Irish Times climate change journo gets demolished on Pat Kenny

[starchaser]

Aaaah... i love it when this happens..

mp3 download:
http://www.rte.ie/podcasts/2009/pc/pod-v-021209-30m14s-todaywithpatkenny.mp 3

how does he get demolished?

well the aussie geologist starts off with science and rattles off some science stuff.

the irish times journo - obviously fearing for his job in the wake of Climategate - IMMEDIATELY kicks off with the personal attacks.

and it goes on and on from there.

the attacks get so personal that Kenny has to wade in...

well worth a listen.


best bit : journo says that the geologist's book is "schoolboy science" .. and when challenged on it, admits to have never read it.

[olliebtown]

Nice post.

[olliebtown]

FP2UXvZvdjc

[superfantango]

John Gibbons comes across as a smarmy smug dipshit, he could at least have read the book before dismissing it. I like how Kenny tells him that journalism is supposed to look at both sides of the arguement.

[poulgorm]

Excellent post, starchaser. Really worth listening all the way to the end. That Irish Times fellow was shown to be an awful bollocks. Didn't know his stuff and resorted to personal abuse.

Fair dues to Pat Kenny and the Australian prof. Took him on and demolished him.

The lefties lost the argument when the Berlin Wall fell and what was going on behind it couldn't be denied anymore: They (or their descendants) are back again on the attack, using a different front.

That is my suspicion anyway.

[BlueSkies]

Epic ownership.

[starchaser]

John Gibbons comes across as a smarmy smug dipshit, he could at least have read the book before dismissing it. I like how Kenny tells him that journalism is supposed to look at both sides of the arguement.

pat kenny - defending the old school version of journalism .. like digging up the FACTS..

i always thought he was a lightweight. not any more.

[starchaser]

Excellent post, starchaser. Really worth listening all the way to the end. That Irish Times fellow was shown to be an awful bollocks. Didn't know his stuff and resorted to personal abuse.

Fair dues to Pat Kenny and the Australian prof. Took him on and demolished him.

The lefties lost the argument when the Berlin Wall fell and what was going on behind it couldn't be denied anymore: They (or their descendants) are back again on the attack, using a different front.

That is my suspicion anyway.

its not a suspicion. its a fact.

its no coincidence that the green movement is filled with ex-commies looking for a home.

think about it - control the means of energy production via cap and trade, and you control the means of production.

thats marxism.

sidenote: did you know that the EU has biofuel targets and that as a result Indonesian rainforest is being cleared right now to make way for Palm oil biofuel plantations.

ever notice how rainforest protection has dropped off the radar? i'm one of those folks who truely want to preserve the rainforests.. notice how it is completely dissappeared in this mad rush for "CO2 reduction"..

hello? guess what soaks up CO2 enormously.. err.. rainforests.

[Mr Jefferson]

Jesus Pat. I never knew you had it in you.

[PsychoPat]

It's been a scam since day one, it's just now with the global recession, nobody's in the mood for "carbon taxes" so both sides of the argument are being discussed in the main stream media.

[Goldstein]

That John Gibbons came across as some stuck up prick. Criticising something you haven't even read is shocking journalism - he deserved to get pwned. If Plimer is as big a chancer as he said, then even a mediocre journalist should have been able to show up his science. Plimer didn't even have to say anything, John Gibbons beat himself.

Saying that though Plimer did tip his hand later on by his use of the word "alarmists".

This is all about Australia's proposed carbon trading scheme which would inflict considerable damage on Plimer's 3x mining companies. He also represents the mining industry founded/funded anti-Kyoto group the NSRP. Whether his science is good or bad, his objectivity is undeniably compromised, that's beyond question.

That doesn't mean he's wrong mind you. I'd like to read his book, in particular whatever his views on solar influences & composition are. He seems calm, methodical, logical... the very antithesis of the usual maverick scientist. Plus, he enjoys destroying creationism when he can so he scores some points on that one too.

I wish they had put a scientist up against him though instead of an arrogant journalist, and a shit one at that.

Good catch, that was interesting.

[poulgorm]

I would love to know if it is a fact that man related CO2 emissions account for only 3% of the total amount of Co2 sent into the atmosphere. If that is true, then the whole CO2 debate is a gigantic lie.

[starchaser]

I would love to know if it is a fact that man related CO2 emissions account for only 3% of the total amount of Co2 sent into the atmosphere. If that is true, then the whole CO2 debate is a gigantic lie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Ea rth%27s_atmosphere

"Carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere by a variety of natural sources, and over 95% of total CO2 emissions would occur even if humans were not present on Earth. For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands, such as dead trees, results in the release of about 220 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide every year. This carbon dioxide alone is over 8 times the amount emitted by humans."

source: http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/05.html

"Carbon dioxide (CO2) forms approximately 0.04% of the Earth's atmosphere"

[poulgorm]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Ea rth%27s_atmosphere

"Carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere by a variety of natural sources, and over 95% of total CO2 emissions would occur even if humans were not present on Earth. For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands, such as dead trees, results in the release of about 220 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide every year. This carbon dioxide alone is over 8 times the amount emitted by humans."

source: http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/05.html

"Carbon dioxide (CO2) forms approximately 0.04% of the Earth's atmosphere"

So, the activities of the human race account for 5% of all CO2 emissions to the atmosphere. So we are going to to turn the economy on its head to halve our emissions - leading to a total reduction of CO2 emissions of 2.5%. FFS, that is useless - won't make a difference, one way or another.

And think of all the pain we are going to inflict on an already depressed economy - e.g. pensioners who will have to cut back on heating - leading to premature deaths, people at work who will have to spend far more on petrol to get there etc etc.

Those Greens are not just idiots - they are dangerous

[starchaser]

So, the activities of the human race account for 5% of all CO2 emissions to the atmosphere. So we are going to to turn the economy on its head to halve our emissions - leading to a total reduction of CO2 emissions of 2.5%. FFS, that is useless - won't make a difference, one way or another.

