Like or Dislike: 4  0 (+4)

sallydeb
Posted December 23, 2009 at 11:19 PM

The sceptics don’t get any where near as much money from their masters as the taxpyer funded researchers.

No, because there’s less of them. 100,000 scientists getting research grants from government agencies, companies with interests in renewables and venture capitalists get more money for their research than 1,000 scientists looking for research grants from oil and mining companies.

However, that doesn’t explain the motivation behind 100,000 government research grants to explain things. But, for example, ExxonMobil has 48 billion reasons with dollar signs in front of them as motivation to sponsor other scientists.

Of course, I’m not suggesting that scientists can be bought off – but when no-one but mineral extraction companies wants to fund your research, then that’s got to say something.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

The sceptics don’t get any where near as much money from their masters as the taxpyer funded researchers.
Indeed the truth is not to be decided by majority vote. It is yet to be fully discovered and better understood.
Have a look at this video that aparently shown in Opening Spot Copenhagen Climate Conference. I suspect that even many environmentalist will agree that the AGW alarm is a bit over stated here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OIPYUlHv38&feature=player_embedded

Like or Dislike: 0  2 (-2)

sallydeb,

50% of likely voters now believe that global warming is caused primarily by long-term planetary trends

Luckily, science is not conducted via opinion polls. Unluckily, many people think it is.

Like or Dislike: 2  0 (+2)

The problem Sallydeb, is that in spite of having EVERY advantage, stolen e-mails and the lowest level of solar activity in a century, the best that can be said of the temperature trend is that it had a statistically insignificant flattening, and the last decade is still the warmest on record, no conspiracy was found, no alterations of data are in evidence and the CO2 is still rising.

Physics, Mother Nature and Science do not give a rats hindquarters what the USian mob thinks. The politicians barely care themselves, as the average development there is roughly 6th grade and the big money required to sway them is all that matters. When however, it becomes more obvious JUST how much lying has been going on on the denialist side of this division, and it will become obvious to everyone within another decade or so, it will become more difficult for those denialists and their moneyed masters, to escape the mobs that come looking for them.

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 2  0 (+2)

Sallydeb – you cite figures about the American public to support your claims???

Credibility for environmentalists is about to soar, as more and more ‘results’ come in. This brief period of back-swing that has excited you will be just that … brief.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

The point is the environmentalists frequently exaggerate concerns about other issues as well as AGW as has been exemplified in this discussion. Envoronmentalists have reached peak credability.

I have read several reports like the following one recently.

Public skepticism about the officially promoted cause of global warming has reached an all-time high among Americans…….
…….50% of likely voters now believe that global warming is caused primarily by long-term planetary trends. ……
…….34% say climate change is due primarily to human activity….
….Belief that human activity is the primary cause of global warming has declined significantly over the past year. In April 2008, 47% blamed human activity and only 34% named long-term planetary trends as the reason for climate change. …..
More at
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/energy_update

Like or Dislike: 0  1 (-1)

Shunda – sallydeb is exactly what I’m talking about. She will always have been shortsighted with regard ‘all other issues’ – the forests, fisheries etc that she believes to be in good shape (Is she mad?) Her views on AGW are just an extension of her general environmental denial.
I don’t for one second accept your proposal that people will dismiss lesser environmental issues, such as pollution of streams, because of the stand taken by environmentalists over AGW. Not for a moment. Those who will baulk at doing anything about the ‘everyday’ degradations, would have done so anyway.

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

You see greenfly, sallydeb is exactly what I was talking about, people will use doubt over AGW to ignore all other issues.

Like or Dislike: 2  0 (+2)

Ah yes, those rose-tinted aircraft windows! Mind you, from that height it’s difficult to hear the sweet chorus of huia, piopio and the mocking cackle of the laughing owl.

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

have done that flight – was beautiful :->

The latest deliberate manipulation of data presentation:

Wikipedia announced that it has fired its long time climate editor William
Connolley, . Connolley,a software engineer and host at RealClimate, a left-
wing AGW site that relentlessly punishes AGW skeptics and lavishly praises
alarmists, has been found to have changed over 5,000 Wikipedia articles to
promote AGW catastrophic speculation.

