Climate Change

[voidisyinyang]

5 hours ago, Stosh said:

If burning was good for the soils, you wouldn't have to keep doing the slashing. I think it just liberates potash, but the organics are blowing away on smoke. I have to check on that.

 

  But I totally !  agree that the systems are tremendously complex, and is generally beyond the simplicity a computer can crunch. 

 

I found this burnt soil.pdf on the properties of burnt soil, note, that the bio-assessment was done on shade intolerant trees and plants , not the type of trees which compose the mature forest . Also , there was a decrease in water retention , and the soil was made harder.

There were lasting effects to soil , and any increase in nutrient was sourced in the tree canopy burnt. ( When they stripped plots , there was no appreciable change in the soil structure or content.) 

 

So fires do not create nutrients , they 'liberate' them from the existing trees and plants, that fragile skin of life drifts away as windblown ash , and the character of the forest shifts from old growth shade tolerant trees, to shade intolerant trees and plants ( or crops) .

The water begins to wash off the surface of the land ,creating additional local erosion issues. 

The low intensity burns were not as destructive to the soil but they still change the character of the forest, and soils. 

Therefore , the burning in these forests is not regenerative of the old growth forest that burned, it destroys that magnificent multi-tier complex canopy and web of living creatures , replacing it with a temporary cover of shade intolerant weeds, or farm.

 

 

yes Biochar - the charcoal STORES the nutrients.

That's why in the Amazon it's called "terra preta" or living soil.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060301090431.htm

Quote

Because terra preta is loaded with so-called bio-char -- similar to charcoal -- it also can pull substantial amounts of carbon out of the increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere, helping to prevent global warming.

 

[Stosh]

2 minutes ago, voidisyinyang said:

yes Biochar - the charcoal STORES the nutrients.

That's why in the Amazon it's called "terra preta" or living soil.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060301090431.htm

 

Brilliant! your solution to destruction of the rainforest , is,, is ,, to burn the rainforest !

[voidisyinyang]

13 minutes ago, Stosh said:

Brilliant! your solution to destruction of the rainforest , is,, is ,, to burn the rainforest !

As I already quoted - it was just the low level canopy that was cleared - while the big trees were not burned.

But today it's the WHOLE forest that is burned for monocultural farming.

Do you see the difference?

 

Notice how there's no "canopy" left?

 

OK think of the fire in terms of alchemy as permaculture -

 

You want to put the fire down into the Earth but not in the heaven - you store the fire down below to harmonize heaven and earth.

This was described by the Amazonians in the "Fire of the Jaguar" mythology.

Quote

A posthumous tribute to Turner’s theoretical erudition, ethnographic rigor, and respect for Amazonian indigenous lifeworlds, this book brings this fascinating Kayapo myth alive for new generations of anthropologists.

https://haubooks.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/978-0-9973675-4-6-text.pdf

just word search that pdf for fire

So it's on pages 60-1.

Fire as permaculture alchemy.

 

 

Edited March 7, 2019 by voidisyinyang

[Stosh]

26 minutes ago, voidisyinyang said:

As I already quoted - it was just the low level canopy that was cleared - while the big trees were not burned.

But today it's the WHOLE forest that is burned for monocultural farming.

Do you see the difference?

 

Notice how there's no "canopy" left?

 

Yes I truly do see a difference , and would agree that this is destruction of the rainforest.

I hope you come over to us reasonable folks ,who do not believe the anthropogenic nature of global climate change, before you burn the place to the ground, and instead ,wish to halt the destruction of our natural world, in accord with spiritual a understanding of what is going on.  

The atoms and molecules are not the life , not the 'way'. They are those things which manifest ,life , they do not store meaning or value. What has value , is the ineffable magical dance and sparkling interplay of life.

The fragile networks of fungal hyphae , loves and triumphs and all those mystical things which leave no trace.  

Creatures such as us , down to even worms and algae , are just transient assemblages and vortices , passing through the inorganic molecules which carry our essence , for a time ,and then blink back to the primordial source. ( and its not biochar)

Edited March 7, 2019 by Stosh

[voidisyinyang]

24 minutes ago, Stosh said:

The fragile networks of fungal hyphae , loves and triumphs and all those mystical things which leave no trace.  

 

Quote

Thanks to fungi there's twice as much carbon locked in the ground as in the atmosphere. One square meter of healthy soil can contain 12,000 miles of tangled fungi filament.

yes mushrooms and mycelium communicate via biophotons - and so these biophoton messages then feed off dead trees and then send the nitrogen to living trees.

