APP - The BBC asks "where's global warming?"

Taichiliberal said:
Been there, done that, as the chronological posts shows.....repeating yourself ad nauseum won't make the information and it's logical conclusions I posted magically go away.
Click to expand...

been done what?
it's breaking news you obviously are not aware of.

when you read the emails of the guys responsible for the climate fraud, get back to us.
 
tom prendergast said:
I agree that the rainforest's are the Lungs of the World argument has been demolished but I should point out that the soil in rain forests is extremely thin, hence it is not very long before soil is washed away by the heavy rainfall resulting in even more forest clearance. Eventually left unchecked you end up with a dustbowl as outlined below.
Click to expand...
Like I said, deforestation is cause for a number of other types of problems.

But the focus of this thread is the now-apparent falsity of AGW alarmism, and the danger in following political and economic sanctioning of energy sources based on the idea that we absolutely must reduce our CO2 emissions. If we look at the actual science, instead of the trumped up reports using unsupported, half-baked "logical conclusions", we can conclude that CO2 should NOT be added to the list of man made pollutants. Let us concentrate on reducing REAL pollutants while also concentrating on attaining a status of being energy self-sufficient as a country. Worrying about CO2 emissions is, quite simply, a totally unnecessary obstacle to those desirable goals.
 
Good Luck said:
Like I said, deforestation is cause for a number of other types of problems.

But the focus of this thread is the now-apparent falsity of AGW alarmism, and the danger in following political and economic sanctioning of energy sources based on the idea that we absolutely must reduce our CO2 emissions. If we look at the actual science, instead of the trumped up reports using unsupported, half-baked "logical conclusions", we can conclude that CO2 should NOT be added to the list of man made pollutants. Let us concentrate on reducing REAL pollutants while also concentrating on attaining a status of being energy self-sufficient as a country. Worrying about CO2 emissions is, quite simply, a totally unnecessary obstacle to those desirable goals.
Click to expand...

One of the most dangerous pollutants, one that truly does threaten to enslave ever more of the world's poor, is GM foods. Well, not so much GM foods per se, but the politics behind them.
Perhaps we should turn our attention to modern supermarkets and the way their demands are reducing biodiversity, local trade and location suited crops.
Or perhaps a new thread might be a better place.
 
Lowaicue said:
One of the most dangerous pollutants, one that truly does threaten to enslave ever more of the world's poor, is GM foods. Well, not so much GM foods per se, but the politics behind them.
Perhaps we should turn our attention to modern supermarkets and the way their demands are reducing biodiversity, local trade and location suited crops.
Or perhaps a new thread might be a better place.
Click to expand...

I agree, the cash crop economy in Africa and South America is pernicious and self defeating. Asparagus from Peru and green beans from Kenya flown into the UK and elsewhere is just madness.
 
tinfoil said:
been done what? Go back and READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY, chuckles. I'm tired of your BS merry-go-round.
it's breaking news you obviously are not aware of. No genius, I responded on the thread regarding the e-mails. You should READ before you type.

when you read the emails of the guys responsible for the climate fraud, get back to us.
Click to expand...

Like the typical FOX News drudge, you never think beyond what is presented to you. A hack job routed through Russia and then edited by a bias blogger....yeah, it's all verifiable gold....IF some of those involved didn't publically state that things were taken out of context and such.

Like I said before, I'll wait for ALL the facts to shake out before passing judgement. Carry on.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Like the typical FOX News drudge, you never think beyond what is presented to you. A hack job routed through Russia and then edited by a bias blogger....yeah, it's all verifiable gold....IF some of those involved didn't publically state that things were taken out of context and such.

Like I said before, I'll wait for ALL the facts to shake out before passing judgement. Carry on.
Click to expand...

LOL you douchebag denier. The emails are verified! LOL

Warmer idiot
 
OMG CO2 CO2!!

Plants adapt to CO2. low CO2 concentration may even act as a selective agent.

http://www.biology.duke.edu/jackson/post1.html

The earth systems adapt without our help. CO2 has been just as high in the past

image014.jpg
 
Lowaicue said:
One of the most dangerous pollutants, one that truly does threaten to enslave ever more of the world's poor, is GM foods. Well, not so much GM foods per se, but the politics behind them.
Perhaps we should turn our attention to modern supermarkets and the way their demands are reducing biodiversity, local trade and location suited crops.
Or perhaps a new thread might be a better place.
Click to expand...

It's not the human demand for food which is reducing biodiversity. It the way vendors choose to satisfy this hunger.
 
AssHatZombie said:
It's not the human demand for food which is reducing biodiversity. It the way vendors choose to satisfy this hunger.
Click to expand...

You are partly right. But with the expansion of western retail and the demand for conformity the farmers in third world countries are finding short term benefit in supplying identical apples, identical tomatoes and planting single crop fields. Where an Indian or an African farmer might have had up to 120 different plant species on his land he now has one. Where he used to save a percentage of seed for the next year he now has to buy genetically modified seeds that do not reproduce every year. In parts of India poor farmers now have 20% less spending power because people like Monsanto are holding them to ransom.
It is easy to say that they should have known better but life isnt always as we would wish it. Companies like Monsanto thrive on the ignorance and gullibility of their customers.
There are plenty of websites with far more evidence of this than I can possibly offer. Google it. It is frightening and, I found, even embarrassing. We who have so much continue to drag the last cents from the bony, clenched fists of the third world.
 
