Montreal Escorts

The Anti-Civilization Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

JustBob

New Member
Nov 19, 2004
921
0
0
Ziggy Montana said:
The purpose of me issuing this thread was to gauge merbite's sense of responsibility toward environmental issues. The underlying premises are as follows: Industrial Civilization is not sustainable, not redeemable and it's importance is relatively inferior to the need of the natural world.

You're underlying premise is the same that can be found in Derrick Jensen's "Endgame", where he's essentially promoting his anarcho-primitivism-radicalism ideology.

In spite of the overwhelming evidence regarding the seriousness and urgency of global warming, the said posters are making a case for discrediting activism mainly on account of the "certainty principle", which is certainly one of the most effective ways to delay action on an issue, or to promote a political ideology.

All I've seen you do is post evidence that supports your position. Do you even bother searching for and reading opposing scientific viewpoints? As for promoting a political ideology, you are certainly guilty as charged (see above about Jensen).
 
Last edited:

JustBob

New Member
Nov 19, 2004
921
0
0
beautydigger said:
An interesting footnote and one of the major lies in the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" is that Mr. Gore and Co. show the Perito Moreno Glacier in So. Argentina as an example of the result of global warming. They used this in the movie twice all the while misrepresenting its growth and in fact stating it is shrinking showing a huge chunk falling off as it does every 30 minutes or so. It is a dramatic glacier that yields tremendous photo ops to just about anyone who visits it, which I must presume is why it was used.

Not to mention that historical graph, which shows a perfect correlation between temperatrure rise and CO2 emissions, when in reality, increases in CO2 levels LAG temperature increases by roughly 800 years... Oh, and that "polar bears are in danger" silliness.
 

JustBob

New Member
Nov 19, 2004
921
0
0
Now here's an article with a little less doom and gloom (but that doesn't sell papers...): :)

No Such Thing As a 'Perfect' Temperature
By Richard S. Lindzen
Newsweek International

April 16, 2007 issue - Judging from the media in recent months, the debate over global warming is now over. There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true. What of it? Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe. What most commentators—and many scientists—seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes. The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures are rare. Looking back on the earth's climate history, it's apparent that there's no such thing as an optimal temperature—a climate at which everything is just right. The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week.

A warmer climate could prove to be more beneficial than the one we have now. Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate. There is no evidence, for instance, that extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic way, according to scientists at the U.S. National Hurricane Center, the World Meteorological Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which released the second part of this year's report earlier this month). Indeed, meteorological theory holds that, outside the tropics, weather in a warming world should be less variable, which might be a good thing.

In many other respects, the ill effects of warming are overblown. Sea levels, for example, have been increasing since the end of the last ice age. When you look at recent centuries in perspective, ignoring short-term fluctuations, the rate of sea-level rise has been relatively uniform (less than a couple of millimeters a year). There's even some evidence that the rate was higher in the first half of the twentieth century than in the second half. Overall, the risk of sea-level rise from global warming is less at almost any given location than that from other causes, such as tectonic motions of the earth's surface.

Many of the most alarming studies rely on long-range predictions using inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now. Interpretations of these studies rarely consider that the impact of carbon on temperature goes down—not up—the more carbon accumulates in the atmosphere. Even if emissions were the sole cause of the recent temperature rise—a dubious proposition—future increases wouldn't be as steep as the climb in emissions.

Indeed, one overlooked mystery is why temperatures are not already higher. Various models predict that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the world's average temperature by as little as 1.5 degrees Celsius or as much as 4.5 degrees. The important thing about doubled CO2 (or any other greenhouse gas) is its "forcing"—its contribution to warming. At present, the greenhouse forcing is already about three-quarters of what one would get from a doubling of CO2. But average temperatures rose only about 0.6 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era, and the change hasn't been uniform—warming has largely occurred during the periods from 1919 to 1940 and from 1976 to 1998, with cooling in between. Researchers have been unable to explain this discrepancy.

Modelers claim to have simulated the warming and cooling that occurred before 1976 by choosing among various guesses as to what effect poorly observed volcanoes and unmeasured output from the sun have had. These factors, they claim, don't explain the warming of about 0.4 degrees C between 1976 and 1998. Climate modelers assume the cause must be greenhouse-gas emissions because they have no other explanation. This is a poor substitute for evidence, and simulation hardly constitutes explanation. Ten years ago climate modelers also couldn't account for the warming that occurred from about 1050 to 1300. They tried to expunge the medieval warm period from the observational record—an effort that is now generally discredited. The models have also severely underestimated short-term variability El Niño and the Intraseasonal Oscillation. Such phenomena illustrate the ability of the complex and turbulent climate system to vary significantly with no external cause whatever, and to do so over many years, even centuries.

