“Ignoring facts, greens have preferred to pay heed to the propaganda film Gaslands, which shows tapwater bursting into flame. Yet its producer, Josh Fox, has been completely discredited. The documentary Fracknation filmed Fox admitting that he knew (but chose not to mention) that gas flowed from taps decades before fracking reached that area.”
What a disgrace.
Will the Greens, particularly Hughes, now renounce this misleading film?
Like or Dislike: 5 6 (-1)
Source of the above quote is this:
What is the basis of this claim by Peter Lilley?
People lit their water long before fracking was invented. In the 1930’s, in fact. I find not including that fact to be misleading. I’m not sure it “totally discredits” him, as Lilley suggests, but one must ask why that scene was shown and the fact it occurs without fracking not mentioned?
Like or Dislike: 4 5 (-1)
Like or Dislike: 3 0 (+3)
I think they’ve hidden some of their effort, and they have become less overt. As I recall Chris Monckton was complaining (when he was here) that there isn’t any money in denial any more… which would be a good sign.
The notion however, that the oil and gas needs to be LEFT IN THE GROUND has to be pushed. I don’t give a rats about local issues, fracking liquids and the water table. Those are local concerns and are manageable with regulation and safety controls.
The plain fact is that we’ve pushed over 400 ppm this year, it’ll drop on the seasonal exchanges but we’ve scored a huge “own goal”. Last study gives that a potential 8 degrees C change in summer temperatures in the Arctic for the level of CO2 we CURRENTLY have in the atmosphere.
Like or Dislike: 7 1 (+6)
Sorry I have confused James fox with Josh Fox. They look very similar apart from the spectacles.
Like or Dislike: 1 0 (+1)
Big deal. It’s FUD, BJ.
Like or Dislike: 1 8 (-7)
Former economic hitman John Perkins relates of the movement of corporate workers between government and corporates.
(4 minutes in explains how countries with resources are identified by the corporates and big loans are arranged to build infrastructure in those countries. The money does not trickle down to the many people who cannot buy much power &c, but still gets their countries into big debt which is part of the plan.)
And we appear to be formalising the process, now if the changes go through, prospecting corporates may receive info on protesters or perhaps even opposition parliamentarians.
From Parliament, Minister Judith Collins: “The particular role of assisting with information security is clearly indicated in the Government Communications Security Bureau Act, but the current wording could be interpreted to mean only helping the public sector, potentially excluding critical infrastructure operators and organisations of national significance. We want to be able to use the Government’s significant investment in technology and expertise in this field for the benefit of the wider State sector, critical infrastructure operators, and other key economic contributors.”
I want you to answer THAT question. It shouldn’t be too damned hard for you to look up a few facts, even as a non-scientific sort of bloke it shouldn’t be hard to find at all.
I’ll even give you a hint. Go back about 3 million years. Search term “pliocene”
or just follow the handy link.
Notice at the bottom of that discussion there, the note that the Arctic is not at equilibrium? It isn’t. Ain’t any scientist I know of would claim it is, but that’s EXACTLY what Watts the moron assumed.
So WE will survive handily for another decade at least, but the climate changes we are creating are going to raise hell with our agriculture by 2030…. and maybe a lot sooner. I thought things were bad. They’re not. They’re worse.
I blame Watts, I blame Inhofe, I blame Limbaugh, I blame Exxon… and I blame you…. not because you cannot understand but because you REFUSE to understand. For ideological reasons. Consign you all to hell in a heartbeat I would. The unthinkable CAN happen… and it can happen to the human species MUCH faster than you realize.
Being stupid is almost always a fatal condition for humans, and we are being very stupid.
Like or Dislike: 12 1 (+11)
Like or Dislike: 8 1 (+7)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
“Remarkably, IPCC Published reports , (TAR3), do actually acknowledge that the effective temperature increase caused by growing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere radically diminishes with increasing concentrations. This information is in their report. It is well disguised for any lay reader, (Chapter 6. Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: section 6.3.4 Total Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gas Forcing Estimate).”
Stop all this condescending religious nonsense BJ (“hell and damnation”) and Tony (“forgive them for they know not what they do”) because this science is far from settled, the outcomes are guesses, and many people who don’t have an environmental ideological bias can see the gaping holes in this rapidly failing scaremongering FUD some shamelessly perpetuate.
Like or Dislike: 1 11 (-10)
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Like or Dislike: 8 0 (+8)
There is weak correlation between atmospheric CO2 *concentration* and global air temperature. In any case, correlation does not imply causation.
Increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration not only did not precede the changes in air temperature, they followed them, and by hundreds to thousands of years (Fischer).
This focus on concentration is yet more scaremongering from the FUDsters. They must be getting really desperate now.