From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@meteo.psu.edu>
To: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>
Subject: update
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:51:53 -0500
Reply-to: mann@psu.edu
Cc: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov>

<x-flowed>
guys, I see that Science has already gone online w/ the new issue, so we
put up the RC post. By now, you've probably read that nasty McIntyre
thing. Apparently, he violated the embargo on his website (I don't go
there personally, but so I'm informed).

Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you're free to use RC in any way
you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about
what comments we screen through, and we'll be very careful to answer any
questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you
might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold
comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think
they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you'd
like us to include.

You're also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a
resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put
forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We'll use our
best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont'get to use the RC
comments as a megaphone...

mike




--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013

http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
 
Lowaicue said:
You are partly right. But with the expansion of western retail and the demand for conformity the farmers in third world countries are finding short term benefit in supplying identical apples, identical tomatoes and planting single crop fields. Where an Indian or an African farmer might have had up to 120 different plant species on his land he now has one. Where he used to save a percentage of seed for the next year he now has to buy genetically modified seeds that do not reproduce every year. In parts of India poor farmers now have 20% less spending power because people like Monsanto are holding them to ransom.
It is easy to say that they should have known better but life isnt always as we would wish it. Companies like Monsanto thrive on the ignorance and gullibility of their customers.
There are plenty of websites with far more evidence of this than I can possibly offer. Google it. It is frightening and, I found, even embarrassing. We who have so much continue to drag the last cents from the bony, clenched fists of the third world.
Click to expand...


These nihilist one generation seed companies are the same people who seek to shackle us with keynesian currency dependancy. Which are also the UN one world order people.
 
LOL

http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/RulesOfTheGame.pdf

This is in with the FOI2009.zip files

CRUEmailPDFRulesOfTheGame said:
the
rules
of the
game


Recommendations to the Climate Change Communications Working Group:

