Climategate Corruption

Discussion in 'The big picture' started by Flying Binghy, Apr 2, 2010.

  1. Heh, seems poor ol ecodharmamark is suffering a panic attack - instead of pointing out possible faults in the Booker article, we get....

    I'm in good company over at pprune - A well known Australian and mate of Bob Browns ( yep, the Oz Green party chap ) gets suspended/thread banned from time to time.... :grin:


    ...anyway, back to the thread subject.

    Perhaps ecodharmamark instead of screaming "denier", name calling and childish attempts at insults yer can address the subject...:)





    .
     
  2. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    G'day FB :)

    How's the head feel, mate? Those hangovers can be a bugger, hey?

    The 'subject', yes. Any chance you could take the advice of the compassionate people on this forum (I would think that accounts for about 95% of those who visit) and seek some professional help for your disorder?

    I'm serious, it really does pain me to see a fellow human being suffer.

    Cheerio, and good luck with your journey, Markos.
     
  3. Heh, looks like ecodharmamark is running away... again... :grin:


    A fast running ecodharmamark might catch up to this chap -

    " Avatar Director James Cameron blasted global warming deniers yesterday after a prominent climate change skeptic accused the filmmaker of backing out of a public debate on climate science.

    "I think they're swine," Cameron said yesterday of climate skeptics before an audience in Aspen, Colo., the Aspen Times reported. Cameron, whose blockbuster science-fiction film "Avatar" won acclaim from environmentalists, was a featured speaker at the American Renewable Energy Day summit.

    Cameron had been scheduled to debate climate change skeptics yesterday, but the event was canceled at the last minute, according to Marc Morano, director of the skeptic website "Climate Depot" and a former spokesman for Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.).

    Morano said he and two other skeptics -- conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart and filmmaker Ann McElhinney -- were planning to debate Cameron last night, but the director pulled the plug after environmentalists warned him against participating in the forum. Morano said the cancellation was made while he was on his flight to Aspen.

    "He let his friends in the environmental community spook him out of this debate," Morano said. "When he was warned that he was probably going to lose and lose badly, he ran like a scared mouse."


    https://www.climatedepot.com/a/7789...-who-is-similar-to-his-stature-in-our-society

    ..................:D




    .
     
  4. milifestyle

    milifestyle New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,573
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hey Binghy...

    Just as a matter of interest, what is your connection with Permaculture ? You never seem to talk about it. Do you think similarly toward Permaculture as you do Global Warming ?
     
  5. milifestyle attempts to rescue ecodharmamark...

    .

    Did a permi earthworks/dams for fish course 15 or 20 years ago... seem to recall commenting on the earthworks and related subjects here at times.



    What "Global Warming" are you refering to ?






    .
     
  6. Some more interesting observations -

    " The IPCC’s AR4, published in 2007, painted a future with global warming as a serious, multinational problem that we should face together....

    But nowhere does the work of thousands of scientists in peer-reviewed literature say that we are doomed, that civilization is at risk, that there is no future for us.

    That falls to several groups of committed lobbyists, scientists, environmentalists and politicians who began saying the IPCC report was too conservative almost the day it was published. The evidence they bring forward for that claim is nowhere near as robust as the science referenced by the IPCC..."


    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/02/stop-the-hysteria/#more-24335






    .
     
  7. geoff

    geoff Junior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2009
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    IPCC's AR4 is a peer reviewed work isn't it?

    You're under the mistaken impression that it's up to individual scientists to link every one of their papers back to the potential impacts of their findings when it's not up to the scientists doing individual studies to draw those conclusions. The guy studying the increasing acidification of the oceans shouldn't be commenting on how civilisation will be impacted by the changes to the systemic whole. You're building a strawman asking them to do so.

    It's up to the IPCC people, and other scientists doing the same work, drawing all those studies together and considering their combined impacts to do that, and they have said society is at risk, plainly and clearly.

    We need to be thankful that someone is funding the pro-climate change lobby groups, because those big oil and coal companies have got a heap of funding out there for their shills, and someone needs to be warning people and helping those who have been hoodwinked by the expensive and carefully crafted marketing of the big polluters.


    https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/tssts-summary-of.html
    Climate Change 2007: Working Group II: Impacts, Adaption and Vulnerability

    "Some large-scale climate events have the potential to cause very large impacts, especially after the 21st century."

    "Impacts of climate change will vary regionally but, aggregated and discounted to the present, they are very likely to impose net annual costs which will increase over time as global temperatures increase."

    TS.4.4 The impact of altered extremes gives you a nice table of possible impacts.

    All of that is in the technical summary, and there's a lot more, but I doubt you'll be reading it anyway so there's little point posting more of it.
     