And think of all the pain we are going to inflict on an already depressed economy - e.g. pensioners who will have to cut back on heating - leading to premature deaths, people at work who will have to spend far more on petrol to get there etc etc.

Those Greens are not just idiots - they are dangerous

http://green-agenda.com/

"We've got to ride this global warming issue.Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy."
- Timothy Wirth,President of the UN Foundation

“The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.”
- Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

"It doesn't matter what is true,it only matters what people believe is true."
- Paul Watson,co-founder of Greenpeace

"Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything andit is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time."
- Club of Rome,The First Global Revolution

"The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society,which is nature's proper steward and society's only hope."
- David Brower,founder of Friends of the Earth

"If we don't overthrow capitalism, we don't have a chance ofsaving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to havean ecologically sound society under socialism.I don't think it is possible under capitalism"
- Judi Bari,principal organiser of Earth First!

"A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop theUnited States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation."
- Paul Ehrlich,Professor of Population Studies

"The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are."
- Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

[ubernerd]

So what's it to be Starchaser? Is it an evil communist conspiracy or an evil capitalist conspiracy to keep third world countries in the shitter?

I heard that "debate" when it was on the radio. Weak as the IT journo was, Kenny was almost total in his bias. Declaring that the journo was propping up a conspiracy to keep his job is utterly ludicrous.

What is going on now is classic PR fuelled backlash.

[poulgorm]

So what's it to be Starchaser? Is it an evil communist conspiracy or an evil capitalist conspiracy to keep third world countries in the shitter?

I heard that "debate" when it was on the radio. Weak as the IT journo was, Kenny was almost total in his bias. Declaring that the journo was propping up a conspiracy to keep his job is utterly ludicrous.

What is going on now is classic PR fuelled backlash.

This is what reinforces my doubts about this whole CO2 debate. The greens, when challenged, just declare that their opponents are ludicrous (or ridiculous, schoolboys, stupid, etc etc.).

Merely stating that something is ludicrous does not, in itself, prove that it is ludicrous

Instead, could we have concrete evidence that would prove that the doubters are wrong - without resorting to personal abuse ?

Is that too much to ask ?

[ubernerd]

This is what reinforces my doubts about this whole CO2 debate. The greens, when challenged, just declare that their opponents are ludicrous (or ridiculous, schoolboys, stupid, etc etc.).

Merely stating that something is ludicrous does not, in itself, prove that it is ludicrous

Instead, could we have concrete evidence that would prove that the doubters are wrong - without resorting to personal abuse ?

Is that too much to ask ?

PG, read what I said was ludicrous.
Thanks.

[KolaKubes]

Aaaah... i love it when this happens..

mp3 download:
http://www.rte.ie/podcasts/2009/pc/pod-v-021209-30m14s-todaywithpatkenny.mp 3

how does he get demolished?

well the aussie geologist starts off with science and rattles off some science stuff.

the irish times journo - obviously fearing for his job in the wake of Climategate - IMMEDIATELY kicks off with the personal attacks.

and it goes on and on from there.

the attacks get so personal that Kenny has to wade in...

well worth a listen.


best bit : journo says that the geologist's book is "schoolboy science" .. and when challenged on it, admits to have never read it.

To be fair, when I hear journalists talking about any specific discipline I am fairly expert on, they do sound like they're talking some amount of bollocks.

Makes me wonder about the other 99% of stuff they write about the other weeks.

The problem is that they know so little on most topics that they get all giddy after reading a Wiki page, imagine they're world leaders in the field suddenly and get more preachy than any bona fide expert would.

[poulgorm]

http://green-agenda.com/

"We've got to ride this global warming issue.Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy."
- Timothy Wirth,President of the UN Foundation

“The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.”
- Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

"It doesn't matter what is true,it only matters what people believe is true."
- Paul Watson,co-founder of Greenpeace

"Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything andit is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time."
- Club of Rome,The First Global Revolution

"The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society,which is nature's proper steward and society's only hope."
- David Brower,founder of Friends of the Earth

"If we don't overthrow capitalism, we don't have a chance ofsaving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to havean ecologically sound society under socialism.I don't think it is possible under capitalism"
- Judi Bari,principal organiser of Earth First!

"A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop theUnited States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation."
- Paul Ehrlich,Professor of Population Studies

"The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are."
- Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

1. Can someone tell me if the the above quotations are false? If they are true, then the credibility of the green pressure groups is demolished

2. Can someone tell me that it is NOT true that man's contribution to CO2 emissions is a mere 3 to 5% of the total CO2 emissions ?

[hemlock666]

Remember the Y2K bug? Same type of scenario. A lot of money to be made...

[ubernerd]

Remember the Y2K bug? Same type of scenario. A lot of money to be made...

Is that the extent of your argument? That because there is money to be made it must be a lie?

[PsychoPat]

Is that the extent of your argument? That because there is money to be made it must be a lie?

Deliberately altering data to suit your agenda is tantamount to lying. And if you have to lie to prove something, then maybe what you're trying to prove is bullshit also?

There is a lot of money to be made from this scam, carbon taxes, trading caps etc./..and where there is the potential for a lot of money to be made, there is inevitably corruption and lies.

Que buno?..certainly not the cuddly polar bears or plebs like us..it's the usual suspects which include international banks like Goldman Sachs and first world governments.

[starchaser]

Is that the extent of your argument? That because there is money to be made it must be a lie?


http://www.chicagoclimatex. com/



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Climate_Exch ange

"Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) is North America’s only voluntary, legally binding greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction and trading system for emission sources and offset projects in North America and Brazil."