So this "nitrogen cycle" is the key for trees to grow in the forest.

Unfortunately Western civilization that has spread around the world in the last 500 years is even destroying the mushrooms!!

Quote

"So climate change is really disrupting these communities and their ability to cycle carbon and their ability to store carbon potentially," Bhatnagar says. "That's an area we're trying to understand more."

So you seem to underestimate the "shock" of the error of Western logic based on "materialistic idealism"

No - it's not

Quote

passing through the inorganic molecules which carry our essence

This is a wrong view.

You don't have any evidence to back this up at all.

Instead that's a reductionist view of reality.

 

 

 

Quote

 

When we burn fossil fuels, we pollute the air with nitrogen, which rains down on forests and acts like fertilizer upsetting the mycorrhizal fungi's ability to store carbon. The CO2 that's emitted from the fuels also creates a greenhouse effect; the atmosphere and soil heat up.

"When it's warmer," Templer says, "we see faster rates of decomposition of all those branches, roots, leaves, frogs, birds, whatever — anything that was alive that's on the forest floor — and an increase in how much carbon dioxide is leaving the soils, no longer being stored there, boom, going back into the atmosphere."

 

 

https://www.wbur.org/news/2018/09/18/mushrooms-fungi-climate

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

the amount of carbon stored by fungi in forest soil would be reduced by 20 percent, further accelerating the climate change feedback loop and increasing the possibility of runaway global warming.

Again, mushroom expert Price: "We live on a very delicately balanced planet. We're really fragile, we're much more fragile than we think we are."

 

 

 

So for example - studies of "alien life" - show that life could not be based on silicon for example - or right-handed crystals.

Life on  Earth is due to the left-handed weak force of the Universe.

So protein and amino acids are left-handed and enzymes are right-handed.

But when humans became right-hand dominant with technology as left-brain dominance - we developed the logical lie that infinity could be contained as a materialistic geometry - rectilinear.

So Ecology as Nature is right brain dominant with left-handed amino acids.

Modern humans are left-brain dominant with right-hand technology.

That's the cause of the ecological crisis.

 

So I met Dr. Vandana Shiva twice - she did her Ph.D. on quantum non-local philosophy.

She emphasizes how the nitrogen cycle is all messed up from what she calls "Monocultures of the Mind" - the Western materialistic idealism based on patriarchy.

 

Edited March 7, 2019 by voidisyinyang

[Stosh]

 No , that's wrong again, enzymes can be either ' handed' in form. 

 

 

Much as in M. C. Escher's famous lithograph, novel RNA enzymes can assemble mirror image versions of themselves.

 OLAF JAINZ/AGE FOTOSTOCK/SUPERSTOCK

Mirror image RNA enzymes may hold clues to origin of life

By Robert F. ServiceOct. 30, 2014 , 3:00 PM

Like a pair of hands that appear as mirror images of one another, biomolecules, such as DNA and RNA, come in left-handed and right-handed forms. Normally, enzymes that recognize one mirror image form won’t touch the other. But researchers have isolated RNA enzymes, known as ribozymes, that synthesize RNAs of the opposite handedness. As esoteric as this may sound, similar mirror image–making RNAs may have played a role in the early evolution of life.

 

 

"This is a wrong view.

You don't have any evidence to back this up at all.

Instead that's a reductionist view of reality."

 

Well , it is the spiritual view , its not an issue to which evidence is available, so you are correct , I may have no evidence you would accept. It doesn't really mean that the world itself is simpler than it is , and I am not sure that the view I expressed ,is typical of all reductionists. However , as a means of understanding what being spiritual is , of understanding what Lao and Chuang were trying to pass on ,, then I think its on -the money,  whether provable in a materialist manner, or not. 

 

 

[Stosh]

It is a common thread , to suggest that the real aspect of our lives is the one in our head.

Even in western philosophy 'I think, therefore I am' is fundamental. 
With no ear to hear it , a melody is not music , it is compression waves ,

and light without eyes to see , it is electromagnetic waves. 
While a mind has a brain associated with it , the mind is not simply unoccupied matter ,

there is a life in there , or at least some sort of witness which apprehends the world through its interactions. 
If one replaces the atoms of ones bones with 'outsourced  inorganic' atoms of the same types ,

one simply has bones identical to the ones it had , and so,

the living body of a person is essentially the same as inorganic
materials aggregated in a particular style.
Therefore the aspect of the person which could have meaning , as we mean it ,

would have to be the transient assemblage , not the raw materials

( because the raw materials are not unique ,and are not aware ).  

People are born , live, grow and change , eventually we meet an end- (to the extent that we are recognizable and know of ourselves as discrete.)

However, the cascade progressing from that which we did , what we felt , and
thought , ripples through time onward.

Same as we were born, a ripple from events that have passed leading forward. 
Identity , meaning , value and discreteness, are immaterial aspects of the Universe,

but those are the things that say 'I think things , therefore I am'

and so the material world is the unchanging ,mute ,soup we ripple
through. 

That rain forest is a web of living things , just a thin smear on the face of the globe , 
yet within, is the very existence of meaning , that which has it,
 that which is aware, and incomprehensibly complex. We know beauty and
therefore create the beauty of that which is beautiful. 
Likewise, the forest has its own meaning , and importance,
 we just need to understand that this is the basis of spirituality. 
To see and recognize and uphold , the beauty and importance of ourselves 
and things like forests or mountains. 
That Native American paying respects to the deer he killed,
 or Hawaiian venerating a mountain , these guys,

are demonstrating a true spirituality , that we forgot . 

[windwalker]

"Greenpeace co-founder and former president of Greenpeace Canada Patrick Moore explained how the burning of fossil fuels saved life on Earth “from an early demise” by returning carbon dioxide to the atmosphere previously trapped in sediments."

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/03/07/greenpeace-founder-fossil-fuel-use-saved-life-earth-early-demise/

 

Interesting take in light of some of the claims made here. 

 

 

Edited March 7, 2019 by windwalker

[windwalker]

different view of fossil fuels

 

 

Edited March 7, 2019 by windwalker

[voidisyinyang]

30 minutes ago, windwalker said:

"Greenpeace co-founder and former president of Greenpeace Canada Patrick Moore explained how the burning of fossil fuels saved life on Earth “from an early demise” by returning carbon dioxide to the atmosphere previously trapped in sediments."

 

Yeah I also worked for Greenpeace and I also studied for a certificate in conservation biology and sustainable development at the School for Field Studies in Costa Rica - as part of a B.A. degree in International Relations with an environmental option. I also did a Master's degree in sustainability studies.

 

So I'm more qualified than Patrick Moore. I'm not famous because I did not BROWN NOSE to the nuclear industry. haha.

People love a "turn coat." - who cares? It's just political pandering.

It's not "science."

Quote

 

in 1986 he abruptly turned his back on the very issues he once passionately defended. He claims he “saw the light” but what Moore really saw was an opportunity for financial gain. Since then he has gone from defender of the planet to a paid representative of corporate polluters.

Patrick Moore promotes such anti-environmental positions as clearcut logging, nuclear power, farmed salmon, PVC (vinyl) production, genetically engineered crops, and mining. Clients for his consulting services are a veritable Who’s Who of companies that Greenpeace has exposed for environmental misdeeds, including Monsanto, Weyerhaeuser, and BHP Minerals.

 

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/greenpeace-statement-on-patric/

So Patrick Moore is a corporate junk science Brown Noser - they're a dime a dozen.

Only he gets to say he was a "co-founder" of Greenpeace! Ka-Ching!! That's a great "selling" point. haha.

 

[windwalker]

8 minutes ago, voidisyinyang said:

So Patrick Moore is a corporate junk science Brown Noser - they're a dime a dozen.

Only he gets to say he was a "co-founder" of Greenpeace! Ka-Ching!! That's a great "selling" point. haha.

 

I see,

 

He is junk science but you are not,

and just happen to post here on this site?

 

Is TDB lucky or what?

 

 

Rather then shoot the messenger why not speak to the message.

 

Edited March 7, 2019 by windwalker

[voidisyinyang]

23 minutes ago, windwalker said:

different view of fossil fuels

 

 

 

Quote

 

 

Babies Are Dying in Nigeria After Delta Oil Spills - Global Citizen

 

https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/nigeria-infant-mortality-pollution-oil-spills/

 

Nov 6, 2017 - In Nigeria, crude oil production has long been linked to air, water, and ... illegal refiners harvest fossil fuels from the oil rich Niger Delta region.

 

Too bad oil production doesn't clean its water at the source of production.

The over all effect of Western civilization is a global water crisis. The oceans are filled with oil-based plastic pollution and CO2 emissions are acidifying the oceans - killing off the life. I documented this back in 2000 that a fresh water crisis is now in the works.

Water Crisis sucks us into global revolution:

April, 2000 MN Daily staff op-ed, drew hempel

 

The Great Lakes will be at record lows because of lack of snow that feeds 40 percent of their annual water supply. This disturbing situation has been attributed to global warming, and according to the United Nations, the influence of major transnational corporations extends over about 50 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions. What's received less attention is that large corporations are also attempting to raid the Great Lakes. One government agency already gave permission for 600 million liters of Great Lakes water to be filled into tankers and sent to Asia over the next five years. A temporary moratorium was achieved, but the move to conserve water will be brought to the World Trade Organization as a violation of the supposed rights of corporate rule.

 

Through Reaganite corporate-state subsidies, California ironically has become the new dairy state at the expense of rural Wisconsin family livelihood -- including their future ability to drink water. California recently attempted to pipe water from Wisconsin. According to the Worldwatch Institute, agriculture accounts for two-thirds of all irrigated fresh water use while industrial production in general accounts for 50 to 80 percent of fresh water demand. But it's not just corporate-state water use in California; it's also the corporate pollution of water. Silicon "computer" Valley has more Superfund sites -- most of them affecting groundwater -- than any other area its size in the country. And 60 percent of the United States' liquid hazardous wastes -- 34 billion liters of solvents, heavy metals and radioactive materials -- is directly injected into the ground, the main source for fresh water.

 

In 1996, the journal Science reported that the global supply of fresh water will be used up in 30 years at current usage rates. According to the Stanford researchers who authored the study, there is no "hidden water," and current foreseeable technologies, like desalinization, were factored into their findings. But greed-driven corporations are tapping into that grim projection to maximize profits for their own pea-brained drive to extinction. In just a few short years, through more than 130 acquisitions, American Toxic Control has been transformed into U.S. Filter Inc., with $5 billion in annual revenues, making it 10 times the size of its nearest competitor.

 

As controller at U.S. Filter, Richard Heckmann states, "How could it be that there is no Intel, I.B.M., General Motors or Toys 'R' Us in the water business?" he asked. "You can live without all those things. Five days without water, you're dead." Apparently Dan Quayle agrees since he sits on the U.S. Filter Inc. board, joined by the Bass brother finance speculators who threw in a cool, refreshing $250 million. The time is right to create a giant corporation that transforms the public right to water into a scarce luxury item for those privy to the secret magic of money. Based on a 1998 water study by Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, "To avoid catastrophe ... it is important to act now."

 

Our clear answer to the water crisis, according to the scientific researchers, can be summed up in one word: conservation.

Secret global corporate rule, though, blocks environmental issues, labeling them barriers to corporate WTO trade. U.S. corporate-state rule has been consistent in its priorities ever since the founding aristocrats, like John Jay, planned to keep the rich in power against the threat of democracy. George Kennan, as head of the State Department, authored a top-secret document that reflects these elite goals on a global scale: "We have about 50 percent of the world's wealth, but only 6.3 percent of its population ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity ... We should cease to talk about vague and -- for the Far East -- unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards and democratization ... The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better." Similarly, now declassified U.S. National Security Council documents clearly outline policies to support destructive regimes in order to maintain wealth for the corporate-state elite. In fact, after World War II, the U.S. corporate-state elite attacked democracy movements worldwide and reinstated fascist regimes, brutally promoting power to a few.

 

There's an interesting hidden history to undemocratic, destructive corporate rule. Did colonists plead for a more "socially responsible" king? The colonists demanded their inalienable, natural right to sovereignty. The king, though, was the only sovereign of the land and the king was also the only source of corporate charters. Most of the 13 colonies were actually crown charters (i.e. the Massachusetts Bay Trading Company). The list of grievances attached to the Declaration of Independence stemmed from the corporate rule of the king.

 

After democracy was achieved, corporate charters were deliberately put into the hands of the state legislatures, were issued for only special purposes and had extremely limited powers. Corporate charters were routinely revoked and the corporate assets reinvested by the public. President Lincoln warned, though, shortly after the Civil War, that the growing threat of corporate rule was worse than the war and would, unless stopped, destroy the republic. Just as he predicted in 1886, a bought-out robber-baron judge declared that corporations are protected by the Bill of Rights and have legal "personhood" -- thus subverting our democracy. That same year 230 state laws controlling corporations were overturned in district courts. Between 1890 and 1910, 307 cases went to the Supreme Court based on the anti-slavery 14th Amendment. But only 19 cases were from African-Americans, while 288 were corporations seeking their new constitutional personhood "right to due process."

 

The Bill of Rights ironically continues to be the main vehicle for destructive undemocratic corporate rule. Most state constitutions still require the attorney general to revoke the charter of any corporation that continuously violates the public good. With the knowledge of this hidden history exposed, in the last few years the public has rescinded two corporate charters. The global sovereignty movement grows increasingly thirsty for democratic revolution. The future of water depends on declaring independence from corporate rule.

Drew Hempel's column appears on alternate Thursdays. He welcomes comments at [email protected]. Send letters to [email protected]

 

[voidisyinyang]

3 minutes ago, windwalker said:

 

I see,

 

He is junk science but you are not,

and just happen to post here on this site?

 

Is TDB lucky or what?

 

 

Rather then shoot the messenger why not speak to the message.

 

 

Patrick Moore (environmentalist) - Wikipedia

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist)

Patrick Albert Moore (born 1947) is a Canadian businessman, nuclear energy advocate, ... scare tactics and disinformation, saying that the environmental movement "abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism".

[voidisyinyang]

47 minutes ago, windwalker said:

"Greenpeace co-founder and former president of Greenpeace Canada Patrick Moore

 

Quote

Patrick Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated this characterization. Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace.” [49] , [4]

DEBUNKED

 

[windwalker]

7 minutes ago, voidisyinyang said:

 

Patrick Moore (environmentalist) - Wikipedia

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist)

Patrick Albert Moore (born 1947) is a Canadian businessman, nuclear energy advocate, ... scare tactics and disinformation, saying that the environmental movement "abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism".

 

 

Did think so,   cut and past is nice

when you learn how to speak in your own words 

might be worth reading.....

 

Its just amusing now...hope you don't stop but would't

addvise quitting  the day job..

 

mmm, you do have a day job right?

Edited March 7, 2019 by windwalker

[windwalker]

1 minute ago, voidisyinyang said:

DEBUNKED

 

 

 

yep, I'm sure he is....

 

still not much to say about the data or what was 

said....instead its discredit the source.

 

Alinsky would be proud 

 

rule 5 "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.

[voidisyinyang]

5 hours ago, Stosh said:

 No , that's wrong again, enzymes can be either ' handed' in form. 

 

Much as in M. C. Escher's famous lithograph, novel RNA enzymes can assemble mirror image versions of themselves.

 OLAF JAINZ/AGE FOTOSTOCK/SUPERSTOCK

Mirror image RNA enzymes may hold clues to origin of life

By Robert F. ServiceOct. 30, 2014 , 3:00 PM

 

 

 

They can be "engineered" but that's not evolution.

Quote

 

They went so far as to show the mirror image can copy itself,” Chaput said. “That gets very close to replication.” The next step will be to make that happen iteratively. “If you look in the mirror, make a copy, then put yourself in the mirror, and make a copy of the person in the mirror, then you have replication,” Chaput said.

That iterative process opens the possibility for evolution, as mistakes made during copying will allow the molecule to evolve new traits. “The real key to all of it has been setting up a system in the lab capable of evolution on its own,” Unrau said. “Jerry is close.”

 

Close to engineering some make-believe model of what did not happen?

Quote

Jack Szostak, a biochemist at Harvard University and one of Joyce’s collaborators, is excited by the findings, particularly because the ribozyme is so much more flexible than earlier versions. But, he said, “I am skeptical that life began in this way.” Szostak argues that this scenario would require both left-handed and right-handed RNA enzymes to have emerged at the same time and in the same place, which would be highly unlikely.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/chiral-key-found-to-origin-of-life-20141126/

Maybe it happened - but not likely - and if it DID happen - that's not how life evolved till now.

So yeah - pretend life evolution could have been completely different - although remotely possible - and PRESTO - no problem!

 

[voidisyinyang]

10 minutes ago, windwalker said:

 

 

yep, I'm sure he is....

 

still not much to say about the data or what was 

said....instead its discredit the source.