He has been observed altering history, most prominetly by removing the
Medieval Warming Period. But he also has been found to have described the
careers and accomplishments of AGW skeptics in the most unflattering way.
For background, Lawrence Solomon writes in the National Post:

Like or Dislike: 0  2 (-2)

110 – Joss Garman on Copenhagen

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/joss-garman-copenhagen–historic-failure-that-will-live-in-infamy-1845907.html

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

Like or Dislike: 3  0 (+3)

Like or Dislike: 6  0 (+6)

The Scientists and Mother Earth do care about “more and more people” though.
That ‘elephant’ is just not discussed nearly often enough in any discussion about sustainability.
To get back to the God bit… I suspect that one of the reasons it’s not discussed is that each of the religious tribes seeks world domination via ‘the womb-of -God’ as much as by ‘the word’ or by ‘the sword’.
The right to breed their way to world domination is very sacred to them.

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

Like or Dislike: 6  1 (+5)

I think more and more people are coming over from the dark doomsaying side and into the light. CO2 emmissions hysteria will be consigned to history.

Like or Dislike: 3  8 (-5)

Good luck selling that as peak oil hits and carbon tariffs are placed on all goods produced from use of coal fired power stations and nations live within emissions caps.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Continuing in an epistemological vein while coming back to subject.
Shunda believes “Deforestation is continuing, the oceans are being vacuum cleaned of fish and we are still rapidly heading towards an energy crisis.”

I don’t believe her claim that things are so bad – I guess I have a more optimistic glass is half full attitude, I’ll admit to that bias. However I’ve traveled around quite a bit and seen much with my own eyes (as well as reports form others) to support my optimistic attitude. I’ve seen green forested areas developed in cities, town and countryside – much reforestation. You just have to go to your local supermarket – fish is available and no more expensive than meat – so it can’t be hard to find – it is widely available in millions of markets all round the world. As for fossil fuel, just earlier this month Greymouth Petroleum Confirmed Kowhai Gas Discovery anounced by Minister of Energy and Resources and Lindsay Clark. New sourses are regularly reported. Ironic – one arm of government in Copenhagen planning reductions in fuel use while another is happily announcing a new discovery to add to our future supplies. On current world wide usage and discovery there is enough coal for another 90 years or so. Usage may grow but new discoveries and means of extraction can be expected to be attained. Also with fantastic improving technology, greater efficiencies will make the fuel go further. Prospects for prosperity spreading to more people around the world should be very good if we don’t let politics get in the way.

I could cite many more examples but suffice it to say that I find much evidence to support my attitude as previously stated: “There is lots of wilderness and new forests around the world and many of our suburban areas have gardens overflowing with new bushes and trees. Fish farms are becoming more common and there is still a lot of fish in the sea. And it is very likely that there will be plenty of fossil fuel available while we gradually develope other forms of energy for mass production of goods and services.”

Future sustainability of human flourishing looks quite attainable to me.

Like or Dislike: 1  3 (-2)

Shunda,

I’m confused by your answer about what would precipitate a worse crisis for your kids than global warming could. In your answer, you used the phrase “If AGW turns out to be a farce”, which wasn’t an element of your original concern for your kids. Your contention was that whatever crisis global warming could bring, some of the actions being advocated would bring a bigger crisis. So what are these actions that could cause a bigger crisis than global warming?

I’m also confused by your desire for a sustainable society, which I share, and your belief that no action should be taken on human induced climate change. One aspect of sustainability is that we should not degrade the environment that supports us. So we need to take action to stop degrading our environment. You acknowledge that humans may be the prime cause of current climate change so we should really take action on that, in case that turns out to be true.

But I still don’t know what those extreme actions are, that you fear.

However, you’re absolutely right that climate change has taken centre stage to the detriment of all other sustainability issues. It’s hard to understand why, since very few people would argue (though I have met a couple on this blog) that the earth is not finite (both in resources of all kinds and in the ability of the environment to render our pollution harmless to life). Maybe it’s because there has been a measured increase in the rate of extreme weather events, which was predicted by models, but as yet there has been no prolonged resource shortages caused solely by geology.

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)