"CCX is 10% owned by Goldman Sachs (GS) and 10% owned by Generation Investment Management (GIM), an investment firm founded & chaired by Al Gore. This firm was co-founded by the former Treasury Secretary under George W. Bush and former Goldman Sachs CEO Hank Paulson."

[PsychoPat]

This Irish times journalist is your typical illogical lefty liberal who has embraced some feelgood cause du jour and has worked himself in to a state of cognitive dissonance over it.

The fact that he makes a living from the cause he has embraced just makes him more defensive to arguments against said cause, but he really is no different to the rest of the vacuous upper middle class scum that self righteously rail about intolerance or the rain forests or this and that, when really deep down inside, they don't give a flying fuck....it just feels good to say (or in some rare cases do) the things that they do.

[Pontipine]

That Gibbons is a typical example of some of the ignorant and arrogant arseholes in this country.Prof Plimer was a gentleman and only discussed the subject at hand instead of attacking Gibbons unlike what Gibbons attempted to do.I enjoyed listening to that.It is always good to see the likes of Gibbons put in his place.I mean the arrogant fool even had a go off Pat Kenny.

[ubernerd]

That Gibbons is a typical example of some of the ignorant and arrogant arseholes in this country.Prof Plimer was a gentleman and only discussed the subject at hand instead of attacking Gibbons unlike what Gibbons attempted to do.I enjoyed listening to that.It is always good to see the likes of Gibbons put in his place.I mean the arrogant fool even had a go off Pat Kenny.

Imagine! Our Pat like!
Starchaser, I thought you were a libertarian? Wouldn't public ownership irk you more than private ownership of such an organisation?
Psycho, wtf has class got to do with it?

[ubernerd]

Deliberately altering data to suit your agenda is tantamount to lying. And if you have to lie to prove something, then maybe what you're trying to prove is bullshit also?


It doesn't imply that it is. I'm certainly not going to defend any bullshit, but it doesn't do anything to convince me the rest of the science, and the vast majority of qualified opinion on the subject, is wrong.

It suits a hell of alot more people for this to be bullshit too, and you don't have to rely on tenuous links to big business to see those connections, they are staring you right in the face.

I doesn't take much by way of clever, cynical PR to convince people that they have nothing to worry about and to carry on doing what they're doing and maintaining the status quo in terms of revenue for big oil.

[KolaKubes]

The reason I like Pat is that you can tell he has training in a rigorous scientific/engineering discipline and can quickly see through quacks and half-arsed "arguments" by journalists that have read a few wiki pages.

[aSilvermountZion]

could the pople who are using wikipedia as sources for research please try and get their data from more reliable resources?

[Pontipine]

Imagine! Our Pat like!
Starchaser, I thought you were a libertarian? Wouldn't public ownership irk you more than private ownership of such an organisation?
Psycho, wtf has class got to do with it?

You missed my point.Whether it was Pat Kenny or not you hardly come onto a radio show and get stuck into the presenter in fairness.Gibbons is not prepared to accept any other opinion besides his own whther he is wrong or right on the matter.

[ubernerd]

You missed my point.Whether it was Pat Kenny or not you hardly come onto a radio show and get stuck into the presenter in fairness.Gibbons is not prepared to accept any other opinion besides his own whther he is wrong or right on the matter.

Since when?
Nonsense. An interviewer is fair game, especially if they are playing devil's advocate, which all good interviewers should.
In this interview Pat actually makes no bones about which side of the argument he stands on either, so it's more than devil's advocate.

[poulgorm]

Have you noticed that the acidification of the ocean is now being pumped up? Is this a fall back position, in case the CO2 scare is exposed?

[ubernerd]

Have you noticed that the acidification of the ocean is now being pumped up? Is this a fall back position, in case the CO2 scare is exposed?

If it is I never got the memo.
Damn cutbacks.

[Taste]

I'd go Gay for Pat Kenny...

[Haro]

Excellent post, starchaser. Really worth listening all the way to the end. That Irish Times fellow was shown to be an awful bollocks. Didn't know his stuff and resorted to personal abuse.

Fair dues to Pat Kenny and the Australian prof. Took him on and demolished him.

The lefties lost the argument when the Berlin Wall fell and what was going on behind it couldn't be denied anymore: They (or their descendants) are back again on the attack, using a different front.

That is my suspicion anyway.

Wow, I guess when I said PROC was full of batshit right wing cunts I was more on the mark than I thought.

Is anyone in this thread actually a climatologist? The only climatogists that don't "believe" in climate change are for the most part, a lunatic fringe. And if you have some conspiracy, then please back it up with something meaty.

This is what reinforces my doubts about this whole CO2 debate. The greens, when challenged, just declare that their opponents are ludicrous (or ridiculous, schoolboys, stupid, etc etc.).

You say this but for the most part you ARE actually ludicrous, and seem to focus on making an impossible argument rather than one with any facts or reason. The fact that you're pulling most of your facts from wikipedia or obviously biased sites with an agenda shows you're probably using a priori reasoning, taking a position based on an emotional reaction then trying to find things to back it up afterwards(and then accusing your opponents of the same, despite the fact that the forerunners are actual scientists).

This Irish times journalist is your typical illogical lefty liberal

"Illogical" and "Left". Then why are most righties found clinging either to religion, or socially conservative policy that's based on the fallacy of appeal to tradition?

This whole thread in fact is based off the logical fallacy of Style over Substance. Just because someone attacks someone over an argument, does not mean their argument is automatically invalid. If you believe otherwise, then you're probably not intelligent enough to comment on an issue like climate change anyway.

[Haro]

"We've got to ride this global warming issue.Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy."

This is absolutely true. The same things that cause global warming are issues of waste and general environmental hazards anyway.

“The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.”

Taken out of context with no understanding for what's actually being said.

"It doesn't matter what is true,it only matters what people believe is true."

Completely out of context.

"Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything andit is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time."

So?

"The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society,which is nature's proper steward and society's only hope."

So? I thought Socialism was only a dirty word in the US, but apparently I'm wrong. You can thank socialists for such concepts as a minimum wage and 40 hour week.


"If we don't overthrow capitalism, we don't have a chance ofsaving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to havean ecologically sound society under socialism.I don't think it is possible under capitalism"
- Judi Bari,principal organiser of Earth First!

Could be true. After all, just like your accusation of all greeners being lefties, most smoffies seem to be righties. Surprising?

"A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop theUnited States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation."
- Paul Ehrlich,Professor of Population Studies

I don't see what's wrong with this given he gives a definition of "development".


"The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are."

Almost definitely out of context, and it's pretty obvious what he's trying to say is that it'd be a bad idea to let these countries go down the same route the US did since that wouldn't be sustainable.

It seems to me that some people just have a problem with ideas that aren't socially conservative capitalism.

[Langer Dan]

Wow, I guess when I said PROC was full of batshit right wing cunts I was more on the mark than I thought.

Is anyone in this thread actually a climatologist? The only climatogists that don't "believe" in climate change are for the most part, a lunatic fringe. And if you have some conspiracy, then please back it up with something meaty.



You say this but for the most part you ARE actually ludicrous, and seem to focus on making an impossible argument rather than one with any facts or reason. The fact that you're pulling most of your facts from wikipedia or obviously biased sites with an agenda shows you're probably using a priori reasoning, taking a position based on an emotional reaction then trying to find things to back it up afterwards(and then accusing your opponents of the same, despite the fact that the forerunners are actual scientists).



"Illogical" and "Left". Then why are most righties found clinging either to religion, or socially conservative policy that's based on the fallacy of appeal to tradition?

This whole thread in fact is based off the logical fallacy of Style over Substance. Just because someone attacks someone over an argument, does not mean their argument is automatically invalid. If you believe otherwise, then you're probably not intelligent enough to comment on an issue like climate change anyway.

You should get onto Jim Corr.

I feel ye have much to discuss.

[ubernerd]

You should get onto Jim Corr.

I feel ye have much to discuss.

LD, Jim Corr is far, far more likely to be on the other side of this particular argument.

[slick fingers]

Theres a programme on More4 right now called "The year the Earth went wild", its describing in detail why our planet is behaving in such a way. No global warming mentioned yet!

[PsychoPat]

I doesn't take much by way of clever, cynical PR to convince people that they have nothing to worry about and to carry on doing what they're doing and maintaining the status quo in terms of revenue for big oil.

By the way, it was a clever cynical PR guy who told the White House to stop calling it "global warming" and to call it "climate change" instead..partly because the planet has actually been cooling down on average over the last 10 years and partly because sheeple are innately afraid of the concept of change. And as every government knows, fear is what you need to get the sheeple to go along with what you want.

That and a good shill spokesman like Al Gore; who invented the internet and is now saving the planet one all expenses paid speaking engagement at a time...imagine what that jet-setting fucker's "carbon footprint ":rolleyes: must be like.

[superfantango]

Wow, I guess when I said PROC was full of batshit right wing cunts I was more on the mark than I thought.

Is anyone in this thread actually a climatologist? The only climatogists that don't "believe" in climate change are for the most part, a lunatic fringe. And if you have some conspiracy, then please back it up with something meaty.



You say this but for the most part you ARE actually ludicrous, and seem to focus on making an impossible argument rather than one with any facts or reason. The fact that you're pulling most of your facts from wikipedia or obviously biased sites with an agenda shows you're probably using a priori reasoning, taking a position based on an emotional reaction then trying to find things to back it up afterwards(and then accusing your opponents of the same, despite the fact that the forerunners are actual scientists).



"Illogical" and "Left". Then why are most righties found clinging either to religion, or socially conservative policy that's based on the fallacy of appeal to tradition?

This whole thread in fact is based off the logical fallacy of Style over Substance. Just because someone attacks someone over an argument, does not mean their argument is automatically invalid. If you believe otherwise, then you're probably not intelligent enough to comment on an issue like climate change anyway.

Does one really have to be a climatologist to have an opinion on climate change? A close friend of mine is a geologist and when questioned she says that the geologist community is quite split on the issue of climate change, many think it's just the natural changes of the earths climate (as opposed to anthropogenic).

And what about all other scientists who disagree with the 'consensus'? Are they all really fringe lunatics (that's an easy cop out for me)? Yeah its fairly obvious that big fossil fuel corporations fund many of the sceptics but surely not all? What about the 31,000 American sceptics who question current perceptions?

Im all for renewable energy resources and recycling, etc, just because it makes sense, and yeah I do think there is a human element in climate change. But there is also a lot of money to be made out of this green project no? And while Fox newsish and co spout on about climategate i still have to wonder how and why so many respectable scientists are willing to put there names & careers on the line for something unless they don't really believe in it. Check out Khabibullo Abdusamatov, Sallie Baliunas, George V. Chilingar, Ian Clark, David Douglass, they don't seem all that loony. Why not if they are fringe lunatics?

When the dinosaurs were around they were livin it up in the lovely heat, there was no ice on earth and CO2 in the atmosphere was twice the amount it is today. But hey they are all dead now so shit happens.

anyway it's getting late.

[poulgorm]

Quote:
"If we don't overthrow capitalism, we don't have a chance ofsaving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to havean ecologically sound society under socialism.I don't think it is possible under capitalism"
- Judi Bari,principal organiser of Earth First!

Could be true. After all, just like your accusation of all greeners being lefties, most smoffies seem to be righties. Surprising?" END QUOTE

What utter nonsense. The most polluting countries in the world were the former socialist countries. 20 years on and the cleaning up of the pollution caused is still going on. Read any serious travel book or watch any serious documentary on the issue and get acquainted with the facts.

Anybody who believes that socialism is the answer is not living in the real world

[Murdock]

Has anyone mentioned that the Australian guy, Plimer is a director of three mining companies?
FFS.