 

Alinsky would be proud 

 

rule 5 "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.

conflict of interests are basic to science - it's required to release conflicts of interest.

He is lying about his past to give him political credibility.

So his science is based on corporate junk science because that's who funds his research.

Corporate Junk science is DE FACTO rejected due to its inherent conflict of interest. It's a structural issue.

So yes the content does not have to be considered.

REJECTED.

DENIED.

FAKE SCIENCE.

Climate science denialist Patrick Moore is all about “consensus building.” We know this because it says so on his biography at the think tank Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
 
And so, fresh from delivering a coal-funded talk in Brussels where he told the audience to “celebrate CO2”, the Canadian has been out doing a bit of that “consensus building” in his own unique way.
 
In recent days, Moore has accused respected climate scientist Ken Caldeira of “fakery”, called him a “jerk” and then told a fellow nuclear power advocate to “GFY”.
 
The nuclear advocate in question was Australian energy and climate consultant Ben Heard, who had engaged Moore on social media. He’s written a blog about the exchange.
 
British environmentalist and author Mark Lynas, who is also pro-nuclear energy, weighed in too, describing Moore as “just a predictable right-wing anti-green contrarian”.
 
When DeSmog UK gave Moore the chance to respond to a story showing he had been paid by coal lobbyists to deliver a talk, his response was “bugger off”.

Who is Patrick Moore?

For those that don’t know, Patrick Moore is often described as a former senior member of Greenpeace, even though he left that organisation 30 years ago.
 
Since then, he has spent his time being an advocate for nuclear power, GM crops, forestry and, apparently, burning as much coal as you can get your hands on.
 
In a French television interview last year, Moore told a journalist that the pesticide glyphosate was not a carcinogen and was so safe, “you could drink a whole quart of it and it won’t hurt you”.  
 
Moore was then immediately offered the chance to drink a glass by the interviewer, which he declined. “I’m not an idiot,” he said.
 
Moore is a long-time climate science denialist and claims, against all credible scientific institutions, that there is “no proof” that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere (about 40 per cent more than there was before the industrial revolution) is causing any global warming.

Acidification denial 

In April 2015, Moore wrote a column for The Australian newspaper claiming that ocean acidification, caused by adding CO2 to the atmsophere mostly from burning fossil fuels, wouldn’t be a problem for the oceans and the species that live in them.
 
In typical conspiratorial style, Moore even claimed the science of ocean acidification had been “invented” around the year 2005.
 
Moore has no academic publishing record at all on ocean acidification (or much else in the last 20 years), so it was no surprise that he got things badly wrong.
 
Several of the world’s leading scientists on ocean acidification, including one who had apparently begun studying the issue a whole five years before it had even been “invented”, tore Moore’s claims to pieces.
 
Moore’s column was “ill informed and highly misleading”, “very wrong”, “BS” and “nonsense”, the scientists told me for The Guardian, who explained in painstaking detail why his analysis was flawed.
 
But this didn’t stop Moore making the same claims in a subsequent research paper ”Ocean 'Acidification' Alarmism in Perspective” for the Canada-based Frontier Center for Public Policy (FCPP), where he is chair of the think tank’s “Energy, Ecology and Prosperity Program”.
 
Oddly, the paper carried a disclaimer that the views expressed “do not reflect the opinions” of the center, “its Board of Directors, staff and/or donors” despite it being written by one of its own.
 
According to FCPP, its papers are “rigorously researched by the most credible experts in their field”. They also claim to run their own “peer review” system for their reports.
 
This is just as well, because Moore thinks that actual peer reviewed scientific journals are ruled by a “warmist ideology”.
 
This appears to be a pattern for Moore. When challenged, respond with a mixture of abuse, name-calling and conspiracy theories.
 
So when a group of students walked out of a speech he gave at a US college last year, he compared them to the “taliban”.
 
There’s Moore’s “consensus building” skills on display again.

https://www.desmogblog.com/2016/04/07/climate-science-denier-patrick-moore-under-attack-fellow-nuclear-energy-advocates

As I said - I worked for Greenpeace - so you can trust me when I reject him based on his fake "co-founder" lies.

 

Edited March 7, 2019 by voidisyinyang

[windwalker]

9 minutes ago, voidisyinyang said:

conflict of interests are basic to science - it's required to release conflicts of interest.

He is lying about his past to give him political credibility.

So his science is based on corporate junk science because that's who funds his research.

Corporate Junk science is DE FACTO rejected due to its inherent conflict of interest. It's a structural issue.

So yes the content does not have to be considered.

REJECTED.

DENIED.

FAKE SCIENCE.

 

 

 

And your willing and have done the same, or did I miss it

Your some one on the net with a lot claims

and maybe a little understanding.  How much is not known...

 

you and some others seem to be trying to present a view while rejecting all other views based not on what is being presented but on the presenters themselves.  Doing so while keeping your own anonymity.

 

I for one could care less,  just seems cheap discrediting others while doing so...

 

carry on   

 

 

Edited March 7, 2019 by windwalker

[ralis]

1 hour ago, windwalker said:

 

 

And your willing and have done the same, or did I miss it

Your some one on the net with a lot claims

and maybe a little understanding.  How much is not known...

 

you and some others seem to be trying to present a view while rejecting all other views based not on what is being presented but on the presenters themselves.  Doing so while keeping your own anonymity.

 

I for one could care less,  just seems cheap discrediting others while doing so...

 

carry on   

 

 

 

All opinions have equal weight in your worldview? Faulty logic!

[windwalker]

1 hour ago, ralis said:

 

All opinions have equal weight in your worldview? Faulty logic!

 

Obviously they do not,  

But nothing has been provided that would lead one to conclude that some here actually know what 

they'er talking about,  while at the same time all that are acknowledged as experts or knowledgable about it are discredited for apparently not echoing their view point. 

 

get it comrade

 

its not about the facts and questioning them, its about those who present a different idea. 

Any fact presented not agreed on is suspect because those that present it have an agenda

while those disputing it attack the presenter and not the facts...

 

They dont have an agenda,,,,?   

 

lets see  mmm I wonder

 

"Global Warming Hoax Pushed by Corrupt Scientists ‘Hooked on Government Grants’"

Edited March 8, 2019 by windwalker

[voidisyinyang]

21 minutes ago, windwalker said:

 

"Global Warming Hoax Pushed by Corrupt Scientists ‘Hooked on Government Grants’"

Quote

It’s market failure: the market created a problem it then has not remedied. This is a legitimate place for government intervention — carbon tax, emissions trading systems, various options one can draw on — but all require the government to do something. In the US, even though the Cold War is over, these guys tap into this anti-government strand in American culture and politics: the government that governs best governs least. The reason this gained so much traction in the 1980s is because [President Ronald] Reagan had come to power on this platform.

https://www.vox.com/2015/3/21/8267049/merchants-of-doubt

yes - Private Prices are for Profit - they are not based on science but rather on marketing.

Government taxes are based on science - that's why the Union won the Civil War - standardized mechanized mass produced technology from science.

Same with World War II - the Government just mandated that private industry re-engineer to win the war.

Abrupt global warming is a similar situation.

Now do I think government can fix the problem? NO I don't.

I agree with you - government science is ALSO corrupt.

But that does not mean corporate science is not JUNK science. haha.

So for example Wall St. funded the Nazis and the Communists! Anthony Sutton documented this.

Privately funded science just does not compete with large publicly funded science projects.

Yes corporate science has now "taken over" or "captured" government science.

So no I don't think "government" science will save "civilization" from global warming.

 

Whether it's government or corporate science - it's already been proven that abrupt global warming is real.

I already have quoted and cited the Big Oil scientists internal documents stating abrupt global warming is real.

But then Big Oil covered up their OWN scientists - and instead promoted their private profit agenda as Junk Corporate science.

Quote

She subsequently uncovered a small group of scientists who’ve helped sew doubt about climate change, the ozone hole, even the link between smoking and lung cancer.

https://www.capeandislands.org/post/how-naomi-oreskes-discovered-roots-climate-change-denial

So a Brown-Noser like Patrick Moore - he works for the PR industry of corporate junk science - so he works for Nuclear or Coal or Clear-cutting - whomever "hires" him as  a PR corporate junk science dude.

In other words the SAME scientists market themselves as "for hire" and then multiple corporations hire them for whatever PR junk news they need to "market."

 

And since the corporate-state Mass media mind control is based on 100% TAX deductible (corporate socialism) advertising - therefore the corporate junk news is a "service" provided to the CUSTOMER of the news - and the customer of the news is the purchaser of advertising.

 

So do government scientists spend billions of dollars to get the government to change their budgets to not fund the military, etc. and instead fund global warming? NO - it's corporations that spend billions of dollars in 100% deductible "donations" - for advertising and lobbying - and then they get their tax subsidies and big private contracts. that's why the US military is the number one emitter of CO2 emissions and environmental pollution.

 

Quote

Interests opposed to action on climate change have spent nearly $3 billion on disinformation campaigns, plus over $2 billion on lobbying and campaign contributions in just 10 years, according to investigations by InsideClimate News. That kind of cash buys some well-designed and well-distributed messaging.

 

https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2018/09/climate-change-science-comeback-strategies-in-it-for-the-money-part2/

 

So no wonder the government scientists are over-paid lackeys for big government lies! Because Private concentrated wealth is spreading that lie - that's how fascism works.

 

So let's review the evidence.

 

Patrick Moore - he's directly paid by for-profit special interests and so he does not publish in any peer-reviewed science journals but instead spreads corporate junk science lies. These same for-profit interests have literally spend billions of dollars spreading lies.

 

The government mainly funds military spending plus gives huge subsidies to oil corporations - and both are the main co2 emitters.

So big government spending is non-existent for what it would take to solve global warming.

Is Big government needed to solve global warming  - YES - because that is for the public good, not private interests.

The environment is a public good.

 

Do I think big government can solve the problem? NOPE - I think big government is controlled by corporate junk science and in fact Western science has created global warming - inherently. The problem of abrupt global warming is much worse than any government can handle.

 

But two wrongs don't make a right - so pretending that Big government is the cause of spreading FAKE global warming lies is just not true.

 

 

 

[Stosh]

12 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

They can be "engineered" but that's not evolution.

Close to engineering some make-believe model of what did not happen?

https://www.quantamagazine.org/chiral-key-found-to-origin-of-life-20141126/

Maybe it happened - but not likely - and if it DID happen - that's not how life evolved till now.

So yeah - pretend life evolution could have been completely different - although remotely possible - and PRESTO - no problem!

 

Ill make you a deal , if you stop 'yelling' with the giant letters, I will just leave that standing unmolested, because I like the problem solving approach you're using.  

Deal? 

[Stosh]

As far as I remember , from my aquarium days , its really pretty difficult to cause acidification of seawater. Its very high in its buffering capacity , the oceans are huge , and the percentage of CO2 released has only increased by maybe 0.02%. ( comparing weights of all hydrocarbons burnt to the weight of CO2 in the atmosphere , and that doesn't even discount CO2 uptake by plants. ) 

One should easily admit that- absolutely any output of CO2 is going to have some impact on the ph of the world , but that would include a babies breathing , and at the level at which error is unavoidable in any testing , one should consider if the data one is trying to explain is really just background noise. 

The earth has seen temps and CO2 levels higher than todays , and lower. If one looks only at the recent uptick without understanding that the changes are cyclic , they may start running around like the stone age cavepeople who thought an eclipse was a presage to the end of the world. 

 

Edited March 8, 2019 by Stosh

[Stosh]

Any human impact , needs to be considered in its entirety, and since there are many mitigating factors , which equally affect levels of CO2 and temperature, all need to be considered. In fact it may be simply outside our scope to weigh all these things , like changes in groundcover , albedo ,soil erosion and so forth. Which would leave us looking , as a species , as to whether climate change is a thing that is happening beyond our ability to control , in fact a natural cyclical event. 

One can never prove that it is human activity , or NOT human activity which is causal of this bout of climate change , unless it can be shown to have exceeded all previous natural events, but that is really ,'too little too late'. 

Even the simple greenhouse effect , reproducible in a laboratory , can not- be said to be indicative of real world effects ,because the mitigating factors from the field are not present. 

One thing that is clear , is that all the descriptions being generated about the horrible nasty effects of the changes all swing to the negative. 'Tis truly an evil wind which blows no good'  Some body , some things, should benefit from a warmer earth , and if a scientist cannot parse out the benefits , then they do not have a proper list of the detriment either.

They should be considered partial. Most everyone has reasons to make the doomsday predictions , or deny them. Its really very difficult to conclude ,who is in fact, is being truly impartial about the predictions. 

Fortunately there is a resolution and that is to have those who have no dog in the fight , who are not climatologists , evaluate the data, independently. This is as good an answer as humanity can get, and for right or wrong , that's what we should all go by, rather than be frozen by indecision and partisanship. 

Edited March 8, 2019 by Stosh