Is there any point in pretending that CO2 increases will be catastrophic? Or could they be modest and on balance beneficial? India has warmed during the second half of the 20th century, and agricultural output has increased greatly. Infectious diseases like malaria are a matter not so much of temperature as poverty and public-health policies (like eliminating DDT). Exposure to cold is generally found to be both more dangerous and less comfortable.

Moreover, actions taken thus far to reduce emissions have already had negative consequences without improving our ability to adapt to climate change. An emphasis on ethanol, for instance, has led to angry protests against corn-price increases in Mexico, and forest clearing and habitat destruction in Southeast Asia. Carbon caps are likely to lead to increased prices, as well as corruption associated with permit trading. (Enron was a leading lobbyist for Kyoto because it had hoped to capitalize on emissions trading.) The alleged solutions have more potential for catastrophe than the putative problem. The conclusion of the late climate scientist Roger Revelle—Al Gore's supposed mentor—is worth pondering: the evidence for global warming thus far doesn't warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate.

Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.
 
Last edited:

z/m(Ret)

New Member
Feb 28, 2007
1,664
3
0
JustBob said:
You're underlying premise is the same that can be found in Derrick Jensen's "Endgame", where he's essentially promoting his anarcho-primitivism-radicalism ideology.
Partially, and your point is?

JustBob said:
All I've seen you do is post evidence that supports your position. Do you even bother searching for and reading opposing scientific viewpoints? As for promoting a political ideology, you are certainly guilty as charged (see above about Jensen).
Of course I do! But who am I to validate one point of view over the other? As a matter of fact, what qualifies you to decide who's right and who's wrong? Are you an expert in the science of climate change?

Again, I repeat the points you don't seem to get: (1) being ready for responsibility doesn't require absolute certainty. The idea of calling for greater citizen implication and immediate action can be summarized by the old idiom - better be safe than sorry - the same idiom you used in one of your post, correct me if I'm wrong. (2) in the same line of thoughts, the most updated, most complete, report on the economics of global warming speaks of a negative 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever if we do nothing about global warming -vs- a negative 1% of global GDP if we do something. Thus far, I see nothing that contradicts this information.

Weighing the pros and cons, I say we better move on this issue. To say otherwise would be irresponsible.
 

korbel

Name Retired.
Aug 16, 2003
2,402
2
0
Her Hot Dreams
Wow

JustBob said:
Now here's an article with a little less doom and gloom (but that doesn't sell papers...): :)

No Such Thing As a 'Perfect' Temperature
By Richard S. Lindzen
Newsweek International

April 16, 2007 issue - Judging from the media in recent months, the debate over global warming is now over. There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true. What of it? Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe. What most commentators—and many scientists—seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes. The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures are rare. Looking back on the earth's climate history, it's apparent that there's no such thing as an optimal temperature—a climate at which everything is just right. The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week.

A warmer climate could prove to be more beneficial than the one we have now. Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate. There is no evidence, for instance, that extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic way, according to scientists at the U.S. National Hurricane Center, the World Meteorological Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which released the second part of this year's report earlier this month). Indeed, meteorological theory holds that, outside the tropics, weather in a warming world should be less variable, which might be a good thing.

In many other respects, the ill effects of warming are overblown. Sea levels, for example, have been increasing since the end of the last ice age. When you look at recent centuries in perspective, ignoring short-term fluctuations, the rate of sea-level rise has been relatively uniform (less than a couple of millimeters a year). There's even some evidence that the rate was higher in the first half of the twentieth century than in the second half. Overall, the risk of sea-level rise from global warming is less at almost any given location than that from other causes, such as tectonic motions of the earth's surface.

Many of the most alarming studies rely on long-range predictions using inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now. Interpretations of these studies rarely consider that the impact of carbon on temperature goes down—not up—the more carbon accumulates in the atmosphere. Even if emissions were the sole cause of the recent temperature rise—a dubious proposition—future increases wouldn't be as steep as the climb in emissions.