  8. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I guess the crux of the issue is this: People living affluent lives at the expense of the less affluent (and the ecology as a whole) are reluctant to give up their perceived 'high standard of living' for the good of all. It all comes back to the selfish nature of the modern human psyche. Neo-liberal doctrines perpetuate this situation with their 'me me' ideologies. Whether one is willfully ignorant of the science, or genuinely outside of the information loop (as are many of our friends in the 'emerging economic regions' of the world), is of no consequence to the outcomes of human induced climate change. Dangerous climate change is already a reality. We have (at best) 10-years to become net sequesters Rather than emitters of CO2 (and other GHGs). If we fail to do this, then catastrophic climate change will be our own doing. I'll not bother referencing the above. Those who have followed my threads on this particular topic will note that they are full of the most up-to-date citations to consensus-led literature that I can find. I have little sympathy for people such as the correspondent who instigated this thread, because I believe that they fall into the category of the 'willfully ignorant' when compared to the vast bulk of global humanity that do not have a clue as to what is really going on. I do however have a great empathy for all of my fellow human beings, and it is only for this reason that I continue to do the work that I do. Believe what you will. Spout whatever rubbish you feel inclined to do. But never forget that there are those that oppose your ignorant views, and will fight (figuratively speaking) you all the way. One final note: The following is an excellent piece by a person that I hold in the highest regard. It's a short, simple read, but one with a very loud and clear message. I would implore my fellow correspondents to read it, and to make any comment that you should so desire. Thanks for your time, back to the books, Marko.

    Trainer, T (2008 ) 'The Greenhouse Problem; The refusal to recognise the situation' The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy Vol. 4, No. 2.
     
  9. milifestyle

    milifestyle New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,573
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Binghy,

    Mark is someone who's opinions i admire and look to for advice... he has contributed much to these forums and although his posts are occasionally long, i make an attempt to read each one fully... his posts are on topic and timely to the changes in the world we live in... I joined the Greens Party recently (Sorry Mark) out of my own opinions derived from information i read from him... Suffice to say Mark has a grounding on this forum and will continue to do so...

    I am yet to see the same level of on topic conversation from you...

    I found this an interesting web page... https://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/08/rebuttals-common-anti-climate-change-arguments.php
     
  10. .

    milifestyle, last time i replyed to the questions asked of me you chopped the thread up. Perhaps you are freightened that the limited knoweledge of ecodharmamark would be exposed ?

    geoff comes up with some comments and questions and ecodharmamark as usual jumps in to tell us all how we should think.... Hmmm





    .
     
  11. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Dear Eric

    Communication is a two-way street. You might think that in some small way I have been able to help you appreciate a wider view of our world, and for this a am truly grateful. But do not for one moment think that you in turn have not helped me - and for this, I am one thousand times more grateful! Each and everyone of the regular contributors to this forum have all combined to help me enormously with my life, in many ways: professionally, studiously, socially, communally, just to name a few.

    Please do not feel that you have let the team down because you have succumbed to 'party politics'. If one must be a member of any group, I can think of a thousand worse - in terms of re-creating the world we need in order to survive the looming crisis - than the Greens. Some of my dearest and nearest fellow communards are members of the various Green parties, from right around the globe.

    You might have noticed that I have written elsewhere of my occasional 'bumping into' Bob Brown. He is a person in whom I hold the highest of esteem, and when we did last have the opportunity to share our politico-ideological perspectives, we left each other's company with a parting, warm embrace. I doubt whether that could ever happen with myself and say, messieurs Abbott and/or Gillard (but one never knows - although I expect Tony would run a million miles if I (as a male) ever attempted to hug him)!

    Concerning your much-appreciated posted link:

    Brian Merchant of Treehugger writes of the brilliant work of one John Cook, he of Skeptical Science. The latter has worked tirelessly - and often with great risk to his very being as a physicist, working at the coalface - in responding to both genuine criticism (skepticism) of climate science, and the denialism of the same. And as I am sure you are very much aware, there is a very huge gap in knowledge between genuine skeptics (of which I am proud to be) and denialists. More importantly though, it is not the 'knowledge banks' of each that are critical to the future survival of our species, but how these fonts are applied.

    I have no doubt that the skepticism of human-induced climate change science will continue for quite some time to come - as I believe it should. However, I am equally aware that the downright denial of good science will likewise continue to occur, and it is the latter that is most concern to me. My main concerns have very little to do with my own mortality, for I have lived enough to understand that the world truly is an amazing place, if not a cruel one at times. My main concern lies with those that will follow us: our children, our grandchildren, their children, and their children's children - what sort of world are we leaving them?

    So, one someone deliberately writes about 'climate corruption' (and by all means, write about the genuine corruption that indeed does exist!) in a manner that tries to 'dirty the waters' of genuine, infallible science, I will always react. I may not always do it in a manner that is peaceable (I am human, after all), but I do at all times try to remember that each member of society (no matter how twisted, deluded, willfully ignorant) should have a platform to express themselves. However, when the ample opportunities (literally hundreds) to constructively respond have been ignored, only instead to filled by pathetic 'cut and pastes' from equally as pathetic websites of 'greenhouse mafia hacks', then I must concede that my desire to never condone the censure of any voice is over-ruled.

    In closing, I commend you, and all of our wonderful, hardworking moderators for making the hard decision to let FB go, and I look forward to a future forum that continues to maintain a healthy balance of personal freedom of expression, together with the courtesy of respecting our fellow human beings.

    R.I.P. Flying Binghi(y)
     

Share This Page

-->