Is global warming an Environmental Concern?

How PR companies discredit environmentalists

John Stauber, co-author of "Toxic Sludge is Good for you" used the freedom of information act to uncover a motherload of info on how the $35 000 000 000 per yr propaganda industry operates.

This Industry has 150 000 paid practioners in the US alone{as of 1995}, they serve as spin-doctors, public-relations officers, to large transnational corporations. They even have a department that provides emergency response.
They advertise themselves as the ones who will help corporations with image problems, especially if they've got consumer activists, labour activists or eco-activists breathing down their necks.

These spin doctors have worked with Union Carbide during the Bhopal gas disaster, they worked with Exxon during the Exxon Valdez disaster. In the 70s they worked for the dictatorship in Argentina, and they worked for Ceausescu in Romania.
They worked for the US oil and chemical industry in their efforts to roll back the Clean Air Act in congress.

The spin-doctors profile activists, and advise corporations on how to divide and conquer environmental and social grass-roots activists.

According to the spin-doctors, activists fall into 4 categories--the radicals, the opportunists, the realists and the idealists.

The radicals are described as people who want to change the system. They have underlying socio-political motives, and see multinational corps as inherently evil. These people do not trust the federal, state and local governments to protect them and to safeguard the environment.
Their immediate aims are social justice and political empowerment..."the way to stop these people is to isolate them from the other activists".

The idealists also get involved in civic, justice and environmental issues, but they are very different, they want a perfect world, and find it easy to brand any product or practice which can be shown to mar that perfection as evil.
Because of their intrinsic altruism, however, because they have nothing perceptible to gain by holding their position, they're easily believed by both the media and the public.

But if the idealists can be shown that their position and their opposition to an industry or its products causes harm to others and cannot be ethically justified, they're forced to change their position.

The third category of people comprise what the spin-doctors call the realists, these are the people who can live with trade-offs, are willing to work within the system and aren't interested in radical change.
The realists should be given highest priority in any PR strategy dealing with the issue....the credibility of the radicals will then be lost or diminished.
This is because the realists will strike a deal, some kind of compromise favourable to industry, that will end up making the radicals, however rational and just their demands, look extreme.

The final group are those called the opportunists, they become involved with an issue for fame or glory or personal aggrandizement, and they of course are the easiest to deal with.
Radicals like Lois Gibbs can't be bought with money or thrown off track by disinformation. They can only be discredited.

From Apes to Superspecies, Suzuki and Dressel 1999.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am the president of the Argentinean Foundation for a Scientific Ecology (FAEC, Fundación Argentina de Ecología Científica), with a website in Spanish and English versiona (the spanis one is larger), but the English version contains enough material on several ecological issues. you can see it at: http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/ENGLISH.html (for the English version) and from there you can access every corner of the website, following the internal links. The main Spanish page is http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Articulos.html, but every environemtal issue has its own index page, as you will see if you go there.

We are not funded by governments, or institutions, or industries, or nobody with an axe to grind. We are presently three individuals in the foundation, because older members have passed away some years ago. In the About Us page you can find out who we are, and other active contributors, some of them respected scientists well known in the scientific community.

If you wonder how much money we need for making the foundation keep going and informung the public, this is the total monthly amount:

Internet connection (wide band, 24 hrs, air connection): $80.00 US dollars
Electricity: (one computer, monitor, accesories)------------- $3.00
Printer paper (seldom used) ------------------------------------ $3.00
Total: ---------------------------------------------------------------- $86.00

Snacks and coffe are gently provided by my patient and loving wife.

Why we do it? Because we feel there is an enormous amount of false science in the environmental field; we have the sufficient scientific knowledge in different fields of expertise that allow us to distinguish real science from fraudulent, wrong science, although David qualify us as "Cranks".

You could say that we are under the poverty line (by US or Australian standards), but we prefer to think that our ethical principles are above most people in richer countries. We are <b>skeptics above all</b>, maybe because we, with spaniard ancestors, have a tendency to anarchy and rebellion against authority. But this point should be discussed in a different thread.