Indeed, one overlooked mystery is why temperatures are not already higher. Various models predict that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the world's average temperature by as little as 1.5 degrees Celsius or as much as 4.5 degrees. The important thing about doubled CO2 (or any other greenhouse gas) is its "forcing"—its contribution to warming. At present, the greenhouse forcing is already about three-quarters of what one would get from a doubling of CO2. But average temperatures rose only about 0.6 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era, and the change hasn't been uniform—warming has largely occurred during the periods from 1919 to 1940 and from 1976 to 1998, with cooling in between. Researchers have been unable to explain this discrepancy.

Modelers claim to have simulated the warming and cooling that occurred before 1976 by choosing among various guesses as to what effect poorly observed volcanoes and unmeasured output from the sun have had. These factors, they claim, don't explain the warming of about 0.4 degrees C between 1976 and 1998. Climate modelers assume the cause must be greenhouse-gas emissions because they have no other explanation. This is a poor substitute for evidence, and simulation hardly constitutes explanation. Ten years ago climate modelers also couldn't account for the warming that occurred from about 1050 to 1300. They tried to expunge the medieval warm period from the observational record—an effort that is now generally discredited. The models have also severely underestimated short-term variability El Niño and the Intraseasonal Oscillation. Such phenomena illustrate the ability of the complex and turbulent climate system to vary significantly with no external cause whatever, and to do so over many years, even centuries.

Is there any point in pretending that CO2 increases will be catastrophic? Or could they be modest and on balance beneficial? India has warmed during the second half of the 20th century, and agricultural output has increased greatly. Infectious diseases like malaria are a matter not so much of temperature as poverty and public-health policies (like eliminating DDT). Exposure to cold is generally found to be both more dangerous and less comfortable.

Moreover, actions taken thus far to reduce emissions have already had negative consequences without improving our ability to adapt to climate change. An emphasis on ethanol, for instance, has led to angry protests against corn-price increases in Mexico, and forest clearing and habitat destruction in Southeast Asia. Carbon caps are likely to lead to increased prices, as well as corruption associated with permit trading. (Enron was a leading lobbyist for Kyoto because it had hoped to capitalize on emissions trading.) The alleged solutions have more potential for catastrophe than the putative problem. The conclusion of the late climate scientist Roger Revelle—Al Gore's supposed mentor—is worth pondering: the evidence for global warming thus far doesn't warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate.

Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.
Hello JustBob,

You are the king of the..."I just don't believe it side". Congratulations on posting information, every detail of which I had already heard and weighed. According to you all the things that have caused pollution damage to our planet everywhere and in every way possbile will not create deeper more serious and/or catastrophic damage over the long term. You seem to be saying all those positive things we have lost that made the Earth a healthy environment for human habitation in the first place will not be missed and we may even be better for it. The damaged oceans, forests, rivers, atmosphere and depletion of so much wildlife, displays the health of our global environment, are all for the better huh. Does that make sense to you??? Maybe you are right. But I don't think I want the dominant life forms on the planet to be roaches, rats, bats and bacteria. I still prefer human beings as faulted as they are. I chose humans over vermin.

Here is the heart of it JB. If you are right that things may well get better, everyone has no worries. If you are very wrong and we do nothing...it's a catastrophe for human civilization everywhere; perhaps for all human survival. What is the sense of not doing all we can to improve our world in the first place whatever is happening in the climate? We do know there is plenty wrong that we caused. In the end...ALL...of your arguments add up to a gamble of what you see as the probabilities that we cannot afford to take. Why risk it all when we can see the threats.

Don't gamble, work for betterment,

Korbel
 
Last edited:

JustBob

New Member
Nov 19, 2004
921
0
0
Ziggy Montana said:
Partially, and your point is?

My point is that it's painfully obvious that you are using the global warming issue as a means to push your anti-capitalism agenda. Now I won't expand on what I think about Mr. Jensen's "ideology" except that it borders on paranoid hysteria.

Of course I do! But who am I to validate one point of view over the other? As a matter of fact, what qualifies you to decide who's right and who's wrong? Are you an expert in the science of climate change?

No, but I certainly have done enough research and reading to acknowledge that different viewpoints exists and that there is plenty of conflicting evidence. I frankly doubt that you have.

Did you read the article I posted above?

Again, I repeat the points you don't seem to get: (1) being ready for responsibility doesn't require absolute certainty. The idea of calling for greater citizen implication and immediate action can be summarized by the old idiom - better be safe than sorry - the same idiom you used in one of your post, correct me if I'm wrong. (2) in the same line of thoughts, the most updated, most complete, report on the economics of global warming speaks of a negative 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever if we do nothing about global warming -vs- a negative 1% of global GDP if we do something. Thus far, I see nothing that contradicts this information.

Weighing the pros and cons, I say we better move on this issue. To say otherwise would be irresponsible.

You speak of "overwhelming evidence" which dwindles and becomes at best "weak" when one has researched other viewpoints, but you still you propose radicalism as a valid course of action. And again, I seriously doubt that the conclusions you reach are based on careful examination of all available evidence/viewpoints.

You stuck to your "Muslim grievances" argument while dismissing every other argument because it's the only argument that allowed you to continue pushing your (not so hidden) anti-capitalism/anti-US/anti-Israel agenda. You're doing exactly the same thing (pushing the anarcho-radicalist anti-capitalist agenda) with the global warming issue, i.e. picking whatever "evidence" fits.
 
Last edited:

JustBob

New Member
Nov 19, 2004
921
0
0
Korbel said:
Hello JustBob,

You are the king of the..."I just don't believe it side". Congratulations on posting information, every detail of which I had already heard and weighed.

According to you all the things that have caused pollution damage to our planet everywhere and in every way possbile will not create deeper more serious and/or catastrophic damage over the long term. You seem to be saying all those positive things we have lost that made the Earth a healthy environment for human habitation in the first place will not be missed and we may even be better for it. The damaged oceans, forests, rivers, atmosphere and depletion of so much wildlife, displays the health of our global environment, are all for the better huh. Does that make sense to you??? Maybe you are right. But I don't think I want the dominant life forms on the planet to be roaches, rats, bats and bacteria. I still prefer human beings as faulted as they are. I chose humans over vermin.

"According to you...", "you seem to be saying...", "...are all for the better huh?" Boy, you are the King of "putting words into other people's mouth's". Either that or you have an uncanny psychic ability...

We should take better care of our environment. But I tend to agree with the conclusion of that article:

"The conclusion of the late climate scientist Roger Revelle—Al Gore's supposed mentor—is worth pondering: the evidence for global warming thus far doesn't warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate."

One example (and there are many): Even though fewer and fewer people smoke, the number of cancers due to chemical pollution has skyrocketed in the past 20 years, so let's try to reduce chemical pollution.

The same rational approach can be used for forests, rivers, wildlife, etc... without always falling back on the "oh my god! global warming! we're all going to die!" paranoia...

All my hyperbole aside...here is the heart of it JB. If you are right that things may well get better, everyone has no worries. If you are very wrong and we do nothing...it's a catastrophe for human civilization everywhere; perhaps for all human survival. What is the sense of not doing all we can to imporve our world in the first place whatever is happening in the climate? We do know there is plenty wrong.

Don't gamble, work for betterment,

Korbel

I've never advocated "doing nothing" or that "there are no worries".
 
Last edited:

eastender

New Member
Jun 6, 2005
1,911
0
0
The Parasites of Social Activism

Ziggy Montana said:
Nonsense. The fact you couldn't find the evidence doesn't discredit the story as being true. You're not even a challenge.

Anyone presenting something as fact bares the onus of supporting it with proof.
You failed.

Some years ago as a mathematician I worked on two studies that dealt with health issues and the environment.Refinery emissions and COPD.Overhead Hydro Transmission Wires and Adult Leukemia.Both times working for community groups who lacked the necessary funds and manpower compared to multi-nationals or government.

The biggest obstacle was having to deal with the self - proclaimed dogooders with "the ends justifies the means" mindsets who lie,misrepresent or suppress data and evidence and who basically waste the very limited and financial assets of a community group.Furthermore there attitudes preclude the involvement of good and serious people.

Finding out 2-3 days before a hearing that one of your witnesses suppressed employment information about working in the asbestos industries because one such fool of a CEGEP prof told him to,wasted a lot of time and money.

Posters like ZM only care about ZM and nothing else.Truth is not a factor - just a tool to be used for their own ego.
 

korbel

Name Retired.
Aug 16, 2003
2,402
2
0
Her Hot Dreams
See

JustBob said:
I've never advocated "doing nothing" or that "there are no worries".

Hello JB,

I compared the consequences of complacency and doing nothing to taking a very active aproach to imporve all panetary conditions. I did not say that doing nothing was your plan. But you are so far to the "no worries" side, that is all you seem to believe as indicated by your words here and all through your posts. How could anyone think anything else about you. I can't remember you making much of any allowance for a real possibility things may be very bad. All you seem to say adds up to...NO WORRIES! If, you do not mean everything is fine, you sure don't seem to worry about much of anything being wrong. I would love to say all will be just wonderful in the end. But it is dangerous in my view to be as reassured there is little or no threat to all of us as you seem to be. Whatever the agendas of the "alarmists", as you call them, I don't think it's sensible or safe to be as skeptical about the possible threats to the planet as you are.

Caution before complacency,

Korbel
 

korbel

Name Retired.
Aug 16, 2003
2,402
2
0
Her Hot Dreams
Right conspiracy, wrong conspirators.

eastender said:
The biggest obstacle was having to deal with the self - proclaimed dogooders with "the ends justifies the means" mindsets who lie,misrepresent or suppress data and evidence and who basically waste the very limited and financial assets of a community group. Furthermore there attitudes preclude the involvement of good and serious people.
Hello Eastender,

Are you refering to the tobacco corporations who lied, colluded, misrepresented, supressed their own self-indicting research and continued to try to addict as many lifelong smokers as possible...starting as young as possible? Are you refering to corporations generally and the essence of the business ethic which is one of the most morally moribund philosophical contrivances ever conceived? Some "do-gooders" may be a bit crazy...even a lot crazy. But at least they don't rape the planet and people without mercy for that great god of business...the PROFIT MOTIVE!!! Oh there are plenty of good people in business, but the goal is just so corrupting there is nothing business has not justified or tried to justify to make a buck. And much of whatever damage has been done to the world can be credited to the pursuit of the almighty dollar, pound, franc, deutschmark, peso, yen, rubal, rupee, euro, etc, etc, etc.

Whew,

Korbel

PS

The line in red is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:

eastender

New Member
Jun 6, 2005
1,911
0
0
Read Carefully ..............

Korbel said:
Hello Eastender,

Are you refering to the tobacco corporations who lied, colluded, misrepresented, supressed their own self-indicting research and continued to try to addict as many lifelong smokers as possible...starting as young as possible? Are you refering to the essence of the business ethic which is one of the most morally moribund philosophical contrivances ever conceived? Some "do-gooders" may be a bit crazy...even a lot crazy. But at least they don't rape the planet and people without mercy for that great god of business...the PROFIT MOTIVE!!! Oh there are plenty of good people in business, but the goal is just so corrupting. There is nothing business has not justified or tried to justify to make a buck.

Whew,

Korbel

PS

The line in red is ridiculous.


Referring to two specific situations - the refineries(oil and metal) in the east end of Montreal and Hydro Quebec which ran overhead wires along corridors in certain areas of Montreal.End of analogy.

The line in red is very true. Volunteer statistician/programer did excellent work. Found out that the data had been corrupted because one of the volunteer researchers "omitted" toxicity studies that did not reflect a pre-concieved notion. The volunteer re-did everything,finished the project then took his talents and time and directed it towards other areas.


Your point comes down to wishing that your brand of corruption wins.You prefer the corrupt eco-activists over the corrupt business people and somehow believe that this will make the world a better place. Good luck.
 

JustBob

New Member
Nov 19, 2004
921
0
0
IPCC Report slammed as “dangerous nonsense"

Tuesday, 10 April 2007, 5:13 pm
Press Release: New Zealand Climate Science Coalition
10 April 2007

IPCC Report slammed as “dangerous nonsense…lacking in scientific rigour”

“Dangerous unscientific nonsense” and “lacking in scientific rigour” are descriptions by two scientist members of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition of the latest report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) just released. No climate-sensitive environmental parameter been shown to be changing at a rate that exceeds its historic natural rate of change, let alone in a way that can be unequivocally associated with human causation.

Dr Vincent Gray, of Wellington, is the only person in New Zealand who has been an expert reviewer on every draft of the many IPCC Reports. He recalls” “My greatest achievement was the second report where the draft had a chapter ‘Validation of Climate Models’. I commented that since no climate model has ever been ‘validated’ that the word was inappropriate. They changed the word to ‘evaluate’ 50 times, and since then they have never ‘predicted’ anything. All they do is make ‘projections’ and ‘estimates’.

“No climate model has ever been properly tested, which is what ‘validation’ means, and their ‘projections’ are nothing more than the opinions of ‘experts’ with a conflict of interest, because they are paid to produce the models. There is no actual scientific evidence for all these ‘projections’ and ‘estimates'. It should be obvious that they are ridiculous. Try and tell the people of Northland that they are about to run out of water.