Like or Dislike: 0 9 (-9)
He said in the past warming has been started by the orientation of earth’s axis and proximity of sun, I understood, causing more heat to the polar region, which melts some ice. Since water absorbs more heat than ice a feedback starts. The ocean starts to give off CO2 like a warmed fizzy drink, and more feedback takes place. This time the initial forcing is our CO2, and feedback will begin on top of that.
Like or Dislike: 5 0 (+5)
I am grateful to the bellbirds and tui that sang in the garden today and help me to cope with this crazy situation
There are some manipulative, ugly misanthropes in this world trying to scare people in order to further their dubious political ends.
Enjoy the birds and the garden – both will all be there for many, many centuries to come. Don’t panic.
I’m not interested in Hansen, Brian. For various reasons, but here’s just one:
“Hansen claims that global warming is associated with increased drought in the US. This is a testable hypothesis which he chose not to test, and, because PNAS isn’t truly peer-reviewed for Members like him, no one tested it for him.
I have [examined] drought data [that] are from NCDC, and the temperature record is Hansen’s own. His hypothesis is a complete and abject failure.”
Like or Dislike: 0 7 (-7)
Like or Dislike: 6 0 (+6)
Like or Dislike: 4 0 (+4)
George Monbiot has some comments to make. http://www.monbiot.com/2013/05/10/via-dolorosa/
You seem quite certain of your position, despite not knowing who to believe. And again, you’ve got the latest science quite wrong. CO2 does appear to have lagged temperature increase in the past, though this lag may be almost zero (0-400 years), in research by Rasmussen, at al. However, even if there has been a lag in the past, subsequent warming, accelerated by the CO2, accounted for about 90% of the total warming.
Further, in the case of AGW, we find that human released CO2 is the primary driver of current warming, so pointing to lags in the past is kind of irrelevant other than to demonstrate, yet again, that CO2 causes warming (due to the extra warming after CO2 rises).
If you genuinely are confused over who to believe, stop believing the cherry picked arguments and even the non-arguments (like the CO2 lag) and stop being so certain that the birds will continue to sing for hundreds of years and, instead, look at the science and consider that the overwhelming majority view of scientists and vastly overwhelming majority of climate scientists have probably got it about right.
Was there a lot of warming EXPECTED in Antarctica? I mean if this is so noteworthy for your sources then did they actually ask what the climate was SUPPOSED to do there? No model I am aware of has any significant changes to the Antarctic at current levels of warming. Warming is going to be greater at both poles but not equally. The Arctic starts out from a higher temperature, and it is a lot easier to affect it.
Set up another straw man mate.
I am not being condescending any more Arana I haven’t the time. I am going to be directly insulting. I’m telling you flatly that you are an ignorant ideologue. You ARE smarter than this on several other topics, but on this one you simply don’t track at all.
There is not one argument you offer that has not already been refuted several times and in scientific detail. You are parroting rubbish, and it is unlikely that you even take time to understand the rubbish… much less the science that refutes it.
So lets cut to the chase. Why are you afraid to acknowledge the science?
Is it all some grand scheme to impose socialism on you?
A one-world-government thing?
What is your THEORY of why we are all so excitable? Eh?
The drought figures you refer to sum rainfall across whole US when the drought is in the eastern half, I am learning.
Quoting the liars at CO2science here is insult Arana. Anthony Watts is more ignorant and thus innocent. Idso and his ilk are people who are dishonest to the core.
Here… something simple…
BJ says “I blame Watts, I blame Inhofe, I blame Limbaugh, I blame Exxon… and I blame you…”
If YOU haven’t cut your carbon emissions by 93% (the amount Green policy says is needed to stop climate change), then you can add BJ Chip to the list of people who can be blamed.
bj says “How often it appears, and how irrelevant it is”
You might think blaming everyone else for climate change but doing little about it yourself is irrelevant.
But if your carbon emissions are not 93% lower than 1990, then you are part of the problem.
Like or Dislike: 0 5 (-5)
Remember the managers and shareholders who say “lower wages are good for the economy” as they gave themselves a 17% pay increase last year.
Photo is most definitely “part of the problem”.
An unthinking apologist for every evil and dysfunctional NACT policy.
Far too many people who are paid beyound their competence level/mental ability/contribution to society expect the poor and low paid to do the sacrificing for the climate, same as they expect the poor and lower paid to sacrifice for the economy.
This link will interest you.
ps. There are no trolls there, it has words of more than two syllables.
Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)
well I am not sure who to believe and how not to believe but I have read in articles and even in the books that the green house gases that lead to global warming are a result of CO2 emission. We the human beings are directly or indirectly responsible for it and we got to accept that.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Notify me of follow up comments via e-mail
Authorised by: Jon Field, Level 2, 17 Garrett Street, Wellington. Copyright © 1996-2014 The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand