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

Monday, January 03, 2011

It's called global warming caused by man made pollution stupid

The crazy right wing and elements of the 9/11 truthers all think global warming is a hoax by Greenpeace to enslave the world under the green reigns of eco terrorism, once we remove them from the debate though, the Science that man made pollution is causing the planet to dangerously warm is as settled as the science behind evolution...

Biting winters driven by global warming: scientists
PARIS — Counter-intuitive but true, say scientists: a string of freezing European winters scattered over the last decade has been driven in large part by global warming.

The culprit, according to a new study, is the Arctic's receding surface ice, which at current rates of decline could to disappear entirely during summer months by century's end.

The mechanism uncovered triples the chances that future winters in Europe and north Asia will be similarly inclement, the study reports.

Bitingly cold weather wreaked havoc across Europe in the winter months of 2005-2006, dumping snow in southern Spain and plunging eastern Europe and Russia into an unusually -- and deadly -- deep freeze.

While the next UN report will be dramatically worse and the deniers are proven wrong again and again...

Experts claim 2006 climate report plagiarized

Poneke climate denial deserves contempt

Kiwiblog 6 - 7 metres: Yeah — I know.

La-la Land again: Jim Hopkins gets it wrong

A visitor from La-la Land: Garth George gets it wrong (again)

Egg/face interface for Hide and the climate cranks

Herald censures IPCC on flimsy grounds

Dominion Post editorial as shaky as Herald’s

Man made pollution is warming the planet dangerously towards a tipping point which could crash our collective civilization, of that there is zero doubt, yet a report put out by Greenpeace last week shows how one of the largest secret corporations in America, Koch Industries, is spending tens of millions on inaccurate and misleading information regarding climate change.

Koch Industries funded 20 organizations central to the global media echo chamber that was Climategate.

In 2007, Koch Industries funded an astrophysicist to write an article about polar bears which, masquerading as a piece of peer-reviewed literature, attempted to refute the threat to the species due to climate change.

Koch Industries also funded a Danish think tank which produced a “dubious study about the Danish wind industry”, rejected by the Danish environment minister, which was then used to challenge President Obama’s support of wind power while funding groups which supported a “widely debunked study” which claimed that Spain’s support of renewable energy had lost the country jobs.

Oh and Koch Industries have also paid out huge amounts to other hard right climate denial think tanks like the Mercatus Center, Americans For Prosperity, The Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute.

Let's add this to what we already know about big oil sponsored climate denial...

Frank Luntz Memorandum to the Bush White House, 2002, on how to shut down the global warming debate?

Winning the Global Warming Debate – An Overview

1: The scientific debate remains open: Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.

Right, so in the same way the Tobacco companies attacked consensus of a link between smoking and cancer, big oil and big polluters are using similar smear tactics to question the science behind the evidence that man made pollution is causing the climate to rapidly change.

And let’s not forget who is backing much of this smear campaign…

Climate Change Skeptics
The world’s largest-ever gathering of global warming skeptics will assemble Sunday in New York City to confront the issue, “Global warming: Was it ever really a crisis?” About 800 scientists, economists, legislators, policy activists, and media representatives are expected to register at the second International Conference on Climate Change, opening Sunday, March 8 and concluding Tuesday, March 10 at the New York Marriott Marquis Hotel.

Hmmm, and I wonder who is organizing this climate change sKeptics picnic in wunderland? The Heartland Institute? Ummmm, aren’t they the very same Heartland Institute who until 2006 were receiving money from Exxon Mobile and who also is behind the Tobacco Industries ludicrous position that Tobacco isn’t scientifically proven to cause cancer and as such there shouldn’t be taxes on cigarettes?

Shouldn’t we at least be honest that much of the climate sKeptic agenda is actually funded by big oil?