“Global temperatures have not been rising for eight years. New Zealand temperatures in the last 50 years have gone down with volcanoes and up with El Niños but have no signs of ‘warming’. Christchurch has not warmed since 1917. The sea level in Auckland has been much the same since 1960.

“The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense,” says Dr Gray.


An Australian based member of the coalition, Professor Bob Carter, of James Cook University, Townsville , is at present at the US headquarters of the Ocean Drilling Programme at Texas A & A University, studying seabed cores from the southwest Pacific. Writing in the UK Daily Telegraph yesterday he has condemned the latest IPCC report for what he describes as “its lack of scientific rigour”.

Professor Carter describes what the cores reveal: “As the cores pass through the logging sensor that measures their character, the rhythmic pattern of ancient climate change is displayed: friendly, fossiliferous brown sands for the warm interglacial periods, and hostile, sterile grey clays for the cold glaciations.

“For more than 90 per cent of recent geological time, the cores show that the earth has been colder than today. We modern humans are lucky to live towards the end of the most recent of the intermittent, and welcome, warm interludes. It is a 10,000 year-long period called the Holocene, during which our civilisations have evolved and flourished.

“Backwards for hundreds of thousands of years, the core alternations march. Some, metronomic in their occurrence, are ruled by changes in the earth's orbit at periods of about 20,000, 41,000 and 100,000 years; others are paced by fluctuations in solar output on a scale of centuries or millennia; and others display irregular yet rapid oceanographic and climate shifts that are caused by we know not what. Climate, it seems, changes ceaselessly in either direction: sometimes cooling, sometimes warming, often for reasons that we do not yet fully understand.

“Similar cores through polar ice reveal, contrary to received wisdom, that past temperature changes were followed - not preceded, but followed - by changes in the atmospheric content of carbon dioxide. Yet the public now believes strongly that increasing human carbon dioxide emissions will cause runaway warming; it is surely a strange cause of climate change that naturally postdates its supposed effect?

“Am I the first scientist to have observed these climate patterns? Of course not. That climate changes frequently, rapidly and sometimes unpredictably has been conventional knowledge among earth environmental scientists since the early days of ocean drilling in the 1970s.

“Yet we do not read about natural climate change in the everyday news. Instead, newspapers, radio and television stations bludgeon us with a merciless stream of human-caused global-warming alarmism, egged on by a self-interested gaggle of journalists, environmental lobbyists, scientific and business groups, church leaders and politicians, all of whom preach that we must ‘stop climate change’ by reducing human CO2 emissions.

“Many different fields of study are involved and all are the subject of intensive ongoing research. From this research emerges one inescapable fact: that in no case yet has any climate-sensitive environmental parameter been shown to be changing at a rate that exceeds its historic natural rate of change, let alone in a way that can be in unequivocally associated with human causation.


“Our most accurate depiction of atmospheric temperature over the past 25 years comes from satellite measurements (see graph of temperature variations below) rather than from the ground thermometer record. Once the effects of non-greenhouse warming (the El Niño phenomenon in the Pacific, for instance) and cooling (volcanic eruptions) events are discounted, these measurements indicate an absence of significant global warming since 1979 - that is, over the very period that human carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing rapidly. The satellite data signal not only the absence of substantial human-induced warming, by recording similar temperatures in 1980 and 2006, but also provide an empirical test of the greenhouse hypothesis as understood by the public - a test that the hypothesis fails.

“In the present state of knowledge, no scientist can justify the statement: ‘Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperature since the mid-20th century is very likely due [90 per cent probable] to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations,’ as stated in the IPCC’s 2007 Summary for Policy Makers,” said Professor Carter.

-------------------------------------------------

To which I will add, the conclusion of the previous article I posted:

The conclusion of the late climate scientist Roger Revelle—Al Gore's supposed mentor—is worth pondering: the evidence for global warming thus far doesn't warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate.

See my cancer vs chemical polution example. There are plenty of tangible research/evidence that we are harming ourselves and the environment. Let's do something about that, and stop with all this apocalyptic unverifiable boogeyman silliness about global warming.
 
Last edited:

z/m(Ret)

New Member
Feb 28, 2007
1,664
3
0
JustBob said:
My point is that it's painfully obvious that you are using the global warming issue as a means to push your anti-capitalism agenda. Now I won't expand on what I think about Mr. Jensen's "ideology" except that it borders on paranoid hysteria.
Then if this is the case, allow me to retort as follows: It's obvious that you are dismissing the global warming issue as a means to push your pro-capitalism agenda. :rolleyes: For the record, the seminal post spoke of deforestation, not global warming and we haven't yet touched the problem of water supply. Frankly there would exist a slight chance of a dialogue if you weren't so obstinate in accusing me on the basis of my supposed intentions.
JustBob said:
No, but I certainly have done enough research and reading to acknowledge that different viewpoints exists and that there is plenty of conflicting evidence. I frankly doubt that you have.
Your accusation is not even reaching the level of idiocy and this is the only reason why I won't return it to you (though it would be easy). Again you're missing the point completely: first and foremost I also have done enough research and reading to acknowledge the different viewpoints and conflicting evidence. The only questions are "what to believe?" and "based on what?" You and I don't have the necessary expertise to decide who's right and who's wrong, therefore our decision to act or not to act can't be seriously based on our own scientific validation. So far so good? On a personal level and given my lack of expertise, the only criterion to base my decision to act or not is a sense of responsibility toward our environment, nothing more.
JustBob said:
Did you read the article I posted above?
I sure did and thanks for posting it here. I am aware of Lindzen's position, believe or not, but what does that change from a citizen's, non-expert perspective? If, at some point, human induced global warming proves to be true without a doubt, what conclusion humans will reach? That they won a scientific debate? Certainly not. That we should have done what was necessary when it was necessary? Certainly.

JustBob said:
This is where we disagree. You speak of "overwhelming evidence" which I just don't see, hence you propose radicalism as a valid course of action. And again, I seriously doubt that the conclusions you reach are based on careful examination of all available evidence/viewpoints.
Concerning the accusation, please refer to my above comment. "Overwhelming evidence" because the findings concerning human activities warming the planet are coming from credible sources. My bad if I failed to mention that the opposite point of view is also coming from credible sources. Corrective statement is in order, done. That being said, how does that change my point concerning our readiness for responsibility? It doesn't.

JustBob said:
You stuck to your "Muslim grievances" argument while dismissing every other argument because it's the only argument that allowed you to continue pushing your (not so hidden) anti-capitalism/anti-US/anti-Israel agenda. I would bet that you're doing exactly the same thing with the global warming issue.
Same brand of accusation, same reply: pot calls kettle "black". If "knee-jerk" and "old scapegoat" - the only two words you used to address the issue before moving on to your islamaphobic rant on multiculturalism - qualify as valid refutations for a concept that is supported by years of scholarly work, well for someone who allows himself to sanction other's abilities to debate, you're quite weak. Your above accusation, once again, doesn't make it to the level of idiocy. Let me use a mirror so you understand the idea: You stuck to your "multiculturalism" argument while dismissing every other argument because it's the only argument that allowed you to continue pushing your (not so hidden) pro-capitalism/pro-US/pro-Israel agenda. I would bet that you're doing exactly the same thing with the global warming issue.
 

z/m(Ret)

New Member
Feb 28, 2007
1,664
3
0
eastender said:
Posters like ZM only care about ZM and nothing else.Truth is not a factor - just a tool to be used for their own ego.
Noted. I guess that makes you the bearer of the gospel truth. :rolleyes: Someone who can make projections decades down the road like you have on this thread must believe he's God himself. Frankly...
 
Last edited:

eastender

New Member
Jun 6, 2005
1,911
0
0
Scoudrels

Ziggy Montana said:
Noted. I guess that makes you the bearer of the gospel truth. :rolleyes: Someone who can make projections decades down the road like you have on this thread must believe he's God himself. Frankly...

Typical re-action of scoundrels who have been exposed as not having any facts to support their "urban legends".

Just know what will never be the answer.
 
Last edited:

korbel

Name Retired.
Aug 16, 2003
2,402
2
0
Her Hot Dreams
Ridiculous again.

eastender said:
Your point comes down to wishing that your brand of corruption wins. You prefer the corrupt eco-activists over the corrupt business people and somehow believe that this will make the world a better place. Good luck.