[Cliff Barnes]

He is off again......:confused :

The Irish Times - Thursday, December 17, 2009

Six reasons why Earth won't cope for long



The world faces a dangerous convergence of environmental and resource crises, not all directly climate related. All, however, are increasingly difficult to resolve in a rapidly warming world. Taken together, they are not amenable to a business-as-usual political response. Here, in no particular order, are six:

1. Biodiversity: “The world is currently undergoing a very rapid loss of biodiversity comparable with the great mass extinction events that have previously occurred only five or six times in the Earth’s history,” says the World Wildlife Fund. It has tracked an astonishing 30 per cent decline in the Earth’s biodiversity between 1970-2003. Hunting, habitat destruction, deforestation, pollution and the spread of agriculture are leading to as many as 1,000 entire species going extinct every week – that’s a species every 10 minutes. The economic cost of destroying biodiversity is also immense. A 2008 EU study estimated the cost of forest loss alone is running at $2-$5 trillion (€1.3-€3.4 trillion) annually.

2. Ocean acidification: The evidence of the effects of increased CO2 levels on the world’s oceans is unequivocal. Surface ocean acidity has increased by 30 per cent since 1800, with half this increase occurring in just the last three decades. The rate of change in oceanic pH levels is around 100 times faster than any observed natural rate. Increasing acidity is impeding the ability of plankton called foraminifera to produce shells. These creatures form the base of the entire marine food system. The world’s vital reef systems are also in peril from acidification.

3. Population pressure: Broadcaster Sir David Attenborough has witnessed how the natural world is being crushed by humanity. “I’ve never seen a problem that wouldn’t be easier to solve with fewer people, or harder – and ultimately impossible – with more,” he says. The Earth must provide for around 80 million more people than this time last year. It took us almost 10,000 years to reach a billion people. We now add that many every 12 years.

4. Peak oil: This month, the International Energy Agency formally predicted global peak oil by 2020. Today, the world burns the equivalent of 82 million barrels of oil every day. Projected growth in energy demand will see this rise to almost 100 million barrels within a decade, but by then, output from the oilfields currently in production will have plummeted to barely a third of that. A massive energy gap is looming, and with discoveries having peaked in the mid-1960s, we are approaching the bottom of the cheap oil barrel. Non-conventional oil, renewables and nuclear will be nowhere near capable of bridging this energy gap in time. The oil shocks of the coming decade will be intense.

5. Peak food: the global food system is predicated on lashings of cheap oil, fresh water, soil and natural gas. All four are in decline. The food riots of 2008 were an early warning of a global system in crisis. In the US, it is estimated every calorie of food energy requires 10 calories of fossil fuel energy. More food production is now being channelled into fattening animals. Meat is a tasty but entirely inefficient way to use finite food resources. Meanwhile, the UN predicts the collapse of all global commercial marine fisheries by 2048, depriving up to two billion people of food.

6. Peak water: During the 20th century, human water usage increased nine-fold, with irrigation (for agriculture) alone using two-thirds of this total. With almost all major glaciers retreating, many river systems are at risk. Groundwater in aquifers is another key fresh water source. Over-extraction, mostly for agriculture, has caused their levels worldwide to plummet. Pollution, especially from fertiliser overuse, adds to the loss of fresh water. The Environmental Protection Agency yesterday reported only 17 per cent of Ireland’s rivers are of “high ecological status”.

The 19th century naturalist John Muir famously wrote that “when one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the rest of the world”. As the Copenhagen conference draws to a close, the words of a contemporary of Muir, politician and orator Robert Ingersoll, have never seemed more apt: “In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments; there are only consequences.”


John Gibbons blogs at www.thinkorswim.ie

[Haro]

Quote:
"If we don't overthrow capitalism, we don't have a chance ofsaving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to havean ecologically sound society under socialism.I don't think it is possible under capitalism"
- Judi Bari,principal organiser of Earth First!

Could be true. After all, just like your accusation of all greeners being lefties, most smoffies seem to be righties. Surprising?" END QUOTE

What utter nonsense. The most polluting countries in the world were the former socialist countries. 20 years on and the cleaning up of the pollution caused is still going on. Read any serious travel book or watch any serious documentary on the issue and get acquainted with the facts.

Anybody who believes that socialism is the answer is not living in the real world

See, whether socialism works or not is a speculative fact. Whether the countries you claim were anything like the "socialism" these guys are talking about is not so much, most countries calling themselves socialist went against some of it's most basic principles. "Socialism" is more like what the Scandanavian countries have, only more so. Do they polute more than highly capitalist nations like the US?

Or rather you probably know that but since you're a right piece of work you couldn't care less.

[Murdock]

He is off again......:confused :

The Irish Times - Thursday, December 17, 2009

Six reasons why Earth won't cope for long



The world faces a dangerous convergence of environmental and resource crises, not all directly climate related. All, however, are increasingly difficult to resolve in a rapidly warming world. Taken together, they are not amenable to a business-as-usual political response. Here, in no particular order, are six:

1. Biodiversity: “The world is currently undergoing a very rapid loss of biodiversity comparable with the great mass extinction events that have previously occurred only five or six times in the Earth’s history,” says the World Wildlife Fund. It has tracked an astonishing 30 per cent decline in the Earth’s biodiversity between 1970-2003. Hunting, habitat destruction, deforestation, pollution and the spread of agriculture are leading to as many as 1,000 entire species going extinct every week – that’s a species every 10 minutes. The economic cost of destroying biodiversity is also immense. A 2008 EU study estimated the cost of forest loss alone is running at $2-$5 trillion (€1.3-€3.4 trillion) annually.

2. Ocean acidification: The evidence of the effects of increased CO2 levels on the world’s oceans is unequivocal. Surface ocean acidity has increased by 30 per cent since 1800, with half this increase occurring in just the last three decades. The rate of change in oceanic pH levels is around 100 times faster than any observed natural rate. Increasing acidity is impeding the ability of plankton called foraminifera to produce shells. These creatures form the base of the entire marine food system. The world’s vital reef systems are also in peril from acidification.

3. Population pressure: Broadcaster Sir David Attenborough has witnessed how the natural world is being crushed by humanity. “I’ve never seen a problem that wouldn’t be easier to solve with fewer people, or harder – and ultimately impossible – with more,” he says. The Earth must provide for around 80 million more people than this time last year. It took us almost 10,000 years to reach a billion people. We now add that many every 12 years.

4. Peak oil: This month, the International Energy Agency formally predicted global peak oil by 2020. Today, the world burns the equivalent of 82 million barrels of oil every day. Projected growth in energy demand will see this rise to almost 100 million barrels within a decade, but by then, output from the oilfields currently in production will have plummeted to barely a third of that. A massive energy gap is looming, and with discoveries having peaked in the mid-1960s, we are approaching the bottom of the cheap oil barrel. Non-conventional oil, renewables and nuclear will be nowhere near capable of bridging this energy gap in time. The oil shocks of the coming decade will be intense.

5. Peak food: the global food system is predicated on lashings of cheap oil, fresh water, soil and natural gas. All four are in decline. The food riots of 2008 were an early warning of a global system in crisis. In the US, it is estimated every calorie of food energy requires 10 calories of fossil fuel energy. More food production is now being channelled into fattening animals. Meat is a tasty but entirely inefficient way to use finite food resources. Meanwhile, the UN predicts the collapse of all global commercial marine fisheries by 2048, depriving up to two billion people of food.

6. Peak water: During the 20th century, human water usage increased nine-fold, with irrigation (for agriculture) alone using two-thirds of this total. With almost all major glaciers retreating, many river systems are at risk. Groundwater in aquifers is another key fresh water source. Over-extraction, mostly for agriculture, has caused their levels worldwide to plummet. Pollution, especially from fertiliser overuse, adds to the loss of fresh water. The Environmental Protection Agency yesterday reported only 17 per cent of Ireland’s rivers are of “high ecological status”.

The 19th century naturalist John Muir famously wrote that “when one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the rest of the world”. As the Copenhagen conference draws to a close, the words of a contemporary of Muir, politician and orator Robert Ingersoll, have never seemed more apt: “In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments; there are only consequences.”


John Gibbons blogs at www.thinkorswim.ie

What exactly is your problem with any of that?

[ubernerd]

By the way, it was a clever cynical PR guy who told the White House to stop calling it "global warming" and to call it "climate change" instead..partly because the planet has actually been cooling down on average over the last 10 years and partly because sheeple are innately afraid of the concept of change. And as every government knows, fear is what you need to get the sheeple to go along with what you want.

That and a good shill spokesman like Al Gore; who invented the internet and is now saving the planet one all expenses paid speaking engagement at a time...imagine what that jet-setting fucker's "carbon footprint ":rolleyes: must be like.

If only we were all as clever as you.
Snap out of it ya fuckin idiot.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/sheeple.png

See LD? This topic is a loons' paradise.
Now, back to the grown up conversation.

[Cliff Barnes]

What exactly is your problem with any of that?

He watched a documentary on BBC and thats included ?

Sweet suffering Jesus.

[Pheas]

If Ian Plimer's the guy in that video, you should maybe see what happens when he debates a journalist (let alone a scientist) with some level of expertise on the subject.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/dec/16/ian-plimer-versus-george-monbiot

Unfortunately for many here, the debate doesn't go into the whole "Climate change is a conspiracy hoisted upon us by Marxist shape-shifting reptiles to rob us of our individual freedom and make us more subservient" thing.

And there's a detailed refutation for every argument that the climate denialist community posit here:

http://www.realclimate.org/

Or maybe you could just hang on to those opinions that you fancy and continue to argue them out here.

[ubernerd]

If Ian Plimer's the guy in that video, you should maybe see what happens when he debates a journalist (let alone a scientist) with some level of expertise on the subject.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/dec/16/ian-plimer-versus-george-monbiot

Unfortunately for many here, the debate doesn't go into the whole "Climate change is a conspiracy hoisted upon us by Marxist shape-shifting reptiles to rob us of our individual freedom and make us more subservient" thing.

And there's a detailed refutation for every argument that the climate denialist community posit here:

http://www.realclimate.org/

Or maybe you could just hang on to those opinions that you fancy and continue to argue them out here.

Excellent rebuttal.
Actual video here:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2009/12/15/2772906.htm

Someone send this to Pat Kenny.

[Pheas]

Excellent rebuttal.
Actual video here:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2009/12/15/2772906.htm

Someone send this to Pat Kenny.

Don't bother, it's not like anyone's gonna change their mind. Just look at the debate here FFS.

[Dorcha]

When the experts first started talking about carbon emissions changing the Earth's climate, I believed them, because I'm no scientist and why should they be telling porkies? Then as time went on, I noticed that although they were telling us that the Earth was warming up, in Ireland, at least, it seemed to be getting colder.

When I cast my mind back over half a century to my childhood, I remembered much warmer Summers and much colder Winters; again I remembered several years when Summer was almost the same as winter, grey and dry with no extremes of weather at all. It seemed to me that the weather had always been changing and the kind of weather we have now had already happened in my lifetime.

That's when I began to suspect that what we were being told by the "experts" might not be true. Unfortunately, a world-wide hysteria seems to have been generated which no longer tolerates differing opinions. Still, some people do voice those opinions, based on their own observations.

The following article, written by Ray Ryan, agribusiness correspondent, was published in Wednesday's Examiner:


Tillage farmer John *O'Mahony has been weather sensitive most of his working life because of the impact the climate has on the growth and harvesting of his crops. But he has done more than just take a daily interest in the vagaries of the weather - he has also kept accounts of rainfall over the past 24 years on his farm at Kilmore, Tallow, Co Waterford.

He has also studied weather statistics from various parts of the country going back more than 100 years and made comparisons. His conclusion is that there is no major variation despite all the warnings about climate change and global warming.

“Climate is always changing and has always been changing and it will always be changing, but this is not due to the carbon we are putting into the atmosphere. It results from a natural evolvement of the Earth.I think a very good example of that is shown in the cold and warm periods. From about the year 900 to 1300, the Danes were able to farm in Greenland - that's why it is called Greenland - because the ice had melted. But around the year 1400 they were finding it very difficult to get ships into the ports because the sea was freezing. They gave up farming altogether because of this cold period which lasted a couple of hundred years.

"I am also told that ships' manifests show that grain was exported out of Cork Port in 1300. The technology at that time for producing grain was nothing compared to what it is now. The weather, therefore, must have been good," he said.

According to O'Mahony's records, 1947 was a very cold year in Ireland. He remembered seeing his parents sawing timber with a cross cut. They had him standing on a board so that he would not sink into the snow. "In the 1950s, I remember my mother saying `My God the summers are gone altogether. They are not as fine as they were when we were young'.

"I still hear people saying that today but it can be misleading if you are not keeping tabs on weather. I know that 1955 was a fine summer and I actually have the records from Tallow to prove it. There was a family at Tallow Bridge who used to record weather at that time.

"The year after I left school I went to work with a neighbouring farmer. It was 1958 and it was a most desperate wet year. The harvest couldn't be saved. I think there was corn that was not even cut. The following year was extremely warm and dry. The sun was splitting the stones. It was a fantastic year. I remember looking up towards Fermoy and seeing a heat haze over the Blackwater Valley for the entire summer," he said.

John also recalled the winter of 1965-1966 as being particularly wet. Farmers couldn't get their beet out.
In 1986, he became an official voluntary unpaid recorder for the Met Office. It was the year of Hurricane Charlie.

"That year we had more rain in August than we had in November this year. People might find that hard to believe but I have the figures to prove it.
"The wettest year since I started recording was 1988 when we had 1475.74 mm of rain (58.1 inches.) The first year I ever recorded rainfall under 40 inches was in 2003. But the driest year was 2005 when we had 926.8mm (36.49 inches). That is a variation of about 21 inches, or 424mm, over 24 years;" he said.

John O'Mahony believes the climate here is very much influenced by the Atlantic. That means we get rain in varying amounts.

"I believe it is all tied up with the jet stream and how far south it comes. If it comes too far south we get more rain and if it stays north we get less rain. We are always getting wet years and dry years. In most five-year periods I have seen a wet weather year and a dry weather year and the other three are in between. I do not see anything major happening in the climate. There is no major variation," he said, producing statistics to prove his claims.

In Tallow, the 30-year average rainfall from 1951 to 1981 is 1,082 (4.27 inches),a mere 2mm of a difference. Readingsfrom University College Cork, Hazelwood (Doneraile), Phoenix Park, Dublin, and Mount Mellary, Co Waterford, show a similar pattern.

O'Mahony said the figures show little variation. That prompts the question for all those people who are preaching alarm about climate change: Where is the difference?

John O'Mahony said Dublin had one of its driest years ever in 1887 when only 422mm (16.6 inches) of rain fell. "If that happened today people would be on the bandwagon saying global warming was here. But how many people were burning carbon fuels in 1887? The Wright Brothers hadn't even earned to fly at that time.

"Now, I am not saying I should burn three gallons of diesel if I can get away with one gallon because that would be waste. I am not saying we should waste our resources. But what I am saying is that here is a lot of panic about global warming. Yet, the last warmest year was 1998 and nothing significant has happened to the climate since.

"However, these scare stories about climate change are going to have a serious effect, especially on farming. There is even talk about putting a flatulence tax on cattle. It is ridiculous," he said.
John O'Mahony said the new carbon tax introduced in the budget as a result of the Greens being in Government is only the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. "This tax is a handy way of getting extra money for the Government and has not met a real opposition.This tax will hit everybody. Its effect on farming and the transport sector will add considerably to costs. Rest assured it will not stop at 5 cent per litre going forward. It is too easy to adjust the tax upwards," he said.

O'Mahony said a Republican Senator in the United States, James M Inhofe, of Oklahoma, recently described the threat of catastrophic global warming as the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people".

"Well, it is no different over here. Climate change has always been happening and will continue with warm and cool periods no matter what we do. This year will be one of the wetter ones (about 1480mm-58.2 inches), but we have had those before and the dry years will come again. We have always had wet and dry periods. Some 7,000 people were actually killed in flooding in England back in 1703.

"In Ireland, the `Night of the Big Wind' occurred in 1839, long before we burned any fossils fuel and when there were no tractors or aircraft [hundreds of people were killed in winds up to 185km/h].

"I believe what is happening now has nothing to do with carbon credits. I think it has been proved that these can be absorbed into the atmosphere without any adverse effects. It is also very important to realise that significant climate change might take thousands of years, not the five or 10 years that people might think," he said.

[Haro]

When the experts first started talking about carbon emissions changing the Earth's climate, I believed them, because I'm no scientist and why should they be telling porkies? Then as time went on, I noticed that although they were telling us that the Earth was warming up, in Ireland, at least, it seemed to be getting colder.


I honestly stopped reading here... there's a reason it's called "Climate Change". There is an overall warming effect.

[Dorcha]

And I wrote the following myself a few years ago, out of sheer frustration. I do not claim it is objective.

A PLAGUE OF PEOPLE

A respectable crown gathered at Soaptown’s Town Hall yesterday evening to listen to Dr Smallbrain (of the Department of Impossible Ideas), give a lecture on the causes of climate change.

In Dr Smallbrain’s opinion, one of the major causes of the heating up of the Earth is human activity.

“Every action of the human body generates heat: walking, holding and conveying things with the hands, and, above all, talking. If all the people of the world stopped talking, the temperature of the Earth would drop by almost ten percent.”

The ideal situation, of course, he allowed, would be for people to die, but he expected a lot of short-sighted opposition from Pro-Life Groups on this issue. The trouble was that we were too comfortable with life. Governments could play their parts by persuading people to adapt a more fatal outlook. If the whole world could be persuaded to die, the emission of greenhouses gasses would at once fall to almost nil.

He quoted a study by Philim Dire, R.E.A.L, T.O.T.A.L., L.O.O.P.Y., who has studied those problems for over sixty years. Professor Dire has become convinced that the whole human race is a plague, that it is, in fact, the greatest and most dangerous plague that has ever assaulted the planet. He has unearthed 90 percent conclusive proof that the Earth was a well-balanced, ecological entity, happily free-spinning its way through space, until human beings appeared. In little over 5000,000 years their activity has so decimated the planet that it is now in danger of becoming another barren world like Mars. If humans are not contained and eradicated as soon as possible, there was a real danger that they could spread to other planets, and, eventually even to the stars.

“We have to ask ourselves,” Professor Dire has said, “if we could take the responsibility for infecting the whole galaxy.”

This reporter sampled the reactions of the audience afterwards.

Most indicated that they would be quite willing to infect the whole universe, and any parallel universes, that might exist. A sizable minority admitted that they would willingly eradicate themselves if the government suggested it. There were also a few willing to volunteer to eradicate others.

A spokesman for the government said that they were monitoring the situation. A committee had been employed to select a committee to further monitor the situation. Based on the findings of that committee, another committee would be employed to recommend the employment of a Think Tank which would be expected to deliver recommendations of the actions to be taken (if any). The government would then study those recommendations and make their decision known in due course. They acknowledged that the situation was urgent.

[Dorcha]

I honestly stopped reading here...

I don't blame you. Haro. I am also guilty of not reading all the way though some things. Someone once directed me to a site that they said would prove that carbon emissions caused global warming. In the very first paragraph, the writer said that scientists were not one hundred percent sure that humans were responsible for the rise in temperature. At that point I stopped reading because it seemed that what followed must be rendered null and void. If you're not one hundred percent sure of something, there's always a chance that you're wrong.

[Pheas]

Hi Dorcha,

Re. your first post: anecdotes aren't evidence. File everything you said under:

"My Grandfather smoked all his life and lived until he was 80".
"Homeopathy worked for me".
"I know a guy who said he drove better after drinking".


Your second post is so puerile I'm sure most of the people here who would agree with your position would disown it.

[superfantango]

Your second post is so puerile I'm sure most of the people here who would agree with your position would disown it.

Not really no, speak for yourself.

[Pheas]

I don't blame you. Haro. I am also guilty of not reading all the way though some things. Someone once directed me to a site that they said would prove that carbon emissions caused global warming. In the very first paragraph, the writer said that scientists were not one hundred percent sure that humans were responsible for the rise in temperature. At that point I stopped reading because it seemed that what followed must be rendered null and void. If you're not one hundred percent sure of something, there's always a chance that you're wrong.

And one last thing. Nothing is ever, EVER, proven in science. You only have accumulating evidence in science. It's an empirical discipline. Proofs are only in the domain of mathematics. Science merely states that, given the evidence, one of a number of possible causes appears by far to be the most likely.

So, perhaps every person that has died from lung cancer who has smoked was not in fact killed by smoking. Maybe some gene that caused them to smoke also caused them to develop lung cancer independent of tobacco smoke.

The overwhelming evidence in science is that this is not the case. Tobacco smoke actually does seem to cause cancer.

[Dorcha]

Hi Dorcha,

Re. your first post: anecdotes aren't evidence.


And what about Mr O'Mahony? Aren't observations evidence, either? You will notice, if you have bothered to read it, that he doesn't trust even his own memory. It seems to me that many people like yourself start with an opinion and then try to gather evidence to support it, dismissing anything that doesn't. Not very scientific, is it?

[starchaser]

here's al gore to convince you.

TzH_jlX55CE

folks - this is Jim Jones crapola. if you dont know who Jim Jones is , i suggest you read up on it.

[Haro]

John O'Mahony said Dublin had one of its driest years ever in 1887 when only 422mm (16.6 inches) of rain fell. "If that happened today people would be on the bandwagon saying global warming was here. But how many people were burning carbon fuels in 1887? The Wright Brothers hadn't even earned to fly at that time.

This is further even poor logic. For example let's say that statistically mathematicians are better at sudoku for physicists. By coincidence, the world champion of Sudoku is a physicist. This doesn't change the fact that there's still a big trend for maths geeks to do much better at it.

A lot of global warming is also what's meant to come, not what is here(though there are definitely signs of it). I don't know how the discussion suddenly jumped to that.

[Dorcha]

This is further even poor logic. For example let's say that statistically mathematicians are better at sudoku for physicists. By coincidence, the world champion of Sudoku is a physicist. This doesn't change the fact that there's still a big trend for maths geeks to do much better at it.

A lot of global warming is also what's meant to come, not what is here(though there are definitely signs of it). I don't know how the discussion suddenly jumped to that.

You picked on one of the pieces that I thought weakened Mr O'Mahony's argument, but I reproduced the entire article because I didn't want to be accused of selecting just what supported my cause. The fact that he also selects a quote from a Republician Senator is like asking the Devil to endorse you. So here I am with the Devil in my corner, even though I never asked him in.

On the whole, though, it is not what other people have said that has convinced him that Climate Change is not going to be as enormous as what some people say: it is recorded weather data, which anyone can check.