Between 1998 and 2005: ExxonMobil Grants $16 Million to Global Warming Skeptic Organizations
ExxonMobil disperses roughly $16 million to organizations that are challenging the scientific consensus view that greenhouse gases are causing global warming. For many of the organizations, ExxonMobil is their single largest corporate donor, often providing more than 10 percent of their annual budgets. A study by the Union of Concerned Scientists will find that “[v]irtually all of them publish and publicize the work of a nearly identical group of spokespeople, including scientists who misrepresent peer-reviewed climate findings and confuse the public’s understanding of global warming. Most of these organizations also include these same individuals as board members or scientific advisers.” After the Bush administration withdraws from the Kyoto Protocol, the oil company steps up its support for these organizations. Some of the ExxonMobil-funded groups tell the New York Times that the increase is a response to the rising level of public interest in the issue. “Firefighters’ budgets go up when fires go up,” explains Fred L. Smith, head of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Explaining ExxonMobil’s support for these organizations, company spokesman Tom Cirigliano says: “We want to support organizations that are trying to broaden the debate on an issue that is so important to all of us. There is this whole issue that no one should question the science of global climate change. That is ludicrous. That’s the kind of dark-ages thinking that gets you in a lot of trouble.”

The following is a list of some of the organizations funded by ExxonMobil:
American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
- AEI receives $1,625,000 from ExxonMobil between and 1998 and 2005. During this period, it plays host to a number of climate contrarians.
American Legislative Exchange Council - In 2005, ExxonMobil grants $241,500 to this organization. Its website features a non-peer-reviewed paper by climate contrarian Patrick Michaels.
Center for Science and Public Policy - Started at the beginning of 2003, this one-man operation receives $232,000 from ExxonMobil. The organization helps bring scientists to Capitol Hill to testify on global warming and the health effects of mercury.
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow - Between 2004 and 2005, this organization receives $215,000 from ExxonMobil. Its advisory panel includes Sallie Baliunas, Robert Balling, Roger Bate, Sherwood Idso, Patrick Michaels, and Frederick Seitz, all of whom are affiliated with other ExxonMobil-funded organizations.
Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) - Founded in 1984 to fight government regulation on business, CEI started receiving large grants from ExxonMobil after Myron Ebell moved there from Frontiers of Freedom in 1999. CEI, along with another ExxonMobil-supported enterprise, the Cooler Heads Coalition, runs the website GlobalWarming.Org, which is part of an effort to “dispel the myths of global warming by exposing flawed economic, scientific, and risk analysis.” Between 2000 and 2003, the CEI receives $1,380,000, or 16 percent of the total funds donated by Exxon during that period.
Frontiers of Freedom - The organization receives $230,000 from Exxon in 2002 and $40,000 in 2001. It has an annual budge of about $700,000.
George C. Marshall Institute - The institute is known primarily for its work advocating a “Star Wars” missile defense program. Between 1998 and 2005, Exxon-Mobil grants $630,000 to the Marshall Institute primarily to underwrite the institute’s climate change effort. William O’Keefe, the organization’s CEO, once worked as the executive vice president and chief operating officer of the American Petroleum Institute. He has also served on the board of directors of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, another global warming skeptic organization, and is chairman emeritus of the Global Climate Coalition.
Heartland Institute - In 2005, this organization receives $119,000 from ExxonMobil. Its website offers articles by the same scientists promoted by other ExxonMobil-funded global warming skeptic organizations.
Tech Central Station - TCS is a web-based organization that provides news, commentary, and analysis focusing on the societal tensions and strains that are concomitant with historical change. TCS proclaims itself as a strong believer of the “material power of free markets, open societies, and individual human ingenuity to raise living standards and improve lives.” Until 2006, the website is operated by a public relations firm called the DCI Group, which is a registered ExxonMobil lobbying firm. In 2003 TCS receives $95,000 from ExxonMobil to be used for “climate change support.” TCS contributors on the global warming issue include the same group of people that is promoted by several of the other ExxonMobil-funded global warming skeptic organizations. In 2006, TCS will pay the public relations firm Medialink Worldwide to produce a video news release that challenges the view that global warming has increased the intensity of hurricanes. The piece is later shown on a Mississippi television station and presented as a regular news report.

I personally love the story about the Public Interest Watch from 2002 – this was a front group funded by Exxon-Mobile which attacked Greenpeace by suggesting that Greenpeace were avoiding tax – amazingly Greenpeace was audited because of this one claim by an Exxon-Mobil front group.

So when climate deniers attack the science linking climate change to man made pollution in the exact same way the tobacco industry attacked the science linking cancer to smoking, perhaps we should consider that the majority of this spin is funded by corporates who would suffer most from any anti pollution tax.

And what is the response in NZ? We have Solid Energy trying to quietly slip through that they want to produce the dirtiest, filthiest most-polluting form of coal into liquid fuels.

Our future is more extreme weather events, not less, the global poor who will bare the brute force of those extreme events are the ones who have contributed least to the pollution that has driven global warming.


At 3/1/11 9:03 am, Blogger Edward said...

You may like to look at the work by Piers Corbyn. A large contingent of people are now terming it climate change rather than global warming - and the extended argument involves extra-planetary influences affecting the earth - the only possible scenario if you have a holistic concept of existence -rather than gaiacentric. To consider this amount of change to be solely the work of humans is a big stretch...

Eddie k

At 4/1/11 2:56 am, Blogger Chris Prudence said...

...the Science that man made pollution is causing the planet to dangerously warm is as settled as the science behind evolution...

Another firm prediction is that, half a century from now, the world will be warmer than today-though by how much is uncertain...Shifts in weather patterns and especially in rainfall impact most grievously on those least able to adapt (in time) and on countries that have themselves contributed only minimally to global CO2 emissions.The prospects seem especially gloomy in Africa, where there will be a billion more people by mid-century than there are today and the birth rate remains high.Climate change only serves to aggravate the challenge of feeding this growing population!

At 4/1/11 3:53 pm, Blogger Chris Prudence said...

A large contingent of people are now terming it climate change rather than global warming - and the extended argument involves extra-planetary influences affecting the earth -Our Sun formed 4.5 billion years ago, but its got 6 billion more before the fuel runs out.It will then flare up, engulfing the inner planets and vapourising whatever remains on earth, i.e those least able to adapt.Any 'creatures' witnessing the Sun's demise 6 billion years hence, here on Earth or far beyond, won't be human as Charles Darwin himself recognised.

Life on this planet could inhabit the entire solar system and galaxies of the universe far beyond in a similar sort of timeframe for human evolution on Earth.Post human evolution.Extending billions of years into the past and the future, the present century may be a defining moment.Collective human actions are ravaging the biosphere and threatening biodiversity.There have been 5 great extinctions in the geological past.Humans are now causing a sixth.The extinction rate is a thousand times higher than normal and is increasing.But for many of us , these instrumental and anthropocentric arguments aren't the only compelling ones.Preserving the richness of our planet has value in its own right over and above what it means to us humans.Its the first time in our planets history where one species-ours-has Earth's future in its hands, and could not only jeopardise itself but foreclose life's immense potential.

At 4/1/11 8:56 pm, Blogger Chris Prudence said...

The main goal of a liberal education accordingly is personal autonomy, or the individual who chooses.But the context for HOMO-ECONOMICUS (all human behaviour is only understood in terms of self-interest and that we are therefore rational utility maximisers) or the theoretical and methodological function of the concept of autonomy is one of property rights, government stategies of laissez-faire, and arguments like Mills harm principle for a minimal state and for support for policies of low taxation.So, while autonomy is supposed to be the basis of freedom, it is also the basis for the competitive market order.Autonomy in its truest sense requires that individuals basic needs be fulfilled, including the provision of food, shelter, clothing and something else that only exists outside the individual: affection and self-esteem.Clearly that would see our support for personal autonomy as the goal for a liberal education as excluding support for a welfare state!


It is what many people-the disabled, the mentally impaired or intellectually handicapped, the sick, the elderly (still creaming big rises on a non means tested pension the most generous in the developed world for sky T.V for the rugby and a bottle of sherry for the wife) cannot aspire to on their own.

To make it the foundation value of a new republic or constitution or four yearly parliamentary cycle also potentially exonerates Maori as a group with more rights than many like their own parliamentary seats for example or places at university over and above the ordinary rights of citizenship of the majority and the state from responsibility to assist only their own "our people" when in need and whom they expect all to be capable of by themselves.

The concept of freedom which is different to autonomy is all that is required as far as John Stuart Mills 'harm principle' is concerned.For Foucault however while rights are important , there are no rights before society and it can be argued that the very use of this concept assumes a greater degree of self-reliance which is illusory while the treaty remains as the very concept itself does not embody the self-reliant and individualistic conception of a person that has been the hallmark of western liberalism.Mill's presumption that some actions of individuals are self-regarding and therefore of no concern to other people or society fits in with Maori's concept of sovereignty as if individuals operated in some sort of vacuum or nature reserve like the Ureweras for Tuhoe in an exclusively private domain.


Post a Comment

<< Home