Does ethics make you eat every day? <b>It helps a lot</b>. And it makes us sleep better, and have real good friends - and sometimes real bad enemies when we step on their toes, or <b>ruin some good business</b>. Sometimes we pay that dearly: Dr. Lerena de la Serna (one of our members) had his laboratory destroyed by eco-terrorists (he is an ethologist, Dr. Honoris Causa in the Max Planck Institute, the <b>first scientist in the world</b> that discovered the technique that allow tigers in captivity to breed and reproduce). He had all his animals killed (while making a study on behavior of geese), his 5 dogs killed, and his <b>kitten crucified</b> on the front door.

We think young minds are in danger with so much ultra-enviro misinformation, and follow Cardinal Thomas Wosley advise from the 1650s <b>"Be very, very careful with what you put into that mind -- because you will never take it out again".</b>

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

by David Mayes, in other thread:

As you can see, we have been dicussing with a nitwit, and we believed his "copy and paste jobs" of press releases on global warming were based on some knowledge of science.

Now we find it was the <b><font color=red>Revealed Thruth</font></b>. No more arguing. Bye bye global warming thread.

 

LOL, anyone who actually takes the time to critically investigate this issue{provided they're scientifically literate}, should base their conclusions on the UNDISPUTED aspects of the science, and that is the fact of the 25yr GLOBAL heating trend, the fact that climatology predicts that if you alter one of the internal climate mechanisms{atmospheric composition}, then the nature of it's alteration{backed by the empirical evidence of isotopic fingerprint} will increase the GLOBAL energy balance.

IOW, the UNDISPUTED evidence and UNDISPUTED Theory of GHG's are the focal point of truth on this matter....not the hilarious disputation of a crank, a crank who touts the work of paid junk scientists as being science....LOL.

Too funny E, you've outdone yourself....don't forget to wipe your bummy...LOL

 

I kind of cater to the opposite idea, that the increase in carbon dioxide and particulate pollutants are leading us quickly to ice age conditions. Though I disagree with the basic theory of Felix at this site, he has collected a bit of information, http://www.iceagenow.com/

Actually the theory that I find fits the facts best is the Hamaker hypothesis. You can see data on it at http://www.remineralize.org/

Thanks guys for an informative and lively discussion. Don't let the name calling get in the way, you're both right on many accords as well as wrong as far as I can tell.

 

u guys are all so blinded by those scientists paid to pump out false data charts and results and statements to keep the public in check. Its obvious that global warming is happening, im not sure if its ice age magnitude but it only takes 9 degrees global climate change. Dont forget that our magnetic poles will reverse in a few decades and during that time our "shields" from the radiation of the sun will be alot weaker, and the earth will warm up. Plus, alot of the cfc's leaking into the air are thinning out the ozone layer at a rapid rate, because it creates a chain reaction. Not only that but global warming trends some of u claim, along with the co2 ect ect.. oh, did you all know about bush spending 2 million to study the effects of cow farts on global warming? what a guy! oh and if you think "well there are more trees blah blah blah" bullshit!, and, we are rapidly killing sea life and we get 75% of the oxygen from the plant life in the water, so if David Mayes is right.. we got a serious problem on our hands...

 

Well, New Yorkers experiencing a cold winter like this might think we need more global warming, also the Ukraine would love global wamring.

To all people from Bangladesh I say do not worry, according to Paul Dixon the Tevatron will get you first before rising sealevels does.

 

Fortunately for all of us, <b>David Mayes is not right</b>, despite all his claims of being the owner of the WHOLE TRUTH, and the ambassador of GOD.

As you are quite new to sciforums, (7 posts) you might not have seen David speaking in other threads, provoking the rage of other less patient readers. You cannot take David seriously. His duty on Earth is to contradict everybody, show the rest of mortals they are stupid, ignorant, and useless morons. Of course, he will never provide any proof of his claims - people must take his words as the REVEALED TRUTH.

BTW, David is a patient in a mental institution in Adelaide, Australia, with a free connection to the internet as a recipe for keeping him busy, away from other interns.

 

Edufer speaks the truth!

 

I'm right until proven as incorrect...your hilarious disputations notwithstanding.

I've presented my side of the story by relying on the support of the most prestigious Scientific Academies decision to declare GW a scientific principle{2000}, and the 15yrs worth of mega-peer-review by the IPCC.

I live in Brisbane.

Btw EDUFER has never forgotten his fathers most pertinent advice, that of "Edufer, don't forget to wipe your bummy"...unfortunately he's forgotten to apply it in this thread, as he's smeared a bunch of shit all over the place.

I must take this opportunity to express my admiration for Edufers commitment to truth and his uncanny skills of influence....he's so skillful that he's managed to convince an incredible 2 other people to join his truth based organization.
Congrats Edufer, I wish was the beneficary of your life skills, science skills and zest/quest for truth.

 

I do not cater to GW for a few reasons. The amount of temperature increase being reported for general areas appears too small for the accuracy of the sampling methods to be significant. This will probably change and maybe already has though not to my knowledge because I have not kept up on it that well over the last decade or so. I do know that the most powerful storms, most extensive droughts, record heat and record cold for recorded history has ocurred in the very recent past. I do believe that us humans are rocking the boat. If the boat capsizes into the usual state of affairs for the planet's climate, it will be cold. Appears that the transition between interglacials and cold occurs with a net input of energy and once the precarious state of the interglacial is disturbed too much the cold comes on fast, very fast, in the order of a decade or less.

So, Edufer, I believe there is much emotional appeal to the belief that everything is okay, that the poor of this world can use the same avenues of growth and development as the wasteful and gluttonous affluent to achieve higher standards of living but I think that this approach is ignoring that the climate of Earth is precarious. I'm all for increasing people's standard of living, and us so called developed ivory tower pompous asses need to put all of our free time into helping the less fortunate achieve that without carbon dioxide releasing, with intelligence and resourcefulness.

I do not necessarily believe in global warning but I do believe there is strong reason to avoid burning fossil fuels, to stop destroying the biomass of the planet, take remedial steps to tie up more carbon dioxide through remineralization of soils and planting of trees. So I could not answer the poll question. I believe there is reason for concern but GW may be specious and ultimately resulting in GC, extreme GC. I would have been able to vote on it if it had stated "Is the increase of green house gases an environmental concern?"

 

One mentioned in this thread that if an ice age happens, it will be over in a hundred thousand years. If you look at the big picture, as Sir Frederich Hoyle attempted to graph in his book "Ice, The Ultimate Human Catastrophe" you can see that the swings between ice age conditions and interglacials have followed closely the parameters of a simple damped oscillation, such as a swing or a vibrating spring that eventually comes to rest. Not too long ago it was pretty well established that the earth has been in what has been termed the "white earth" concept. I first learned of this in Gleick's first popular book on chaos theory. Apparently computer models of the climate have this tricky common failing of literally freezing in a completely absorbing state where the earth is totally covered with ice and the modeling is no longer useful. Appears that the oscillation between ice ages and interglacials is a process that is coming to a rest, well within the conditions of a white earth, all land masses covered with ice and all surface water frozen over for, essentially, the rest of the planet's existence. In the terms of Gleick's theories, it is a strong strange attractor.

 

You have been <b><font color=red>already proven incorrect</font></b>. Your arguments are based on IPCC’s claims, its flawed “mega peer-review”, and the politically driven statements by very <b>FEW</b> scientific Academies in the world. All this can be summarized as the <b>CGWH</b> (or Catastrophic Global Warming Hypothesis), and this CGWH is based entirely on <B>COMPUTER MODELS</B>.

There is not a SINGLE computer model that has been recognized as a correct representation of the complex atmospheric machine that is climate. There is not a single model that when run backwards comes even near of the present climatic conditions.

What is running a model backwards? You feed a computerized model with all known parameters from previous ages (that is, what we know about temperatures in the Middle Ages or other eras, CO2 levels, rains, moisture, solar conditions, etc, and run then from say the year 1300 until 2003. If models were a good representation of the atmosphere and the climatic machine, then the model would render present climate and weather conditions. Consistently, models all over the world when run in this fashion gives between 4 to 8º C higher than the real world we live in.

This means that models predicting a warming of 2 to 6º C for the year 2100 are making that same mistake of <b><font color=red>overestimating, over-predicting, or PROPHEZISING</font></b> the weather and climate in 2100. Models are <b><font color=red>ALL WRONG</font></b>. There is not just <b>ONE</b> that can be taken seriously. And that’s the reason why the greens have devised the <b>Precautionary Principle</b>, because that way they can say <b><font color=red>whatever they please without having to explain anything</font></b>. With the nefarious precautionary principle, the <b>simple accusation</b> becomes the </b>final judgment</b> and the <b><font color=red>death sentence</font></b>, making a leap of faith over all proofs and evidences. Very convenient!

That is not the way real, sound science is conducted – that’s simply <b><font color=red>JUNK SCIENCE</font></b>, or <b><font color=red>POLITICIZED SCIENCE</font></b>.

Your famed peer-review process is <b>another piece of trash.</b> Do you know how many scientific articles are published every year in “peer-reviewed” journals? The figure is staggering, in the order of more than 800,000, and the amount of pure junk, rubbish, baloney, balderdash, etc, that escape the reviewer’s uncritical eyes, is almost as staggering.

Examples of this abound in the scientific literature, and I am not talking of just simple and pure fraud. I am talking of studies reviewed by <b><font color=red>“peers” that know nothing about what’s exposed in the articles.</font></b> There must be millions or reviewers working for scientific journals (and getting paid too, because they do not work for free), and a simple estimate will tell you <b><font color=red>they have not the time or the money, or the expertise to replicate the study under review.</font></b> And as sound science and real peer-review <b><font color=red>is based on replication</font></b>, most of your beloved peer-reviewed studies on climatic science is just useless trash.

And this is just not my humble opinion, but the opinion of the overwhelming majority of silent and judicious scientists all over the world. When you see a “scientist” calling for a press conference, you can bet your boots he’s a fraud. Most good and useful scientific studies go unnoticed by the mainstream media, and are known only by members of that special field of research, may it be medicine, electronics, astronomy, biology, physics, chemistry, mathematics, or whatever. Those studies are like new doors that open to new chambers in science. Scientists use those doors to make new discoveries. That’s science, that’s the way it is conducted: silently, humbly. Press conferences and press releases are for those “scientists” looking for recognition, fame and money. There are lots of them. Unfortunately.

 

Edufer for Godsakes wipe you BUMMY.

Forget about GCM's, and focus on the 25 yr heating trend and the accuracy of climatologies prediction of it as per changing the atmospheric composition.

You can never get past the weight of the BASIC UNDISPUTABLE FACTS.

WIPE YOU BUMMY

 

<p>Do you like trends, don't you David? then you should go to this little webiste called the <a href="http://www.co2science.org/temperatures/temps.htm"><b>World Temperatures Data Repository</b></a> where they have a nice tool for calculating temperature trends, according to four different datasets:

1) <a href="http://www.co2science.org/temperatures/msu.htm"><b>MSU Satellite Temperature Calculations</b></a> (NOAA's and GISS dataset),

2) Then we see <b><a href="http://www.co2science.org/temperatures/jones.htm">Jones et al. dataset</a></b>,

3) Then there is the <a href="http://www.co2science.org/temperatures/ghcn.htm"><b>Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) Temperature Calculations</b></a>,

4) And finally: <b><a href="http://www.co2science.org/temperatures/radiosonde.htm">Upper-Air Radiosonde (Balloon) Temperature Calculations</a></b>.

This is very interesting exercise on statistics, and I reccommend it to anyone interested in the subject of global warming and trends. In each website window, you'll see six (6) fields where you can choose your starting and ending date for the trend, and your geographical location (southern or northern hemisphere, or western or eastern hemisphere, or simply your city location if that's your wish.

I followed the instructions given for plotting the trends, and saw some <b><font color=red>emerging trends</font></b>. The trouble with you, David, is that you fall short of getting deeper into the subject. You have been demonstrating that since the beginning.

I played with Jones' trend, that are composed by reading from surface stations suffering from <b>“urban heat island effect”</b> and got nice upward trends for the period 1979–2002, a span needed for comparison with <b><font color=red>highly accurate radiosonde and satellite data</font></b>, ranging in the same period. I concentrated on the Southern Hemisphere, because, <b><font color=#ff0000>if the warming is “global”</font></b> the SH will warm along with NH, isn't it? See Jones' version of temperatures (try not to laugh). I got a trend from <b><font color=#c8896f size=4>0.05º C up to 0.35º C. It means an upward trend of 0.4 º C in 23 years.</font></b>

<img src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-6/jones1979.gif"width=500>
<p>
This forums does not allow us to post many graphics in one post, so I'll have to split this exercise in two or three posts. Just wait.

 

Then, I made a <b>whole world</b> (global) calculation from <b>MSU satellites readings.</b> For the <b><font color=red>same period 1979–2002</font></b> I got this graph, showing a <b><font color=red size=4>global trend of 0.2º C in 23 years</font></b>, consistent with Jones trends, from stations suffering from +4.0º C. Once corrected for this <b>heat island efffect</b>, both readings are in agreement. Not bad if we recall Earth is still coming out from the <b>Little Ice Age</b>. Remember I have never denied there was a Warming? <b><font color=#00cc80 size=4>I only said it was not catastrophic, and it was not human induced.</font></b> The trend <b>is quite within natural variation levels: <font color=red>from -0.1ºC to +0.2º C.</font></b>
<p>
<img src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-6/trendMSU.gif">
<p>
Then, I got the trend for the <b>Southern Hemisphere</b>, and <b><font color=red size=6>Wow!</font></b> Look what I got!:
<p>
<img src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-6/trendSud.gif">
<p>
<b><font color=red size=5>NO TREND!</font></b>
<p>
But I was curious, and went to radiosondes readings, making the same calculation, from 1979 – 2002:
<p>
<img src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-6/radio1979.gif">
<p>
<b><font color=red size=6>COOLING TREND!</font></b>
<p>
<b><b><font color=#039292 size=4>Thanks David, for bringing the trend issue into discussion</font></b></b>

 

A Warmer Arctic?

The four headlines shown below were typical of media reports on the severe Arctic chill which descended on the northeast of the USA last week.
In these headlines, the word 'Arctic' was used six times to describe the conditions faced. The fact this event occurred at all suggests `global warming' is either non-existent or much too feeble an effect to be concerned about on a global level. It is a non-problem.

<img src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-7/headlines.gif">

On this performance, there will be no 5.8°C warming as claimed by the IPCC in one of their dozens of fantasy 'storylines'. Even with CO2 doubling 100-150 years from now, the global temperature increase is unlikely to exceed even one degree, let alone six.

But these headlines tell us something else too -

How many times have we heard that the Arctic itself is warming? A combination of selective evidence and wishful thinking has resulted in some scientists and environmentalists talking themselves into believing that the Arctic really was warming.

Well, it was the 'warmer' Arctic air which hit back last week, so 'warm' that cold records were tumbling all across the northeast.

 

http://www.dieoff.com/page104.htm

Ecologists' Statement on the Consequences of Rapid Climatic Change -- May 20, 1997
CONTACT: Janet Basu, News Service (415) 723-7582; e-mail basu@stanford.edu
Ecologists warn President Clinton: Rapid climate change due to global warming could ruin ecosystems that society depends on Twenty-one of the nation's leading experts on ecological systems and climate, including four Stanford faculty members, sent a letter <<on Tuesday, May 20>> to President Clinton urging him to take a "prudent course" in upcoming global climate change negotiations. The scientists warn that the problem is not so much that the climate may get warmer over the next century, but that the changes could be so rapid that plants, animals and other species will be unable to adapt.

They warn that the resulting breakdown of ecosystems could lead to disturbances with major effects on human populations: fires, floods, droughts, storms, erosion and outbreaks of pests and pathogens, plus losses in fresh water, soil, forests, fisheries and other resources that human society depends on.

"The accompanying letter to President Clinton comes from a group of ecologists from around the country who have studied the potential impacts of global change on biotic systems. The signers include the leading international experts on many particular dimensions of this problem," said Harold Mooney, Stanford professor of biological sciences and the organizer of the effort. "As you will read in the letter, they all have deep concerns about the ecological consequences of rapid climatic change."

Among the signers are Mooney and Paul Ehrlich of Stanford, considered to be among the deans of international ecological research; Jane Lubchenco of Oregon State University, past president of the nation's premiere scientific society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science; the directors of major ecological research programs at the nation's top universities; and climate impact experts including Stephen H. Schneider of Stanford and David Schimel of the University Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. Seven are members of the National Academy of Sciences and five are past presidents of the Ecological Society of America

Signatories of Ecologists' Statement

Dr. Fakhri Bazzaz
H.H. Timken Professor of Science Biological Laboratories 16 Divinity Ave. Harvard University Cambridge, MA 02138
Dr. Janine Bloomfield
Environmental Defense Fund 257 Park Ave. S New York, NY 10010
Dr. F. S. Chapin, III
Department of Integrative Biology University of California Berkeley, CA 94720
Dr. James Clark
Department of Botany & Division of Earth Sciences and Quaternary Ecology and Earth Surface Transformations Duke University Durham, NC 27708
Dr. Margaret B. Davis*,#
Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior University of Minnesota 1987 Upper Buford Circle St. Paul, MN 55108
Dr. Paul Ehrlich*
Bing Professor of Population Studies and Professor of Biological Sciences Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305
Dr. Christopher Field
Department of Plant Biology Carnegie Institution of Washington 290 Panama Street Stanford, CA 94305
Dr. Jerry F. Franklin#
Professor of Ecosystem Analysis College of Forest Resources University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195
Dr. Diana Wall Freckman
Director and Professor Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Associate Dean, College of Natural Resources Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523
Dr. Gene Likens*,#
Director and President, Institute of Ecosystem Studies P.O. Box AB Millbrook, NY 12545
Dr. Jane Lubchenco*,#
Distinguished Professor and Wayne and Gladys Valley Professor of Marine Biology, Department of Zoology Oregon State University Corvallis, OR 97331-2914
Dr. Pamela A. Matson*
Soil Science Department Hilgard Hall, Room 108 University of California Berkeley, CA 94720
Dr. Harold Mooney*,#
Paul S. Achilles Professor of Environmental Biology Department of Biological Sciences Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305
Dr. Louis F. Pitelka,
Director Appalachian Environmental Laboratory Center for Environmental & Estuarine Studies Gunter Hall Frostburg, MD 21532
Dr. David S. Schimel
University Center for Atmospheric Research Climate System Modeling Program Boulder, CO 80307
William H. Schlesinger
James B. Duke Professor Department of Botany Duke University Durham, NC 27708-0340
Dr. Steve Schneider
Department of Biological Sciences Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305
Dr. Herman H. Shugart
W.W. Corcoran Professor and Director of the Global Environmental Change Program Department of Environmental Sciences University of Virginia Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dr. Boyd Strain
Professor of Botany Duke University Durham, NC 27708-0340
Dr. G. David Tilman
Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Director, Cedar Creek Natural History Area, University of Minnesota St. Paul, MN 55108
Dr. Peter Vitousek*
Clifford G. Morrison Professor in Population and Resource Studies Department of Biological Sciences Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305
*, Member, National Academy of Sciences #, Past President, Ecological Society of America