Hello Eastender,

My phrase..."at least they don't rape the planet and people without mercy for that great god of business...the PROFIT MOTIVE!!!"...is not indicative of a preference for crazy ecological do-gooders versus corporate villains. Please don't make inferences so frivolously. Phrases like "wishing that your brand of corruption wins"...and..."prefer the corrupt eco-activists over the corrupt business people"....LOL...geeeeeeez...I didn't think I was conversing with someone who likes using cartoon logic. :eek: Such a conclusion is a childish brand of silly demagoguery. Your assessment is ridiculous...a word you have warranted twice already in as many posts. I won't bother to explain further to someone who would make such an obviously idiotic conclusion publicly. Wave goodbye to credibility if you consider this kind of phrasing intelligent discourse. It isn't!

Unbelievable,

Korbel
 

Agrippa

C o n s u l
Aug 22, 2006
582
0
0
www.merb.ca
JustBob said:
Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.
Oh yeah, them; the great purveyors of truth.
 

Agrippa

C o n s u l
Aug 22, 2006
582
0
0
www.merb.ca
JustBob said:
The conclusion of the late climate scientist Roger Revelle—Al Gore's supposed mentor—is worth pondering: the evidence for global warming thus far doesn't warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate.
Thanks for posting the Stern review summary Ziggy. I tried reading the 'real thing,' but was overwhelmed by it.
 

eastender

New Member
Jun 6, 2005
1,911
0
0
Read your own phrase

Korbel said:
Hello Eastender,

Some "do-gooders" may be a bit crazy...even a lot crazy. But at least they don't rape the planet and people without mercy for that great god of business...the PROFIT MOTIVE!!! Oh there are plenty of good people in business, but the goal is just so corrupting there is nothing business has not justified or tried to justify to make a buck. And much of whatever damage has been done to the world can be credited to the pursuit of the almighty dollar, pound, franc, deutschmark, peso, yen, rubal, rupee, euro, etc, etc, etc.

Whew,

Korbel

PS

The line in red is ridiculous.

Then don't compare the dogooders that you consider to be crazy in a favourable light to some of the psychopaths in business.
 

z/m(Ret)

New Member
Feb 28, 2007
1,664
3
0
Agrippa said:
Oh yeah, them; the great purveyors of truth.
I noted that but held back my reaction. Lindzen, I give him the benefit of the doubt but he - and Inhofe - have bad reputation.

BTW, here's something not related to Lindzen but would be of interest:

UPDATED: with details of the Fraser Institute's planned press conference

The Fraser Institute will release their report in London on Feb.5. Here are the details for our UK friends who might be interested in attending:

Date: February 5, 2007
Time: 10am (London time)
Location: The Atrium Restaurant (across from the Houses of Parliament), Four Millbank, Westminster

UPDATE: I've just uploaded a new version of the briefing note, without hyperlinks for those who want to print off a copy. Titled "print version." (KG)

Fraser Institute “Analysis” of IPCC Report Out of Date, Oil-Soaked and Incorrect

A Canadian think tank’s “independent” analysis of the upcoming IPCC report is based on out-of-date information and is specifically misleading about the nature of the scientific summary that it presumes to criticize, DeSmogBlog.com President James Hoggan said Wednesday. The Fraser Institute had planned to release their report Feb.5, at a press conference in the United Kingdom.

The Fraser Institute, a right-wing think tank that has recently received annual grants from oil-giant ExxonMobil, promised an independent summary of the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The Institute claimed that the IPCC’s own summary is a political document “neither written by nor reviewed by the scientific community,” while the Fraser Institute version was “prepared by qualified experts in fields related to climate science.”

In fact, the IPCC summary was written and reviewed by some of the most senior climate scientists in the world, without political or bureaucratic input . And the Fraser Institute’s “scientific” staff – which is led by an economist – includes a group of junior or retired scientists, most of whom have direct connections to energy industry lobby groups (see attached briefing note).

Dr. Andrew Weaver, the Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis and a lead IPCC author, called the Independent Summary “highly ideological.” While the Fraser Institute summary says, "There is no compelling evidence that dangerous or unprecedented changes are underway," Weaver counters: “The IPCC report presents 1,600 pages of compelling evidence, that’s the whole point.”

Weaver also criticized the Fraser Institute’s contention that climate change may not be happening or that if it is happening, it may be “a good or bad thing.”

Finally, Weaver pointed out that the whole Fraser Institute analysis is based on a document that is almost a year out of date. “I was most surprised that this analysis was written based on our second draft” (released in Spring 2006), said Weaver. “We incorporated changes in response to well over 1,000 reviewrs' comments before preparing a final draft last fall.”

A complete copy of the Fraser Institute report is attached below.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts