The Denial Industry

[Osbourne One-Nil]

I found this quite interesting this morning.

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatec...1875762,00.html

Doesn't surprise me in the slightest of course, but interesting nonetheless.

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

Unfortunately, it shows that money talks.

[Angel15]

I found this quite interesting this morning.

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatec...1875762,00.html

Doesn't surprise me in the slightest of course, but interesting nonetheless.

How corrupt can you get! This is what does not surprise me about the war as well which is really a 'non-required' war - war is money - money speaks volumes in their world; it's like saying "stuff the environment/peoples' health - we want our profits!"

[The Penguin]

The introduction to the story does the Guardian’s point no favours. Any other paper would have the good common sense to set the scene and then get on with it. But no, they have to include the editorial line “which it isn’t” in reference to the proposition that global warming science is inconclusive. From my point of view this weakens the entire piece through, ironically, the imparted sense of bias in the story. We know through several weighty tombs of discussion here that the science relating to global warming is not conclusive, in that there is much still to be tidied up and more yet to be discovered. I’m not denying the planet has been warming, I’m only saying that in a news article dealing with twisting of the facts by Exxon it would have been better if the Guardian had not started by twisting the facts themselves.

[Osbourne One-Nil]

I agree, and they clearly have an agenda here, but it's good to see some of the facts the article raises.

[Hairy Celt]

the guardian's agenda is usually to dig the dirt, and george monbiot is particularly good at doing just that. i don't see much fact twisting there.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

the guardian's agenda is usually to dig the dirt, and george monbiot is particularly good at doing just that. i don't see much fact twisting there.

Except the Guardian is well left of centre...which causes me concern as much as being well right of centre.

BFTP

[Essan]

I agree, and they clearly have an agenda here, but it's good to see some of the facts the article raises.

You mean ad hominen attacks and 'I'm holier than thou' preaching.

Ask Mr Monbiot how many lights he had on in his house last night. Then judge how much of an environmentalist he really is

(And if the answer is 1 then I humbly apologise ..... )

Fact it is doesnl;t matter how much Exxon or any one else helps fund scientific research.

What matters is the results.

And if the results aren't what you want, then tough.

(btw how much do anti-environment pressure groups like FotE and Greenpeace pay towards research on promoting wind farms etc I wonder?)

[Rustynailer]

Thats the reason we are not using methanol in our cars in place of petrol.

Remember this:- each round bail of straw is 5 gallons of fuel if destructivly distilled. Try and get permission to do it though and the reams of red tape arrive..................

Edited September 19, 2006 by Rustynailer

[Devonian]

You mean ad hominen attacks and 'I'm holier than thou' preaching.

Ask Mr Monbiot how many lights he had on in his house last night. Then judge how much of an environmentalist he really is

(And if the answer is 1 then I humbly apologise ..... )

Fact it is doesnl;t matter how much Exxon or any one else helps fund scientific research.

What matters is the results.

And if the results aren't what you want, then tough.

(btw how much do anti-environment pressure groups like FotE and Greenpeace pay towards research on promoting wind farms etc I wonder?)

This might give you an idea Andy. This is something he has said:

"Nothing of any substance can happen through self-enforced abstinence. However well-meaning we are, we will overlook our own assaults on nature, while recognising other people’s. We will persuade ourselves that we are doing the right thing by making the odd meaningless gesture, while continuing to consume as much as our credit cards allow. The only way in which climate change, or any other environmental impact, can be addressed is through government action: rules and taxes which apply to everyone, rather than to everyone else."

I tend to agree. We all know robbery is wrong, most of us won't commit it - but we have laws that apply to ALL of us. The law isn't voluntary, neither (discuss) should the protection of the planet be.

Like Monbiot I try to live a life that impacts the planet to a minimum. Like him I'm not perfect. Like him I think we all should do as I try to. It's an opinion.

Thats the reason we are not using methanol in our cars in place of petrol.

Remember this:- each round bail of straw is 5 gallons of fuel if destructivly distilled. Try and get permission to do it though and the reams of red tape arrive..................

I'm not sure the figures wrt bi fuel are clear. It takes a lot of energy (I think I remember artificial nitrogenious fertiliser for example takes massive amounts of energy to produce) to power tractors, combines, the conversion to bio fuel.

No, oil and petrol are special. They're high density energy that's portable and relatively safe - biofuel all ready to use . It's taken the Earth a damn long time to produce and put it there. Replacing ALL that with biofuels wont happen - the energy density just isn' there? We're squandering the Earth's natural bio fuel - stupid bl**dy monkeys that we are.

Edited September 19, 2006 by Devonian

[Essan]

This might give you an idea Andy. This is something he has said

I'll let him off a bit: assuming what he says is true then he's not as bad as most In fact, that comment highlights my biggest gripe with so-called 'environmentalists'

(My own excuse for not being 100% perfect ( ) btw is that I can't always afford to be )

Notwithstanding which, I would rather Exxon financed any scientific climate reseach than none at all. Though were I a shareholder I'd be asking why other all the other big oil companies are publically spending their research money on alternative fuels and mitigating climate change etc .....

[senior ridge]

This is George Monbiot's real agenda - A One World Government

http://home.ca.inter.net/~greenweb/New_World_Order.html

[Devonian]

This is George Monbiot's real agenda - A One World Government

http://home.ca.inter.net/~greenweb/New_World_Order.html

Where does he say 'A one world government' or anything like that? What phrase, sentence, or paragraph is it in?

[senior ridge]

Where does he say 'A one world government' or anything like that? What phrase, sentence, or paragraph is it in?

I really don't think you have read the article literally nor intuitively.

If you read it carefully there are plenty references.

[Devonian]

I really don't think you have read the article literally nor intuitively.

If you read it carefully there are plenty references.

Ok, I've found this quote of Monbiot "A democratically elected world parliament; a democratised United Nations General Assembly, which captures the powers now vested in the Security Council; an International Clearing Union, which automatically discharges trade deficits and prevents the accumulation of debt; a Fair Trade Organization, which restrains the rich while emancipating the poor." so point taken . I'd favour all that btw - dangerous revolutionary that I am :blink: :o

But I've also found this "But there are also taken-for-granted assumptions [by Monbiot]: “Trade is the only likely means of distributing wealth from rich nations to poor ones.” (p. 188) Monbiot accepts corporations and wants that “the market begins to work for the poor.” (p. 227)" , So Monbiot favours markets and free trade. So do I, free markets and free trade.

I favour people thinking about things, challenging the accepted wisdom I don't want to live in a world free of the likes of George Monbiot - where they're dismissed (?) as having an 'agenda'. Everyone has an agenda

[VillagePlank]

I'll apologise if I upset anyone immediately, but I am always in the position of mistrust when anyone, by their own wish, wants to label themselves.

Human ideas change, as does science and technology; if you want to label yourself as an environmentalist (as he does in the Guardian article) does this mean that he is unwilling to change his position, regardless of what the future holds? It is a common thread, for instance, in environmentalism, that we should allow the planet to flourish without human intervention - indeed, AGW is one such facet of a very large story; but what about a rather large meteorite heading towards the Earth on direct impact course. Does this extend to not interfering with the natural order of things?

I think it does (but I'm sure many, here, will argue this point) I think that labels are a dangerous game to play and are best exercised by a third party, not by an individual.

Edited October 5, 2006 by Wilson

[West is Best]

the science relating to global warming is not conclusive

It is conclusive. It might not have been 10, even 5, years ago. It is now.

Interesting article OON. Doesn't surprise me. Gore raises something similar in An Incovenient Truth. Money money money ... greed greed greed. And all the while the planet is heading for Armageddon.

[Essan]

It may be persuasive, it cannot be conclusive.

[West is Best]

It may be persuasive, it cannot be conclusive.

Oh yes it can, and is.

Conclusive: adjective "decisive or convincing" (Oxford)

It's decisive. It's convincing. It'c conclusive.

I've noted a trend over the last few weeks actually. The sceptic fringe are increasingly having to resort to semantic word games. I take this as a very good sign. Whenever it's happened in history it's because the real argument is over. The final icing on the cake will be when a PhD from Paris' Left Bank appears. Then I'll know we're truly home and dry. Trouble is, the planet may have disappeared down the plughole by then.

Edited October 5, 2006 by West is Best

[VillagePlank]

Sceptics some may be, but I wouldn't try to hide from being a sensationalist yourself, WiB:

' . . planet down the plughole . . .'

' . . .heading for Armageddon . . .'

Where's the conclusive evidence for that?

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

Although I would rather sit on the fence with this one, I do agree with the roots of Richards thoughts.

If we are not prepared to do something about certain issues, i.e. CO2 emmisions, we could well be throwing our world down the plughole.

There are many ways of looking at the issues to do with GW, but to at least not bother for a 'better' world is a little dancing with the devil.

[Essan]

Oh yes it can, and is.

Conclusive: adjective "decisive or convincing" (Oxford)

It's decisive. It's convincing. It'c conclusive.

A future event, the prediction of which involves a huge range of uncertainties, cannot be conclusive. It can be persuasive as the most likely outcome given current data, but that doesn't mean it will happen.

I've noted a trend over the last few weeks actually. The sceptic fringe are increasingly having to resort to semantic word games. I take this as a very good sign.

That's because the 'sceptic fringe' are increasingly worried that mankind has completely lost the ability to thing for itself

Whenever it's happened in history it's because the real argument is over. The final icing on the cake will be when a PhD from Paris' Left Bank appears. Then I'll know we're truly home and dry. Trouble is, the planet may have disappeared down the plughole by then.

The final icing on the cake will be when people who believe that carbon emissions are directly responsible for catastrophic climate change, do something to cut down on said emissions

So, who's flying off on holiday next year?

Edited October 5, 2006 by Essan

[West is Best]

A future event, the prediction of which involves a huge range of uncertainties, cannot be conclusive. It can be persuasive as the most likely outcome given current data, but that doesn't mean it will happen.

Nice piece of goalpost moving there Essan! But I'm not letting you get away with it! The 'conclusive' word referred to the science of global warming if you look back, not to future CO2 emissions. I do think it entirely appropriate to say that the science of global warming is now conclusive on this.

The final icing on the cake will be when people who believe that carbon emissions are directly responsible for catastrophic climate change, do something to cut down on said emissions

So, who's flying off on holiday next year?

Good. I think it's really important to throw this back at ourselves. (Another reason you should see the film!) We already had a lot of measures in place, but I'm taking more. I try never to fly unless vital, and if I do I donate to the environment through http://www.climatecare.org/

I've swiched to low energy bulbs, never drive unless I have to, own one high mpg low emission car, and more seriously am looking at alternative power for the farm e.g. a wind turbine. But there's much more I could do, and want to.

[Wynn D Woo]

I would agree that its conclusive that the planet has warmed and therefore GW is happening however I dont think it is conclusive by a long way that it is AGW.

So whilst i dont condone twisting and deliberate distorting of facts by the anti GW lobby, at the same time I think pro AGW lobby can be just as guilty of the same thing too.

[Essan]

I would agree that its conclusive that the planet has warmed and therefore GW is happening however I dont think it is conclusive by a long way that it is AGW.

I would agree that it is conclusive that the planet has warmed relative to the previous few centuries.

I would agree that it is conclusive that the burning of fossil fuels have resulted in higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2 than at any time for at least 650,000 years as determined by ice core analysis (note: the sceptic adds a qualification )

I do not believe that as yet any conclusions can be drawn regarding future climate trends because we do not have a proper understanding of how and why climate change has occurred in the past, nor exactly how and why it is changing at the moment.

So whilst i dont condone twisting and deliberate distorting of facts by the anti GW lobby, at the same time I think pro AGW lobby can be just as guilty of the same thing too.

I agree