The energy mankind generates is so small compared to that overall energy budget that it simply cannot affect the climate…The planet’s climate is doing its own thing, but we cannot pinpoint significant trends in changes to it because it dates back millions of years while the study of it began only recently. We are children of the Sun; we simply lack data to draw the proper conclusions.”— Russian Scientist Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the head of geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences.“Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing a Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences…AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks.”— Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Luís Lino, who authored the 2009 book “The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon Was Converted into a False World Emergency.”
“I am an environmentalist,” but “I must disagree with Mr. Gore” — Chemistry Professor Dr. Mary Mumper, the chair of the Chemistry Department at Frostburg State University in Maryland, during her presentation titled “Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming, the Skeptic’s View.”“I am ashamed of what climate science has become today.” The science “community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what ‘science’ has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed.”
I personally think it isn't man made global warming we have to worry about, it is greed and lies by those in power, waste and excess and unchecked pollution and the failure to fund projects that would make a difference. For half what is spent on "research" better transit, better water treatment, better sewage treatment and reforestation and forestation projects (planting and watering trees in deserts) would make a difference...
The Alarming Cost Of Climate Change Hysteria
Data compiled by Joanne Nova at the Science and Policy Institute indicates that the U.S. Government spent more than $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009. This doesn’t count about $79 billion more spent for climate change technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for “green energy.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybel...ange-hysteria/
...and our Justin Trupoo (millions of litres of raw sewage into the St Lawrence approved) will spend another $2,650,000,000 taxpayer dollars. not on transit, roads, credits for more efficient vehicles, reduced transit fares... no... more waste and Toronto will continue it's road toward what Beijing has become and unemployment rates will soar as industry moves offshore even more!
Those videos are kind of goofy,aren't they? It's always the same old story. If you can't bedazzle them with brainpower,baffle them with bullshyte.
But some are so .... "good"... atleast as good as that guyQuote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeYnjeukZSE :silly::silly:
and some actually talk about the FACTS
http://www.therebel.media/paris_clim...un_rights_more
P.S. Dec 2.
something I have watched and seen elsewhere but it puts alot of it together here, instead of waving their hands and a whiteboard some REAL facts!
http://www.therebel.media/greenpeace...carbon_dioxide
, “Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore discusses how we need to look at science and environmentalism together and not just view the sensationalism activism groups show the media.
There are 383 Canadian delegates at the Paris Climate Conference (COP21). That’s more than Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. Combined.
http://www.therebel.media/canadians_...ate_conference
It's 2015... the gravy train is back! Justin Poodough even brought his wife, child and nanny...official photographers (gotta make sure they have photo ops.) and even a web master went, mayors (and staff),Elizabeth May etc. .... all at the taxpayer dime!
I guess none will watch the co-founder of Greenpeace....
Quote:
Originally Posted by mosquito
Not a snow balls chance in h-ll of that happening. And if it did we would see more huge outcry from you know who,along with racism and bigotry charges. Come on,we all know only christians are fair game, the rest are untouchable!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Waftrudnir
sand, eh??? You are being sooo very polite!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandwagon
yeah, that's about in line with minority rules don't apply to white male individualsQuote:
Originally Posted by bushman
Some people are placing the blame on animal farming, watch this.
https://www.facebook.com/uniladmag/v...5/?pnref=story
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huntingwithyour
There have been a couple several articles I have seen about the amounts of methane and how much more of an effect it has on the atmosphere...
Dinosaurs' Gaseous Emissions Warmed Earth?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ce-flatulence/
Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever's speech at the Nobel Laureates meeting 1st July 2015.
Ivar points out the mistakes which Obama makes in his speeches about global warming, and shares other not-well known facts about the state of the climate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0
Ilan Samson's problem was interesting and his conclusion on change is exactly right!
Another excellent one, essentially saying show me and let's look at the data, climatologist Dr Richard Alan Keen reveals the data and explains how the 'mainstream climate modelers' have got it wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmc5w2I-FCA
Yup 97% of the worlds scientists are lying to you about climate change, and what causes it.:silly:
No, just liars keel saying it and gullible ones believing about it being 97%, as for what the 97% actually shows...Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
If you look at the literature, the specific meaning of the 97% claim is: 97 percent of climate scientists agree that there is a global warming trend and that human beings are the main cause–that is, that we are over 50% responsible. The warming is a whopping 0.8 degrees over the past 150 years, a warming that has tapered off to essentially nothing in the last decade and a half.
... and according to climatologist above .... you know the scientists that actually study climate... not fruit fly "scientists" like Suzuki, that .8 can be accounted for in the changes in technology, number of monitoring stations, locations of stations.... etc. and the number is perhaps .2 degrees using reliable data locations and looking at satellite measurements.
"Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.
The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:
“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”
—Dr. Richard Tol
“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”
—Dr. Craig Idso
“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”
—Dr. Nir Shaviv
“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”
—Dr. Nicola Scafetta
Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate."
So the whole point of the "97%" is the idea that man has had some effect on the climate and 97% of the papers looked at imply some man made effect ... which a climatologist looking at he data... which you seem to not like but that doesn't change the reality, says can be seen to be .2 degrees in 150 years. So that is what the 97% (according to Cook) agree upon.... solar, volcanoes and even the measuring methods and equipment and locations account for the remaining .6 degrees in 150 years.
"Therefore,the persistent effort to make the public believe 97% of all scientists agree can only be understood as an intentional manipulation of data and public opinion for commercial gain."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepst...-is-100-wrong/
http://www.friendsofscience.org/asse...ensus_Myth.pdf
Give it up Mosquito. The left has found a way to hoodwink the dimwits into financing a very comfortable life by exploiting fear. None of the Paris BS and Carbon tax schemes actually reduce emissions they only fill government coffers. Pretty sure there weren't enough dinosaurs and cavemen farting to melt the last ice age yet that warming period happened? Hmmm. Do you think maybe things like the sun and moon and the planet's orbit have a bit to do with climate? Nope, it had to be Harper who caused the last ice age to end and melt glaciers. What is it again that PT Barnum said? Not saying we don't need to clean up our environment but wrecking economies will be counter productive not helpful.
Great post Mosquito
I already posted these once in this thread. Please read them and get back to me with your counter argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/1...nge-modelling/
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog...o-science.aspx
Climate change is a scam and there is nothing scientific about it. Climate change is the new socialist movement. Governments are using it as a means to control their populations.
Well done mosquito, very informative.
Absolutely.Quote:
Originally Posted by yellow dog
I tend to agree, in this tread alone I posted links to climatologists and the founder of Greenpeace appearing on the Rebel and another larger post on the number of scientists and percentages and the "fraud" to use their words.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
http://www.oodmag.com/community/show...l=1#post941157
But like a trained pet (or troll) the Liberal speaker comes back with the ridiculous 97%. Now even if it is true and if man made global warming is true (I think it has some SMALL effect), some think it may be delaying the next ice age and in the end we don't know if it will be good with longer growing seasons and more food production. :whacked: It would truly be sad if he actually believed the 97% actually thought it was doom like the media and left money grabbers portrait it so often.
Climate change will soon be bigger than Islam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakezilla
Show us the " documented true facts" on the 97% b-- lshyte. Or is it just the gullible ones trying to convince the factual logical ones to take the bait and follow the clueless ones , like the lost sheep they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
X2. But you know who will try to discredit it!! Can't be true if it doesn't come from the mouths of Suzuki and Gore and the likes. You know , the hypocritical ones that leave a bigger " carbon footprint " than us. The ones that are laughing all the way to the bank on the backs of gullible fools that blindly follow the self anointed prophets.Quote:
Originally Posted by yellow dog
Coming soon: a climate change tax on beef and dairy products.
Also fruits and vegetables.Quote:
Originally Posted by awndray
Eeek.... start my lunch looking at old airplanes, wander into Burt Rutan.... been listening to it while at lunch and thought it might be interesting and I have to get back to work and will listen to the rest later..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPP7P43wulg
Aviation pioneer Burt Rutan presents the real data on climate change and global warming.
The effects of our CO2 on the planet are also investigated.
Why is it some still believe in MAN MADE global warming???????
Simply,it's because the academic/science community is making a very good living convincing arrogant,naive,silly people that humans can control the weather. What do you think would happen if all financial subsidies were cut off?Quote:
Originally Posted by mosquito
So . Back to the OP. Lol . Is anyone here arguing that because the earths median temperature has risen . 1/2 a degree over the last 30 years has caused the rise of ISIS.?
Carry on.
Thanks for that link, the study that the Forbes opinion piece references is pretty cool.Quote:
Originally Posted by mosquito
The Forbes opinion piece REALLY takes the whole study out of context, and misrepresents the scope of the article and survey, but the actual article found here is a good, but long, read. It should be a free text available to everyone, but I can post a pdf if anyone wants it.
The actual survey was sent out to all members of the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA), now the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA), in their organization periodical. 1,077 members sent back their responses.
The actual APEGGA report generated from the survey is here.
This is the research question for the study:This is the meat of the article analysis is below. The OpEd author provides some of this, but then lumps various frames to fit his narrative. In reality it is a bit more complex.Quote:
How do professional experts use frames to construct the reality of climate change, and themselves as experts, their credibility in making recommendations and decisions, while engaging in defensive institutional work against others?
and from the discussion:Quote:
Framing the climate change debate and constructing expertiseIn our field of study, we note that there is a distinction between experts who express concern about the rapidly changing climate and those who deny that there is a problem related to climate change. The ensuing debate is often caricatured as a war between two sides – ‘you either believe in climate change or you don’t’ – especially in North America. We find that virtually all respondents (99.4%) agree that the climate is changing. However, there is considerable disagreement as to cause, consequences, and lines of action (as outlined in Figure 2). On this basis, we find five different frames, each of them summarized in Table 3. Eight percent of respondents did not provide enough information regarding their framing of climate change to be categorized.
- Frame 1: Comply with Kyoto
The largest group of APEGA respondents (36%) draws on a frame that we label ‘comply with Kyoto’. In their diagnostic framing, they express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause. Supporters of the Kyoto Protocol consider climate change to be a significant public risk and see an impact on their personal life. In their prognostic framing, they tend to fear that the risks are greater in extent (i.e., global and regional) and in magnitude (i.e., changes to both the average state and variability of the climate) than other groups; they believe to a lesser degree that climate change has long-term effects only and to a higher degree that it will result in warming as opposed to cooling and warming. They are the only group to see the scientific debate as mostly settled and the IPCC modeling to be accurate, e.g., ‘I believe that the consensus that climate change is occurring is settled. The role of humans in climate change is controversial more because of the political/economic implications and the creation of winners and losers than the science.’ They view the Kyoto Protocol and additional regulation as the solution: ‘Absolutely! 1000%. It is the only effective way to curb pollutions…We, as Engineers, are very much responsible.’ Advocates of this frame are less likely to use symbolism and metaphors; in speaking for themselves and legitimating their expertise, they do not deviate significantly from the average. Yet, more than others, they highlight fraternity and the need to act together, to realize one’s responsibility, and to find answers. They are significantly less likely to use de-legitimation strategies and are least likely to speak against others. However, they request industry and corporations to comply with the law and encourage the creation of regulation: ‘Industry should stop complaining and get on with it and provide leadership for us all.’ They also believe that APEGA should support climate change science: ‘Science is not a democracy, nor is it a popularity contest. APEGA must stand up for science.’
- Frame 2: Nature is overwhelming
The second largest group (24%) express a ‘nature is overwhelming’ frame. In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth. Their focus is on the past: ‘If you think about it, global warming is what brought us out of the Ice Age.’ Humans are too insignificant to have an impact on nature: ‘It is a mistake to think that human activity can change this… It would be like an ant in a bowling ball who thinks it can have a significant influence the roll of the ball.’ More than others, they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives. In their prognostic framing, they do not see any risks. If anything, climate change detracts from more important issues: ‘Why don’t we focus on more urgent issues… 25,000 people die each day due to hunger, malaria …’ They are most likely to speak against climate science as being science fiction, ‘manipulated and fraudulent’. They are least likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled, that IPCC modeling is accurate, and oppose all regulation ‘based on the incorrect assumption that greenhouse gases cause climate change’. They recognize that we should reduce pollution regardless: ‘We need to adapt to climate change, which has been going on for 4 billion years. We need to reduce polluting our planet.’ In their identity and boundary work, they are least likely to list others as allies or prescribe any actions for themselves or others. Significantly, they are more likely to criticize others as unknowledgeable and to describe climate scientists and environmentalists as hysterical: ‘This present hysteria on “global warming” is purely political and has little to do with real science.’ APEGA ‘should educate the public and the government … to counteract media hype and pressure from the green extremists.’
- Frame 3: Economic responsibility
Ten percent of respondents draw on an ‘economic responsibility’ frame. They diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy. For them, any solution must protect the economy. More than others, they invoke the public interest and the need to promote an informed debate and to educate others, and recommend enhancing efficiency and competitiveness: ‘Alberta must pursue to reduce truly toxic emissions, diversify our economy, and to meet the growing energy demands.’ They are significantly more likely to position themselves as experts as a function of their own education and knowledge sources. They are most likely to speak against others and de-legitimate others as non-experts, as impractical: ‘Conservation is always a good idea, but spending money without any real understanding of what the value you will be getting is always a bad idea.’ More than any other group, they speak against the Kyoto Protocol and its supporters: ‘third world countries (China, Egypt, etc.) [who are] free to burn garbage and pollute with no repercussions’, and politicians who ‘do nothing well except waste money that isn’t theirs’. For them, ‘Kyoto is simply designed to transfer large sums of money from the wallets of citizens of mostly Caucasian countries to the Swiss bank accounts of third world dictators.’ They express much stronger and more negative emotions than any other group, especially that climate science is a fraud and hoax and that regulation is futile, useless, and impossible. They are more sceptical and cynical: ‘Don’t we pay enough taxes as it is? Do we need to send our money overseas?’ Lastly, they use symbolism and metaphors much more than any other framing (see next section):This is obviously a left wing/liberal survey… You folks were probably calling out the sky is falling when Ozone was the latest left wing craze… The earth ‘weather’ has always been changing. Now you want to blame me and my gas furnace, big house, two cars, etc. Well get over it.'
- Frame 4: Fatalists
‘Fatalists’, a surprisingly large group (17%), diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are sceptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling: ‘The number of variables and their interrelationships are almost unlimited – if anyone thinks they have all the answers, they have failed to ask all of the questions.’ ‘Fatalists’ consider the Kyoto Protocol as ‘too late’ and irrelevant. They are much less likely to support regulation generally, but do also not care about the economy, and are much less likely to express emotions (except for denying responsibility), or use symbolism and metaphors. Fatalists are not convinced that involvement will make a difference and, thus, following Gamson (1992), they do not develop the sense of agency. To the contrary, they seem generally apathetic – ‘How can anyone take action if research is biased?’ They are least likely to speak for themselves, define themselves as experts or admit any professional and ethical responsibilities. Likewise they are least likely to refer to others in a positive or negative way.
- Frame 5: Regulation activists
The last group (5%) expresses a frame we call ‘regulation activists’. This frame has the smallest number of adherents, expresses the most paradoxical framing, and yet is more agentic than ‘comply with Kyoto’. Advocates of this frame diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life. Advocates do not significantly vary from the mean in how they consider the magnitude, extent, or time scale of climate change. They are also sceptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate: ‘the largest challenge is to find out what the real truth is… I don’t know what the impact really is. I suspect it is not good.’ Despite their seemingly ambivalent stance, they are most likely to believe that nature is our responsibility: ‘It is only reasonable to assume that we are changing our environment and climate, all you have to do is look out your window to see it.’ They believe that the Kyoto Protocol is doomed to failure (‘can’t do it, even though we should’), yet they motivate others most of all to create regulation: ‘Canada should implement aggressive policies to reduce GHG emissions in the spirit of the Kyoto Accord.’ They also recommend that we define and enact sustainability/stewardship, reduce GHGs, and create incentives: ‘No one technique will work. It will require a combination of all available options.’ The emotions they invoke are to realize responsibility and find answers, prevent failure, and emphasize consensus and fraternity. They use nature, ecosystem and health metaphors more than other group: ‘Educating the general public that the planet is a closed system.’ Further, they envision an expanded role for professionals: ‘APEGGA and the members should…have the guts to speak up and be heard when pending decisions become motivated by politics and short-term shareholder gratification.’ ‘Regulation activists’ speak for themselves and legitimate their own expertise second most. However, they also do the second greatest de-legitimation of others’ expertise, mostly on the basis of others’ lack of knowledge: ‘Kyoto targets were negotiated without sufficient scientific basis or economic forecasting.’ They criticize politics (‘The AB govt lives in the dark ages on environmental matters’) and industry, especially the entanglement between the two: ‘Regulations are no good if they are not enforced, or if written by industry based on profitability.’ Yet, perhaps paradoxically, this group mobilizes more action than ‘comply with Kyoto’: ‘Alberta should be developing a good overall environmental policy that will leave our grandchildren proud to live in Alberta, a slower pace to development of resources [that] may result in short-term pain for long-term gain.’
Framing experts’ identities
All frames draw on the same ‘ingredients’ of expertise claims – discernment of true and false knowledge (superiority of knowledge) and biased research (independent decisions). Respondents believe themselves able to base professional work on solid scientific principles (highest mean: ‘nature is overwhelming’, lowest mean: ‘fatalists’) and, to a slightly lesser degree, to have sufficient scientific information to make informed professional decisions (highest mean: ‘economic responsibility’, lowest mean: ‘fatalists’).
Concerning unbiasedness, they are convinced to have sufficient professional independence to properly consider climate change science (highest mean: ‘economic responsibility’, lowest mean: ‘comply with Kyoto’). Also, adherents of all frames do not feel pressured to base professional work on factors other than science principles. Only a very small minority (4%) are uncertain regarding their expertise, admitting in their open-ended responses that they feel unqualified to make recommendations.Despite these similarities, there are interesting differences. As suggested by identification theory’s in-grouping/out-grouping, individuals’ responses vary as a function of (a) the extent that they identify with and try to mobilize allies and (b) the extent they feel their identity is threatened and under attack, leading to defensiveness against enemies. This is illustrated in Figure 3.
The activation of both – identification and defensiveness – results in more extensive and intensive accounts offered, identity and boundary work, and effort in mobilizing action.Thus, the two frames that identify/mobilize most (‘economic responsibility’ and ‘regulation activists’) are most active in their identity and boundary work. They use the most rationalization, authorization, and moral-evaluative legitimation to establish their own and others’ expertise.
However, they also de-legitimate others the most. Mobilization is the call to arms that provides appropriate vocabularies of motive (Benford & Snow, 2000). Indeed, these two frames also use the most mythopoiesis legitimation – symbolism, metaphors, and emotion – that offer these vocabularies. ‘Economic responsibility’ uses vocabularies of the market and war such as ‘killing the market’ and ‘economic suicide’ or ‘fighting the lefties’. To describe the position of environmentalists, they use religious and faith-based metaphors and political metaphors in line with their pecuniary rationale. They warn not to ‘sacrifice jobs at Gore’s altar’, or ‘that very little actual benefit can be provided by sacrificing our standard of living to appease the false god of ‘environmentalism’, while ‘carbon credits are the modern-day equivalent of indulgences. Pay and your “sin” of CO2 is forgiven for no real benefit’.
The ‘regulation activists’ frame uses vocabularies of responsibility and stewardship of building consensus, realizing responsibility, and finding solutions to protect the environment. They enlist the most allies: Canada, Alberta, industry, APEGA, and other professionals. For them, they prescribe the second most amount of action – enacting stewardship, creating incentives, developing regulation, and reducing GHG. They urge APEGA to ‘stop dithering and actively encourage its members to push for improved efficiency and emissions reduction. One of our laws requires us to protect the environment – this is not happening now’ and to provide ‘leadership in searching for real answers … based on the common good’. The government ‘must mandate policies. Hopefully informed (from APEGA members) policies’.
The most defensive frames are ‘economic responsibility’ and ‘nature is overwhelming’ – both deny that climate change is a relevant problem and feel challenged by the IPCC positioning, which, as a counter-frame, puts these adherents in the defensive. As opponents to regulation, they have to stand against the inherently moral ‘comply with Kyoto’ frame, which they fear has become mainstream. Their opposition is reflected in their own framing activities: more affirmation of their own positioning as reflected in increased legitimation of their problem diagnosis and own expertise, more boundary work (per Gieryn, 1995; Branscombe et al., 1999; Hunt et al., 1994) and more adversarial framing (Gamson, 1999) as reflected in the de-legitimation and undermining of others’ expertise.
Both frames buttress their position by normalizing climate change and rationalizing nature as uncontrollable, thus any action would be ineffective. While ‘economic responsibility’ adherents prescribe economic fixes, ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents only support reducing pollution in general terms. Both liaise with ‘true scientists’ and de-legitimate the rationality of their opponents more than other frames: politicians (‘too dumb to realize that it will take many decades to put in place an infrastructure to improve energy efficiency’), media (‘media hype’ and ‘lack of unbiased information’), and – most of all – IPCC, and its supporters’ scientific grounding – ‘The holes left in the report by the IPCC leads me to form certain questions regarding the validity of claims made by the panel, the media and other alarmists.’
Relative positioning within the field
To determine the potential influence of these frames on policy responses, we compare the positions of the sponsors of these frames within their organization and the field (seeTable 4).
Adherents of frames that support regulation (‘comply with Kyoto’, ‘regulation activists’) are – in our study – significantly more likely to be lower in the organizational hierarchy, younger, female, and working in government. Indeed, in our study, only seven respondents using these frames are at the highest level in government.
Conversely, adherents of those frames that are more defensive and oppose regulation (‘nature is overwhelming’, ‘economic responsibility’) are significantly more likely to be more senior in their organizations, male, older, geoscientists, and work in the oil and gas industry.
Adherents of these two frames comprise 33.7% of our respondents overall, but 63.3% of top managers in the oil and gas industry as opposed to 19.1% supporting regulation.
The majority of command posts within organizations, especially in the industry, seem to be manned with opponents to the IPCC and anthropogenic climate science. While it may not be overly surprising that industry executives support the industry’s interests, taking into consideration that we have analyzed experts’ frames that are founded on a claim of being independent and non-partisan, it is also important to note that the two frames that especially dwell on the point of ‘real science’ versus ‘hoax’ at the same time represent core economic interests.
Quote:
While ‘comply with Kyoto’ adherents share the storyline privileged by the IPCC and regard scientific knowledge to be conclusive enough to support mandatory action, not even the second pro-regulation group (‘regulation activists’) joins their support for the international Protocol. In addition, ‘comply with Kyoto’ adherents do not engage in mobilization and boundary work and do little to legitimate their position. This may seem surprising, but becomes more comprehensible when taking into consideration their strong belief that the fundamental debate on whether or not climate change is anthropogenic is settled and that the ‘consensus among scientists’ has informed enforceable regulation. From such a perspective, it seems reasonable to avoid re-heating old conflict lines and being as inclusive as possible – our findings show that they emphasize fraternity and collaboration, and keep emotionality low. What they seem to have underestimated is that, even if the contestation may have been over on scientific terms, it was certainly not over on political grounds – as indicated by Canada’s recent decision to pull out of the Kyoto Protocol.
On the other hand, regulation contrarians form a discourse coalition despite different rationales underlying their scepticism. Anthropogenic climate change sceptics (‘nature is overwhelming’) link up with promoters of ‘economic responsibility’ who – irrespective of what actually causes climate change – oppose the high economic cost of interventions that, according to them, will negatively affect competitiveness and jeopardize progress in the Western world. Both downplay the environmental risks associated with climate change and, hence, deny the appropriateness of regulation and global agreements (Kahan et al., 2010). In addition, we found quite a large group of ‘fatalists’. Although they do not share the contrarians’ diagnosis or prognosis – for them, the issue is too complex and all knowledge we have is biased – they also do not believe in the efficacy of taking action. In this sense, through their fatalism and inaction, they benefit the non-regulationists and contribute to defense.
If the role of humans on climate change is negligible, regulation will have no more impact than non-regulation. Hence, while it is clear that their frame includes no pro-regulation action motivation, from the rationale provided, ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents could be indifferent in this respect. However, in framing contests between different expert groups, it is not only the ‘truth’ that is at stake, but also one’s status as expert. It would threaten the expert identity and undermine the positioning of this group in the future if regulators ‘listened’ to professional experts whose truth claims contradict their own. Thus, by opposing regulation, they are defending their expert status. Nonetheless, similar to ‘comply with Kyoto’ adherents, this group’s legitimation activity, boundary work, and action mobilization is low. The interpretation scheme inherent in their frame and the position of the adherents in the socio-economic field of our study offer several potential answers. They make a strong claim that climate science is fraudulent and believe that the debate is not settled and ‘good science’ will eventually overcome science fiction. Since all regulation is ineffective anyway, there is also no urgency. In addition, Table 4 shows that this group is clearly overrepresented in top management positions, especially in the oil and gas industry. Thus, they may see little need to legitimate their own framing and mobilize because they are in the command posts of their organizations anyway. Moreover, to downplay the impact of humankind on the environment in general is a quite ‘handy’ framing for top management of oil and gas corporations.
While ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents only see regulation to be useless, ‘economic responsibility’ proponents actively oppose regulation and mobilize against it. This is consistent with the prognosis and action rationale inherent in their frame. For them, the ‘cure is much worse than the disease’. Thus, not only is their position as expert threatened; what is in danger and in need of protection is not so much the environment as the economic development and interests that are put at stake by badly counseled politicians. This may explain why ‘economic responsibility’ adherents de-legitimate ‘them’, undermine their standing, and are much more emotional than other groups.
Framed that way, no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter John
But Prince Charles' statementhas a bit more validity to it.Quote:
"Some of us were saying 20 something years ago that if we didn't tackle these issues, you would see ever greater conflict over scarce resources and ever greater difficulties over drought, and the accumulating effect of climate change which means that people have to move," .
Regardless of what your beliefs are regarding the cause of climate changes, the effects have been showing up. Increased and more prolonged droughts or flood seasons mean that the economic and agricultural viability of an area decreases.
Many of those areas are depressed to begin with, and have inept, corruptly self-serving, or unstable governments that keep them from improving their situation. That also means that rural areas have little to no access to electricity or other vital infrastructure supports, and healthcare is lower quality or absent outside of urban centres. Maternal health problems, high childhood mortality, an low education rates (especially women) keep the families big but destitute.
So, you have areas that are poor, and prone to large families (hedging their bets that they will have a son to take over their farm, bring in some cash, and hopefully care for them in their 'old age'). Economic pressure from the increased droughts or floods means less money and food to go around; the whole family may have to move, or at least the 'adult' children have to leave. If you can marry off a daughter when she's young, then that's one less mouth to feed. Money goes to education and food, or maybe just one or the other; some areas both are prioritized for the boys since they have more economic potential even then, not all of their sons. So, the cycle repeats.
Not everyone gets their own land to work, or can find jobs in the urban areas, so you end up with hoards of people with nothing and no prospects in their country. They can migrate to other countries, but they may not be welcome, or the country may have similar problems of their own. So, thousands of destitute, displaced individuals that are not welcome at home or abroad - many of them young men.
I don't know too many happy endings with beginnings like that.
Go back a couple of decades; all of these issues were already there and studied. There were resolutions from the G8 to act and reverse this perpetual mess, but governments will do as they always do - promise and forget.
On the other hand, if some organization is willing to provide food, a place to sleep, camaraderie and a bit of respect? All you have to do is follow orders and memorize a few rituals?
Could it be enough of a draw for them? Is it too far fetched? Have I had too much coffee? :moose:
Not actually true. It is not 97% of the world's scientists. It is 97% of actively publishing (read as "funded") climate scientists. If you want to speak about "world's scientists" the number is closer to 80% depending on which poll you consult.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
80% is still a large majority to be sure, but is not as impressive a number as 97.
Until we get rid of the hot air out of Liar McGuinty, horse face Wynne and Wynne's adopted son Trudeau from their arses and mouth, Canada will always has a climate control problem
Since I was not watching closely growing up, can someone tell me about the economic devastation caused by the SO2 and NOx restrictions implemented to combat the acid rain problem? The US went cap & trade I believe under George Bush Sr. in the 90's, and UK/Europe went with a ratcheting industry emission tax at the same time I think?
What did we do in Canada?
Industrial CO2 emissions are a bit more nuanced and complicated, but why would increasingly restrictive programs - like those used for SO2 and NOx, not work in a similar manner?
The one thing that I really don't trust is that a provincial or federal government would keep the tax revenue out of the general coffers. That money really needs to be set aside to fund improvements, either in retrofits for industry or development of new tech that would benefit everyone.
in the 50's there was a scare that we were going through another ice age. Oh well believe or not, Canada can never change climate we need China and India to curb their pollution then we might see a change in reversal.
Until we figure out how to alter the Earths orbit or figure out how to lower the temps on the Sun I'm thinking our footprint won't change the climate.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Phoenix
I graduated from high school in '69 and the university gang was banging the BS drum with the coming new ice age because our last dozen winters had below normal temps and high snow fall levels. They figured out how to get grant money to "study" the effects. When the weather changed over the next couple of years,their grant money dried up. They had to re-invent the revenue stream,hence,global warming and the scammers have been on a roll ever since. First,it was AGW,but,when that was thoroughly dicredited,it's become simply "climate change".Quote:
Originally Posted by The Phoenix
We are breaking 50 yr old records.......so does that mean global warming was there 50 yrs ago too :)
The 1950's were actually pretty warm. The ice age fear was in the '70's after the long, cold and snowy 61-72 winters.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Phoenix
This is what Global Warming (rebranded Climate Change) is all about and also a new revenue tool for Politians to tax us more.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
They should rename it "global pollution" and work on cleaning that up. Rather than Trudeau somehow keeping the planet's temperature rising 1.5 degrees instead of 2 degrees.........
The only records being broken,right now,is the bullshyte records from "liberal/progressives". The unmitigated arrogance and ignorance that we can change Mother Nature boggles the mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by fratri
If people think taxing the air is going to save the planet, or make a difference. Think again. Say what you will about activist (good or bad). Say what you will about L/R (good or bad).
Makes me laugh hard when people fall for the feel good gas clouds put out by the naïve idealist, and politicians.
How much more evidence do people need that they talk out both sides of their mouths.
The cost of closing Pickering Nuke Gen, and green champions and her supporters (over and above everything else).
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015...-polluted.html
And what of this 2 degrees? 2C is about 1/2 the difference between the yearly average temperature in Ottawa and Toronto.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maximus44
Could also mean a slightly longer growing season here in Canada. It's warmer this winter than it was last winter. Less money spent plowing and salting, this is bad how again?
This is a classic case of politicians trying to take credit for and espouse their "green energy" nonsense with the closure of Pickering,even if it's going to take 10 years to complete the shut down. That thing is as out-dated as Chalk River,worse than any other and would cost 15X the highest estimate to refurbish than to build a complete new station. That was never going to happen,no way,no how,no matter what government was in power. Even Bruce Nuclear,the most successful privately-owned company on the continent, wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. A Liberal goverment crowing about being responsible for the "green" closure is flat out BS.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
See also what's occurring on and to the Morraine Terry so I wouldn't celebrate the slightly warmer winters just yet. I'm sure the 407 all the green people want is going to help to.
Not sure how the lack of a snow pack will help water tables and aquafiers. So yup, lets tax the air and misdirect the voters away from....
Although the Ice Age Fear was mostly in the popular media, and most of the research pointed towards a warming trend globally with CO2 getting pegged as a contributor to keep an eye on.Quote:
Originally Posted by werner.reiche
The American Meteorological Society did a paper on the whole popular phenomenon in 2008:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
The possible effect of CO2 on the earth's climate and rising global temperatures was even discussed in Scientific American in 1959:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/me...959-carbon.pdf
Highlights a few problems for sure. It would be interesting to read the report. A friend works for the MOE, and has said that they are limited in their ability to hold up certain projects for environmental reasons. Pressure comes from the top, and they don't have sufficient mechanisms in place to demand a more thorough review. As long as the company has a detailed plan that matches current requirements, it's essentially good to go.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
Also, I don't know what the E. coli in the shallow wells would have to do with the construction. E. coli and coliforms in general show up from fecal contamination, and are usually surface contaminants. Without knowing the state of the wells in question, state of the occupants septic setup, and information on the land use adjoining those properties, it is a bit of a distraction.
I never thought much about climate change and it effects until I started watching National Geographic shows on the polar bear.
The ice cap has shrunk by 1/3 . The bears have to swim many kilometres to find ice where a seal can be taken through the ice. Cubs are drowning as they can't swim that far. Male bears are eating cubs as food is so hard to find.
One could say who cares about the polar bears, but I hate to see a species wiped out due to climate change.
Not trying to sound like I don't care about polar bears but if at some point they actually were to disappear it would be part of this planet's evolution. Our world has gone through multiple climate periods where species have died off. Not many wooly mammoths or dinosaurs around anymore and none of this was a result of man. The black duck is being wiped out by mating with another specie. At some point mankind will likely be wiped out. The reality is yes of course we have a negative impact on the environment but it is beyond arrogant to think we can control climate. When I see imbeciles like our PM negotiating 1.5 vs. 2 degree global climate changes it makes me laugh. These narcissistic twits feel they control nature. If they ever Find a way to cool the sun and adjust our planetary orbit then maybe, just maybe we can have an effect on climate. The North Pole may be shrinking but Antarctica is growing. Of course there is climate change. It's a never ending process. As much as they try to blame Conservatives for climate change they didn't cause the Glaciers to melt yet they did. :ninja: Let's call it Global cleansing and clean it up and stop telling people the end is near. Taxing everything that moves and giving montey to dictators and despots will never reverse the pollution we produce. Climate change is the Left's biggest and most successful scam. It's a damned religion now, at some point Islam will probably target it as an enemy too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharon
Maybe,there's something redeeming about Islam after all.LOL On a side note,I find it curious that the polar ice cap on this side of the north pole is shrinking,but,it's expanding on the other side. Santa may have to move his operation to Russia or Norway. Geez,there goes another out-sourced operation.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
Everything heard/read/watched needs to be taken with a grain of salt.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharon
From an NASA article this spring...
Now, in May 2015, the updated NASA data show polar sea ice is approximately 5 percent above the post-1979 average.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...ing-after-all/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharon
http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/mag...lar_bears3.asp
Consider Mitch Taylor’s story. He spent more than two decades as a polar bear researcher and manager for the Nunavut government and has published around 50 peer-reviewed papers. That should garner widespread respect. But Taylor has been highly vocal about his belief that polar bears are mostly doing fine, that cub mortality varies from year to year and that the much ballyhooed predictions of extinction by 2050 are “a joke.” He also alleges that a lot of the “exaggerated decline” is just a way to keep certain scientists well funded and to transfer control of the polar bear issue from territorial to federal hands.
...
The current scientific consensus places the worldwide polar bear population between 20,000 and 25,000 animals. Prior to the 1973 worldwide restriction on commerical polar bear hunting, that number was dramatically lower, so low that a meeting of polar bear specialists in 1965 concluded that extinction was a real possibility. Some reports even estimated the number of bears as low as 5,000 worldwide. Yet by 1990, Ian Stirling — at the time, the senior research scientist for the Canadian Wildlife Service and a professor of zoology at the University of Alberta; basically, one of the most respected polar bear scientists on the planet — felt comfortable answering the question as to whether polar bears are an endangered species by stating flatly: “They are not.” He went on to say that “the world population of polar bears is certainly greater than 20,000 and could be as high as 40,000 … I am inclined toward the upper end of that range.” Although old studies are sketchy, clearly more polar bears are alive today than there were 50 years ago, an essentially heartening fact that has not managed to pierce the public consciousness.
That doesn't exactly suit the ecocon's narrative. People like Al Gore and David Suzuki live like kings entirely because these facts don't get published by the media.Quote:
Originally Posted by mosquito
If I'm not mistaken we used to sacrifice virgins (droughts, volcanoes) and trying to beat nature forever. How's it going?
Let's do what we can, but let's also keep our heads on our shoulders, and feet on the ground.
Lest we start sacrificing virgins to the sun gods again.
Politicians and green champions are largely snake oil salesmen, or some like JT naive idealist. Not unlike McGuinty. Sadly too many are all too happy to buy into things.
We will do far more good, concentrating, focusing on things like pollution (the physical kind, we throw so much crap out), food sources to feed the masses, water...
See the Morraine.
Makes me laugh when I hear people like JT go on about CC, yet right here where we sit on 90% of the worlds fresh water. We waste it like drunkards, pollute it like stink (see also the muskokas and kawarthas) andhave no appreciation for it
We can't sacrifice virgins,anymore,JBen,because there aren't any LOL
How it affects you depends on where you live. Two degrees higher average, all the time, changes a few things. Maybe say goodbye to overwinter crops between Windsor and London because your average winter highs are now 0-1 degree C, or maybe just expect higher losses due to melting snowcover.Quote:
Originally Posted by werner.reiche
Ottawa in your example with average summer highs pushed up close to 28 C will also see a bump in their summer maximum temperatures, and a bit more humidity to go with it - luckily it should keep the AC business going if the cost of hydro isn't too bad and you can afford it. The homeless may be in danger though.
Some places will make out like bandits, others will have to plant different crops (and find a market for them) or new varieties, or add irrigation systems; again, it depends where you live. I'd hate to live in a drought-prone region.
If the 2C jump is inevitable, then the trick is how long do we need before the 2C increase to be ready, or even more important, how long will it take for the other animals, algaes, fungi, bacteria, and plants to also adapt to the new normal. A 40 C hot tub is pretty comfortable, but it probably wouldn't be healthy to stay in one all the time without some changes to what goes on inside our bodies. Same for most of the other critters. Slower increases are probably smoother than faster ones.
How many species of plants and animals evolved and disappeared on this planet before man had a footprint on it? Man is an evolutionary creature also, remember the cave men? What is to say that humans won't over time keep evolving like every other living thing to adapt to changing conditions? This idea that progressives have that they can control climate is both laughable and sad. When I see imbeciles like JT go to a sham conference of mostly poorly trained / educated politicians and feel they can negotiate between 1.5 and 2 degrees of climate change it blows my mind. These idiots truly believe they are so powerful they can control a natural process that has not stopped in millions of years on this planet. Until we can control the earths orbit relative to the sun and the moon we will never be able to control climate. By all means clean up the planet but crippling economies and redistributing wealth will never achieve what these clowns feel they can do. We may be capable of blowing up the planet but haven't figured how to control its orbit yet no matter what the left think they are capable of.Quote:
Originally Posted by mooboy76
How many species of plants and animals evolved and disappeared on this planet before man had a footprint on it? Man is an evolutionary creature also, remember the cave men? What is to say that humans won't over time keep evolving like every other living thing to adapt to changing conditions? This idea that progressives have that they can control climate is both laughable and sad. When I see imbeciles like JT go to a sham conference of mostly poorly trained / educated politicians and feel they can negotiate between 1.5 and 2 degrees of climate change it blows my mind. These idiots truly believe they are so powerful they can control a natural process that has not stopped in millions of years on this planet. Until we can control the earths orbit relative to the sun and the moon we will never be able to control climate. By all means clean up the planet but crippling economies and redistributing wealth will never achieve what these clowns feel they can do.Quote:
Originally Posted by mooboy76
We may be capable of blowing up the planet but haven't figured how to control it's orbit yet no matter what the left think they are capable of.
The $ Billions of dollars already wasted and yet to come would be far better spent on finding ways to "adapt" to a changing world successfully. Spend that money into finding ways of turning marginal land into productive land that can support some type of useful agriculture and that would go much further in helping societies and countries who live in desperation. Modernize Africa and build basic infrastructure and watch that continent thrive in terms of food and resource production. Solar and wind technology may very well be useful in the arid parts of the world who don't have other abundant sources of energy, here they erode our progress and shrink economies. That would be the best tool in stopping war and extremism. Happy well fed people aren't as likely to want to kill each other. We already have the science and technical capacity to improve the land we use, what is needed is the will to do it. Wasting money on Carbon nonsense as well as military tools is non productive and will kill us off quicker in the end as a species. The climate con artists live very well by spreading doom and gloom and typically are among the worst offenders in terms of carbon footprint. Climate change is a very lucrative religion that isn't helping us at all. The sad reality is we produce enough food on this planet that nobody anywhere should have to go hungry. What we waste as a society is reprehensible. We waste billions on scandal and boondoggles while kids and homeless people suffer. Let's try and fix that before we try and play god with the universe.
You gotta watch Canada's science minister...... says global warming will cause the next ice age....
http://www.therebel.media/10_facts_a...justin_trudeau
HUH?????
All climate change comes from the sun!>that's it> I will tell you a little story and you can let it fall where you want it, I have spent all my life as a youth out side in southern BC and I would say about 30 years ago the sun went from a yellow to a white light. Why I have no understanding but for a person that spend a lot of time out side it was def>noted .
If you lived in Toronto the sun would be green some days and seeing we're pushing for a green environment, that would be a good thing, right?
Hey not sure where you are going with this........................ but this is a family friendly forum so please tone it down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kettle
Wanna see what idiots are thinking... follow them on Twitter.
It is coming down the pipeline soon... or in respect to Montreal the sewer line... and are we going to get it. These idiots must have an automated machine or a dedicated person because I flipped it on before supper and they were gloating and they still are now...
Just in the last little bit
Justin Trudeau @JustinTrudeau Justin Trudeau Retweeted Liberal Party
Now is the time to work together to build a sustainable, low-carbon economy for all Canadians:
Liberal Party Verified account @liberal_party A new, cross-country framework for clean growth and environmental protection #FMM2016
Kathleen Wynne Verified account @Kathleen_Wynne
Meeting w/ fellow premiers to talk about Ontario's plan to fight #climatechange & how we can collaborate #GLOBE2016
Justin Trudeau @JustinTrudeau 24m24 minutes ago Today, First Ministers agreed on a bold plan to create a cleaner economy. Our statement: http://bit.ly/1TWAIiz
Gerald Butts Verified account @gmbutts Every First Minister agrees to the Paris Declaration, the 2 degree target, and that we need carbon pricing to get there. #progress #fmm2016
BUT back in reality!!!
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-co...vel-has-banged
Premiers unite against Ottawa’s carbon plan before the first gavel has banged
Full comment - http://business.financialpost.com/fp...ng-it-a-secretQuote:
Canada may already be carbon neutral, so why are we keeping it a secret?
Here’s a seemingly simple question: Is Canada a net carbon dioxide emitter? You would think so from reading news headlines. We’ve earned the scorn of environmentalists, NGOs, and media outlets galore, labelled with such juvenile epithets as “fossil of the year” or “corrupt petro-state.”
Sadly, lost in all the hyperbole is the actual science. There is nothing quantitative about the vague idea that, as a “progressive nation,” Canada should be expected to “do more” to fight climate change.
But therein lies the rub; Canada is poised to immediately do more to combat climate change than almost every other country in the world. How, you ask? Well, by doing more of the same. If that sounds ludicrous, let me explain.
Most Canadians would agree that our response to climate change needs to be scientifically sound, environmentally sustainable and financially realistic, as well as global, comprehensive, and holistic. Right now, our approach is none of those things; the public discourse is driven by a myopic, ideological obsession with carbon emissions alone. What else is there, you ask?
The answer comes from the most recent report (2014) of the Global Carbon Project, which states that global human-induced CO2 emissions were 36 billion tonnes. Of that, 36 per cent stayed in the atmosphere, 27 per cent was absorbed by water, and 37 per cent was absorbed by land.
That’s right — absorbed by land! Not all CO2 emitted by people stays in the atmosphere. Much of it returns to the earth, mainly through the carbon absorption and sequestration power of plants, soil, and trees.
"Taxing Canadians to try to make planet Earth greener is futile policy based on a half-blind approach that only considers emissions from our resources, not absorption from our land and forests."
So long as we can get unsustainable clear cutting, deforestation and monoculture under control - here, there and everywhere, in the Boreal and in the Amazon - then ya, I suppose trees will take care of the CO2 problem.
Protect our lands, forests and waters. Don't just say it. Do it. Get a handle on urban sprawl. Do away with ridiculous city bylaws against urban agriculture and animal husbandry. Eradicate invasive species. Stop the obsession with perfectly manicured, luscious green lawns and golf courses. Promote permaculture. Live with nature. Be part of it.
http://forums.midnightruns.com/attac...0&d=1457097846
Quote:
Originally Posted by awndray
Excellent post and link and thank you for sharing it with us.
I planted 2,000 pines in my backyard 20 years ago and now have a forest. Can I apply for a carbon tax credit Mr. Lieberal?
Just when it was all decided.... even though their models keep being wrong....
http://www.financialpost.com/m/wp/bl...-age-has-begun
Enter Habibullo Abdussamatov of the Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the scientist who heads Russia’s space research laboratory and its global warming research using data collected by the International Space Station. Unlike other scientists in the global warming field who have had to continually backtrack, sidestep and spin erroneous findings when their models proved embarrassingly wrong, Abdussamatov’s studies over the last decade have stayed on course, in keeping with the actual temperature readings that ultimately provide a true measure of climate change.
His latest study, published in Thermal Science, delivers this week’s second whammy. It continues the analysis he has long pursued, which consistently arrives at the same conclusion: Earth is now entering a new Little Ice Age, Earth’s 19th Little Ice Age, to be precise.
Just when you think it is safe to buy more shorts for "winter" wear....the new thermal "summer" wear??:confused::santa::santa::confused:
Canada has the gravy train rolling on again, 161 delegates this time.. #ClimateBarbie and #ClimateChickenLittle are in their elements
https://www.therebel.media/ezra_leva...gation_exposed
"Ezra showed you some of the 161 delegates "Climate Barbie" Catherine McKenna is bringing with her to the UN Climate Conference in Bonn."
https://globalnews.ca/news/4026679/d...-common-sense/
The modern inquisition tactic is something known as a “strategic lawsuit against public participation,” or SLAPP lawsuit.
The purpose of such a lawsuit is to silence critics by burdening them with the cost of legal bills until they shut up. Ball has been the target of three such lawsuits, which have cost him – along with the help of generous donors – more than $600,000 to defend. Well, he hasn’t shut up and he just won one of them.
The “new science” is nothing of the sort, according to Ball. The science of climate change is based on computer modelling, not real world observations. The projections of catastrophe caused by man-made carbon dioxide emissions are based on computer modelling. The projections of rising sea levels swallowing coastal cities are based on computer modelling.
As Ball reminds us, Alan Greenspan’s failure to predict the financial crisis was also based on computer modelling.
...
That fact that De Niro – an actor, not a climate scientist – is considered a more noteworthy commentator on climate change than Happer – a climate scientist – shows just how far we have drifted from the world of real science. It’s nice to know the courts aren’t willing to play along.
Danielle Smith is being a bit fast and loose with that BC Supreme Court decision.
I thought something might be up when she linked to the profitable blog 'Watts Up' instead of any court proceedings.
She is right that Andrew Weaver's defamation suit against Timothy Ball was dismissed.
Here is the link to the judgement
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/...18BCSC0205.htm
Here is the reasoning for the dismissal; it does not quite match up with the narrative woven by Danielle Smith.
Also, Andrew Weaver had already solicited and obtained an apology and retraction from the Canadian Free Press, as well as a published apology from Timothy Ball.Quote:
[74] However, not every derogatory statement is defamatory. The test again is whether the impugned words genuinely threaten the plaintiff’s actual reputation (Weaver, at para. 68). Here, I am not satisfied that the impugned words of the Article reach that level. I reach this conclusion for the following reasons.
[75] First, as discussed above, the Article is poorly written and does not advance credible arguments in favour of Dr. Ball’s theory about the corruption of climate science. Simply put, a reasonably thoughtful and informed person who reads the Article is unlikely to place any stock in Dr. Ball’s views, including his views of Dr. Weaver as a supporter of conventional climate science. In Vellacott v. Saskatoon Star Phoenix Group Inc. et al, 2012 SKQB 359 [Vellacott], the court found that certain published comments were not defamatory because they were so ludicrous and outrageous as to be unbelievable and therefore incapable of lowering the reputation of the plaintiff in the minds of right-thinking persons (at para. 70). While the impugned words here are not as hyperbolic as the words in Vellacott, they similarly lack a sufficient air of credibility to make them believable and therefore potentially defamatory.
[76] Moreover, as noted above, the Article is clearly an opinion piece, and statements of opinion are generally evaluated differently than statements of fact. As stated by Mr. Justice Lebel in WIC Radio, at para. 71 of his concurring reasons:
[71] Although distinguishing facts from comment may sometimes be difficult, a comment is by its subjective nature generally less capable of damaging someone’s reputation than an objective statement of fact, because the public is much more likely to be influenced in its belief by a statement of fact than by a comment. …
[77] In my view, it is very unlikely that the Article and the opinions expressed therein had an impact on the views of anyone who read it, including their views, if any, of Dr. Weaver as a climate scientist. Rather, the reasonably thoughtful and informed reader would have recognized the Article as simply presenting one side of a highly charged public debate.
[78] Second, despite professing to have been “saddened, sickened and dismayed” by the Article, I am not satisfied that Dr. Weaver himself perceived the Article as genuinely threatening his actual reputation. As noted, Dr. Weaver has been actively and publically engaged in the climate change discussion for many years. That included endorsing political candidates who advanced policies he agreed with and opposing candidates with whom he disagreed. It is also quite apparent that he enjoys the “thrust and parry” of that discussion and that he places little stock in opposing views such as those espoused by Dr. Ball, which Dr. Weaver characterized as “odd” and “bizarre”. Dr. Weaver went so far as to post the Article on his “wall of hate” located outside his office, alongside other articles and correspondence from “climate doubters”. It is apparent that he views such material as more of a “badge of honour” than a legitimate challenge to his character or reputation.
[79] The issue of climate change is a matter of public interest and, as noted, Dr. Weaver has been at the forefront of public discussion. It has long been recognized that where someone enters the public arena, it is to be expected that his or her actions and words will be subject to robust scrutiny and criticism. For example, in Lund v. Black Press Group Ltd., 2009 BCSC 937 [Lund], Mr. Justice Bracken stated, at para. 123:
[123] It is important to any community that matters of public interest are debated freely and openly. Sometimes, in the heat of discussions over a controversial issue where strong personal differences exist, persons on one side or other of the debate make comments that offend. But the fact that they offend is not enough. The comments must go beyond strong criticisms of a public man acting in his capacity as a public official. …
[80] Similar observations were made by Chief Justice Nemetz in Vander Zalm, at 535 and 536. While the plaintiffs in both Lund and Vander Zalm were elected officials, in my view, the principle applies with equal force to others who actively engage in matters of public interest.
[81] In WIC Radio, Justice Lebel again, in his concurring reasons said, at paras. 74-75:
[74] Members of the public will generally have a more solid basis on which to evaluate a comment about a public figure than one about someone who is unknown. Thus, although public figures are certainly more open to criticism than those who avoid the public eye, this does not mean that their reputations are necessarily more vulnerable. In fact, public figures may have greater opportunity to influence their own reputations for the better.
[75] People who voluntarily take part in debates on matters of public interest must expect a reaction from the public. Indeed, public response will often be one of the goals of self‑expression. In the context of such debates (and at the risk of mixing metaphors), public figures are expected to have a thick skin and not to be too quick to cry foul when the discussion becomes heated. This is not to say that harm to one’s reputation is the necessary price of being a public figure. Rather, it means that what may harm a private individual’s reputation may not damage that of a figure about whom more is known and who may have had ample opportunity to express his or her own contrary views.
[82] The law of defamation provides an important tool for protecting an individual’s reputation from unjustified attack. However, it is not intended to stifle debate on matters of public interest nor to compensate for every perceived slight or to quash contrary view points, no matter how ill-conceived. Public debate on matters of importance is an essential element of a free and democratic society and lies at the heart of the Charter guarantee of freedom of expression. As Justice Lebel observes, such debate often includes critical and even offensive commentary, which is best met through engagement and well-reasoned rejoinder. It is only when the words used reach the level of genuinely threatening a person’s actual reputation that resort to the law of defamation is available. Such is not the case here.
[83] In summary, the Article is a poorly written opinion piece that offers Dr. Ball’s views on conventional climate science and Dr. Weaver’s role as a supporter and teacher of that science. While the Article is derogatory of Dr. Weaver, it is not defamatory, in that the impugned words do not genuinely threaten Dr. Weaver’s reputation in the minds of reasonably thoughtful and informed readers. Dr. Weaver has therefore failed to establish the first element of the defamation test.
[84] Given this finding, I need not consider whether Dr. Weaver has established that the Article was published in the sense that it was downloaded and read in BC by anyone other than him. I also need not address the defences raised by Dr. Ball.
Conclusion
[85] Dr. Weaver’s claim is dismissed. If the parties cannot agree on costs, they may make arrangements to speak to the issue.
“Skolrood J.”
So, while there are elements in the decision speaking to Timothy Ball's claim of commentary rather than fact, and the expectation of aggressive or offensive discourse in highly charged topics important to the public, the meat seems to be that Dr. Ball's article is poorly written and not likely to cause genuine damage to the reputation of Andrew Weaver.Quote:
[30] Ultimately, on March 3, 2011, Dr. Ball issued the following apology:
My article entitled “Corruption of Climate Change has Created 30 Lost Years” contained untrue statements about Dr. Andrew Weaver, who is a professor in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, British Columbia. The article has since been withdrawn from the Internet website of Canada Free Press, where it was originally published in January 2011.
Contrary to what I stated in my article, Dr. Weaver: (1) never announced he will not participate in the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”); (2) never said that the IPCC chairman should resign; (3) never called for the IPCC’s approach to science to be overhauled; and (4) did not begin withdrawing from the IPCC in January 2010. I hereby unequivocally retract my suggestion that Dr. Weaver sought to dissociate himself from the scientific work of the IPCC.
As a result of a nomination process that began in January, 2010, Dr. Weaver became a Lead Author for Chapter 12: “Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility” of the Working Group I contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC. That work began in May, 2010. My article failed to mention these facts although they were publicly available.
I did not intend to suggest that Dr. Weaver tried to interfere with my presentation at the University of Victoria by having his students deter people from attending and heckling me during my talk. Further, I do not dispute Dr. Weaver’s credentials or competence as a climate scientist and university professor. While Dr. Weaver and I have different views on the cause of global warming, I acknowledge that Dr. Weaver has at all times acted honestly and with integrity.
I sincerely apologize to Dr. Weaver and express regret for the embarrassment and distress caused by my article.
This decision may not be the 'victory for common sense' that the Global News is espousing -unless I've missed something, which is always possible.
Interesting you have a judge making claims about the quality of what is supposed to be a scientific paper but globalnews sure made it look like a top spinning! Thanks for the details.