Evidence base for the Climate Change
Communications Strategy
The game is communicating climate change;
the rules will help us win it.
the principles of
climate change
communication
Why were the principles
created?
The game is communicating
climate change; the rules will
help us win it.
These principles were created as
part of the UK Climate Change
Communications Strategy, an
evidence-based strategy aiming
to change public attitudes
towards climate change in the
UK. This is a ‘short version’
of a far longer document of
evidence that can be found at
www.defra.gov.uk.
There is plenty of evidence
relating to attitudes towards and
behaviour on climate change,
general environmental behaviour
change and the whole issue
of sustainable development
communication. As we reviewed
the research for these principles,
one ‘überprinciple’ emerged:
“Changing attitudes
towards climate change is
not like selling a particular
brand of soap – it’s like
convincing someone to
use soap in the first place.”
At first glance, some of the
principles may seem counterintuitive
to those who have
been working on sustainable
development or climate change
communications for many years.
Some confront dearly cherished
beliefs about what works; a few
even seem to attack the values
or principles of sustainable
development itself.
However, these principles are a
first step to using sophisticated
behaviour change modelling and
comprehensive evidence from
around the world to change
attitudes towards climate change.
We need to think radically, and
the Rules of the Game are a sign
that future campaigns will not be
‘business as usual’. This is a truly
exciting moment.
For the full evidence for these rules, and the climate change
communications strategy itself, please visit: www.defra.gov.uk
For the new UK sustainable development strategy please visit:
www.sustainable-development.gov.uk
a new way of
thinking
Once we’ve eliminated the myths, there is room for some new
ideas. These principles relate to some of the key ideas emerging
from behaviour change modelling for sustainable development:
5. Climate change must be ‘front of mind’ before
persuasion works
Currently, telling the public to take notice of climate change is
as successful as selling tampons to men. People don’t realise
(or remember) that climate change relates to them.
6. Use both peripheral and central processing
Attracting direct attention to an issue can change attitudes, but
peripheral messages can be just as effective: a tabloid snapshot
of Gwyneth Paltrow at a bus stop can help change attitudes to
public transport.
7. Link climate change mitigation to positive
desires/aspirations
Traditional marketing associates products with the aspirations of
their target audience. Linking climate change mitigation to home
improvement, self-improvement, green spaces or national pride are
all worth investigating.
8. Use transmitters and social learning
People learn through social interaction, and some people are
better teachers and trendsetters than others. Targeting these
people will ensure that messages seem more trustworthy and are
transmitted more effectively.
9. Beware the impacts of cognitive dissonance
Confronting someone with the difference between their attitude and
their actions on climate change will make them more likely to change
their attitude than their actions.
blowing away 2
myths
Many of the oft-repeated communications methods and messages
of sustainable development have been dismissed by mainstream
communicators, behaviour change experts and psychologists.
Before we go into what works, our principles make a ‘clean sweep’
of what doesn’t:
1. Challenging habits of climate change communication
Don’t rely on concern about children’s future or human
survival instincts
Recent surveys show that people without children may care more
about climate change than those with children. “Fight or flight” human
survival instincts have a time limit measured in minutes – they are of
little use for a change in climate measured in years.
Don’t create fear without agency
Fear can create apathy if individuals have no ‘agency’ to act upon
the threat. Use fear with great caution.
Don’t attack or criticise home or family
It is unproductive to attack that which people hold dear.
2. Forget the climate change detractors
Those who deny climate change science are irritating, but
unimportant. The argument is not about if we should deal with climate
change, but how we should deal with climate change.
3. There is no ‘rational man’
The evidence discredits the ‘rational man’ theory – we rarely weigh
objectively the value of different decisions and then take the clear
self-interested choice.
4. Information can’t work alone
Providing information is not wrong; relying on information alone to
change attitudes is wrong. Remember also that messages about
saving money are important, but not that important.
1
style
principles
These principles lend some guidance on the evidence of stylistic
themes that have a high chance of success:
16. Create a trusted, credible, recognised voice on
climate change
We need trusted organisations and individuals that the media can
call upon to explain the implications of climate change to the
UK public.
17. Use emotions and visuals
Another classic marketing rule: changing behaviour by
disseminating information doesn’t always work, but emotions
and visuals usually do.
effective
management
These principles are drawn primarily from the experience of others,
both in their successes and in the problems they faced:
18. The context affects everything
The prioritisation of these principles must be subject to ongoing
assessments of the UK climate change situation.
19. The communications must be sustained over time
All the most successful public awareness campaigns have been
sustained consistently over many years.
20. Partnered delivery of messages will be more
successful
Experience shows that partnered delivery is often a key component
for projects that are large, complex and have many stakeholders.
5
6
linking policy and
communications
These principles clearly deserve a separate section. All the evidence
is clear – sometimes aggressively so – that ‘communications in the
absence of policy’ will precipitate the failure of any climate change
communications campaign right from the start:
10. Everyone must use a clear and consistent
explanation of climate change
The public knows that climate change is important, but is less clear
on exactly what it is and how it works.
11. Government policy and communications on climate
change must be consistent
Don’t ‘build in’ inconsistency and failure from the start.
audience
principles
In contrast to the myths, this section suggests some principles that
do work. These principles are likely to lead directly to a set of general
messages, although each poses a significant implementation challenge:
12. Create ‘agency’ for combating climate change
Agency is created when people know what to do, decide for
themselves to do it, have access to the infrastructure in which to act,
and understand that their contribution is important.
13. Make climate change a ‘home’ not ‘away’ issue
Climate change is a global issue, but we will feel its impact at home –
and we can act on it at home.
14. Raise the status of climate change mitigation
behaviours
Research shows that energy efficiency behaviours can make you
seem poor and unattractive. We must work to overcome these
emotional assumptions.
15. Target specific groups
A classic marketing rule, and one not always followed by climate
change communications from government and other sources.
3
4
If you are inspired or sceptical,
have questions or want to know
more, then please contact:
“First they ignore you; then they laugh
at you; then they fight you; then you win.”
Mahatma Gandhi
sustainability communications
020 7733 6363
www.futerra.co.uk
climate@futerra.co.uk
Click to expand...
 
tinfoil said:
LOL you douchebag denier. The emails are verified! LOL

Warmer idiot
Click to expand...

Once again for the cheap seats: it's a HACK job....meaning that although the authentic material was indeed stolen, what is being presented has been EDITED by the hacker and/or the biased blogger.

Remember chuckles, the people that verified the e-mails also stated that's what's being presented is out of context quotes. Got that?

Laugh, clown, laugh. :palm:
 
tinfoil said:
OMG CO2 CO2!!

Plants adapt to CO2. low CO2 concentration may even act as a selective agent.

http://www.biology.duke.edu/jackson/post1.html

The earth systems adapt without our help. CO2 has been just as high in the past

image014.jpg
Click to expand...

does your little chart take into account deforestation? Or are you so fucking stupid that you are STILL trying to say that the elimnation of vast areas of forests has little to no effect on the CO2 to oxygen exchange?

does your little chart take into account industrial pollution? Or are you so fucking stupid that you are STILL trying to say that the exponential increase in industrial pollution in the last century in combination with elimnation of vast areas of forests has little to no effect on the CO2 to oxygen exchange?

What are you defending, genius.....pollution? deforestation? urbanization?:palm:
 
Taichiliberal said:
Once again for the cheap seats: it's a HACK job....meaning that although the authentic material was indeed stolen, what is being presented has been EDITED by the hacker and/or the biased blogger.

Remember chuckles, the people that verified the e-mails also stated that's what's being presented is out of context quotes. Got that?

Laugh, clown, laugh. :palm:
Click to expand...

Get your facts straight. The emails are authentic.
It's pretty funny and sad that you warmers are living up to the stereotype that NOTHING would shake your faith.

LOL
 
3. There is no ‘rational man’
The evidence discredits the ‘rational man’ theory – we rarely weigh
objectively the value of different decisions and then take the clear
self-interested choice.


wow.

At least they admit they are 100% propaganda. They've abandonded appeals to rationality.

This green fascist movement is dead. from it's own stupidity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top