The Great Climate Change Debate- Continued

[jethro]

No offence taken.

The nature of forum communication means nuances we take for granted when communicating face to face, are non existent. I think we all have to work extra hard to over-come this missing element if we want productive conversation. At times, I find your posts to be abrasive and I don't think it's accidental on your part; being provocative is fine if you want to stir people into response but IMHO if you are deliberately provocative, it's hardly fair to then berate folk for responding in kind. As ye sow, so shall ye reap and all that.

Some of the claims you make are entirely unsubstantiated, don't have a problem with that but the bigger the claim being made, the louder the denouncement will be.

Pleased you've opened a specific thread, lots of things get lost in this cover-all thread.

p.s hand on heart time... are you sure you've not just switched to hurricanes as something to worry about, now the ice is making a comeback

[laserguy]

Sorry to interrupt the current theme,I'm in a hurry and can't hang around. But I've just got to post this.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008...earth-first-elf

I... I... I'm speechless! Except to say that if they are that keen to reduce world poulation,why don't they start with themselves? And if they are monitoring internet sites I'd better be careful what I say in future .

[noggin]

As you say Laserguy.....no doubt they will not consider self-sacrifice as being for the greater good. This is beyond extremism, it is total insanity.

[laserguy]

As you say Laserguy.....no doubt they will not consider self-sacrifice as being for the greater good. This is beyond extremism, it is total insanity.

All they'll need to do to be excused is get Hansen on their case. It worked last time. The lunatics are indeed taking over the asylum. Catch y'all later.

[Devonian]

As you say Laserguy.....no doubt they will not consider self-sacrifice as being for the greater good. This is beyond extremism, it is total insanity.

I can't, wont and don't defend violence except in defence of oneself. However the links below send a shudder down MY spine and if you and LG can vent here so can I?

Simple ranting insanity

Has lost grip on reality so rants instead

I'm sure I could find more...

My point? Finding extremist and then trying to tie that into one side or the other of this debate so as to condemn them makes no sense at all. There are good and bad on all sides - so what? Humans are an odd and diverse bunch.

Edited November 10, 2008 by Devonian

[jethro]

And how long is it since Al Gore made that speech supporting Greenpeace and their criminal damage charge? What was it he said? Oh I remember, young folk rise up and revolt, your future is being threatened, the threat is sooooo large that civil unrest, criminal damage and terrorism is justified, indeed needed. And folk said some of us were being daft when we could see what would happen as a result.

Had a quick look at what he said, it was in defiance of coal fired power stations:

"If you're a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience"

Doesn't take a genius to see how this can be transposed to any perceived threat, including vehicles. Wonder if they'll use it as their defence? Funny if the insurance companies went after Mr. Gore.....

http://www.reuters.com/article/environment...E48N7AA20080924

Edited November 10, 2008 by jethro

[Devonian]

And how long is it since Al Gore made that speech supporting Greenpeace and their criminal damage charge? What was it he said? Oh I remember, young folk rise up and revolt, your future is being threatened, the threat is sooooo large that civil unrest, criminal damage and terrorism is justified, indeed needed. And folk said some of us were being daft when we could see what would happen as a result.

What has happened?

I remember the French murdering a Greenpeace activists in New Zealand back in '85, I can't remember and violence and murder by Greenpeace.

Perhaps you could post a list?

[jethro]

What has happened?

I remember the French murdering a Greenpeace activists in New Zealand back in '85, I can't remember and violence and murder by Greenpeace.

Perhaps you could post a list?

See laser's post....

[Solar Cycles]

Good grief what will those crazy eco-freaks do next in the name of AGW! Beggars belief how they can think of themselves as saviours of the planet!

[Devonian]

"If you're a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience"

Surely the right to civil disobedience is fundamental in a democracy? I mean civil dis obedience as in not crushed into being obedient by a police state.

If I felt the need for civil disobedience I'd do it for this reason (my emphasis) "Civil disobedience is the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands and commands of a government, or of an occupying power, without resorting to physical violence."

DO you think civil disobedience means violence?

[Solar Cycles]

Do you think criminal damage is acceptable!

[Devonian]

Do you think criminal damage is acceptable!

Calm down, no I don't.

I do think people have to have the right to defy a law, or a policy, they think unjust but, they then have to take the consequences of breaking the law.

If people can't protest we'd live in a police state. Is that what YOU want?

See laser's post....

Oh, you mean alleged violence. I see.

[jethro]

Surely the right to civil disobedience is fundamental in a democracy? I mean civil dis obedience as in not crushed into being obedient by a police state.

If I felt the need for civil disobedience I'd do it for this reason (my emphasis) "Civil disobedience is the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands and commands of a government, or of an occupying power, without resorting to physical violence."

DO you think civil disobedience means violence?

I think those who encourage it should stick around to monitor it, police it if necessary, and if all goes horribly wrong, take responsibility for it.

Any person in a position of power has a duty to be mindful of their actions, inciting unrest is a dangerous game to play. The words "civil disobedience" may confer "peaceful demonstrations" but as criminal damage has now already been officially sanctioned in the name of "saving the planet", that peaceful bridge has already been crossed.

All crime is alleged until a trial is held and completed, as the group in Laser's post are claiming responsibility for criminal actions, I believe the traditional period of doubt, "innocent until proven guilty" is defunct here.

Edited November 10, 2008 by jethro

[Solar Cycles]

Calm down, no I don't.

I do think people have to have the right to defy a law, or a policy, they think unjust but, they then have to take the consequences of breaking the law.

If people can't protest we'd live in a police state. Is that what YOU want?

Oh, you mean alleged violence. I see.

Totally agree with you on the right to protest. And good to hear you don't approve of criminal damage Devonian. That's my opinion of you all wrong. SORRY!

[Devonian]

I think those who encourage it should stick around to monitor it, police it if necessary, and if all goes horribly wrong, take responsibility for it.

Any person in a position of power has a duty to be mindful of their actions, inciting unrest is a dangerous game to play. The words "civil disobedience" may confer "peaceful demonstrations" but as criminal damage has now already been officially sanctioned in the name of "saving the planet", that peaceful bridge has already been crossed.

All crime is alleged until a trial is held and completed, as the group in Laser's post are claiming responsibility for criminal actions, I believe the traditional period of doubt, "innocent until proven guilty" is defunct here.

Sorry, Jethro, I can't believe what I'm reading. You suspend the most important principles of our law, innocent until found guilty, in this case on the basis of reading a newspaper report? Internment, imprisonment without trial or something?

No thanks, and I'd commit civil disobedience if such a extreme change to our justice system was mooted.

[jethro]

Sorry, Jethro, I can't believe what I'm reading. You suspend the most important principles of our law, innocent until found guilty, in this case on the basis of reading a newspaper report? Internment, imprisonment without trial or something?

No thanks, and I'd commit civil disobedience if such a extreme change to our justice system was mooted.

I've had a quick look around and I'm definitely sat at my computer, avoiding work and commenting on a newspaper article, I'm not at the Old Bailey, where are you?

[Devonian]

I've had a quick look around and I'm definitely sat at my computer, avoiding work and commenting on a newspaper article, I'm not at the Old Bailey, where are you?

Same place, just shocked by the views I'm reading

[Red Raven]

Sorry to interrupt the current theme,I'm in a hurry and can't hang around. But I've just got to post this.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008...earth-first-elf

I... I... I'm speechless! Except to say that if they are that keen to reduce world poulation,why don't they start with themselves? And if they are monitoring internet sites I'd better be careful what I say in future .

The Earth First group have been around since the late 70's preaching and doing exactly what the article says since those early days. This report is just another one from the more paranoid world we live. I'm not condoning the actions just simply stating that this is not a new threat it is one we have been living with for the past 30 years or more - it has just become more topical.

[Roo]

Same place, just shocked by the views I'm reading

I'm amazed you're still shocked, Dev: as I looked at all the 'warmers are bad, evil people who will bring down our world' posts from the same old posters (I see Mondy has morphed again!) I had the strangest feeling of deja vu...

Can't think why? :lol:

[Thundery wintry showers]

I think what Jethro means is that in that case people are insisting that they are guilty of the crimes, which is very unusual- normally in crime cases the defendants will be found either insisting that they're innocent or downplaying the charges. Mind, that could be taken as them proving that they are guilty, which makes the "innocent until proven guilty" issue largely irrelevant.

I am in favour of civil disobedience in many circumstances as long as it does not involve a significant risk of damaging people or their property- that includes violence and criminal damage.

[jethro]

I think what Jethro means is that in that case people are insisting that they are guilty of the crimes, which is very unusual- normally in crime cases the defendants will be found either insisting that they're innocent or downplaying the charges. Mind, that could be taken as them proving that they are guilty, which makes the "innocent until proven guilty" issue largely irrelevant.

I am in favour of civil disobedience in many circumstances as long as it does not involve a significant risk of damaging people or their property- that includes violence and criminal damage.

Hurray for a voice of reason! Thank the lord someone understands what I was saying.

Claiming responsibility can be construed to be the same as entering a guilty plea (unless proven they were coerced into making said claim/confession). A guilty plea doesn't require innocent until proven guilty, the guilt is accepted by the accused. Decisions there after focus upon punishment and do not include nor involve a jury.

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...81106122249.htm

Whilst the debate rages about a few miscreants and their intentions maybe we should return our gaze to that that is already set to remove a sizable portion of their 'target' for them over the coming years (and ,of course, no 'one' corporation/individual will be held resposible.....we will all be made to take a portion of the blame...should we survive that is )

Past warmings would appear to have been temperature temperature driven with CO2 spikes further on into the period adding to the ferocity of the changes. We all know we have been putting up significant amounts of CO2 since the industrialisation of the first world. It now appears that we are growing ever closer to, or maybe entering, the 'CO2 spike' that nature herself has always treated us to during past warmings.

Having never been made aware of any papers that do not agree that past warming events were not, in their 'second phase warming' driven by the explosion in atmospheric CO2 I will take it we are all agreed that any such event today would prove equally as disruptive to the planet as the past events showed themselves to be.

Sadly, it would appear, many factors go into enabling the 'natural CO2 spike'.

Carbon sink failures (the 'carbon balance' is not maintained as sinks are unable to take up their load of CO2 leaving more in the atmosphere).

Permafrost melt and the associated methane releases (a greenhouse gas more than 20 times as powerful as CO2).

Cathrite releases, rafts of rotting vegetation along the continental shelf facing major river delta's are made stable by temp/pressure.Rising sea/ocean temps destabilise the deposits leading to massive methane releases.

Peat bog decay (see above article).

Drought. Plant life suffers and decays.

Wildfires. Plant materials are killed and their CO2 released back into the environment.

Storm damage. Katrina levelled so much that the whole U.S. 'carbon sink' is estimated to be negated for 15yrs....so what of IKE etc??

We have measured 'carbon sink failures' (both ocean and land) for many years now.

This will be the second year running that we have had a positive anomaly in methane releases and this years eyewitness ,from Russian scientists measuring the phenomena, of 'free methane' (not dissolved in the sea water) bubbling up from the continental shelf permafrosts off Siberia must be of great concern.

Cathrite releases. The increased concentration of dissolved methane in the seas off the Amazon Basin hint at the process of methane release accelerating.

Peat bog decay (see article).

Drought part of the reason for methane not being 'absorbed' are the drought conditions across many continents leading to an 'oxidising environment' in the soils not conducive to absorption.

Wildfires. U.S. west coast,Recently drought struck Queensland,Man made problems with 'slash and burn' agriculture in the tropical Pacific/Indian oceans.

Storm damage. This years '5 consecutive months with major Hurricanes' record points us to the future impacts of this scenario with many areas of mature Forrest being damaged leading to CO2 releases as biomass decays.

Surely we needn't be at one another's throats over some 'airheads' and their threats when such real threats surround us? Even if you do not believe in human impacts then surely past examples of warming and recent measures of 'natural CO2 releases' (on a scale to dwarf mans inputs) must concern you?

[Ian Williams]

This is an excellent read ive pasted the first paragraph but you can read the rest here

http://whitewraithe.wordpress.com/2008/11/...ientist-weig...

BBC SHUNNED ME FOR DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE

Story Image

FOR YEARS David Bellamy was one of the best known faces on TV.

A respected botanist and the author of 35 books, he had presented around 400 programmes over the years and was appreciated by audiences for his boundless enthusiasm.

Yet for more than 10 years he has been out of the limelight, shunned by bosses at the BBC where he made his name, as well as fellow scientists and environmentalists.

His crime? Bellamy says he doesn’t believe in man-made global warming.

Here he reveals why – and the price he has paid for not toeing the orthodox line on climate change.

[Solar Cycles]

Very sad that someone like David who spent years campaigning on environmental issues, is treated this way . Just goes to show that AGW is more about politics and less about the environment!

[Devonian]

This is an excellent read ive pasted the first paragraph but you can read the rest here

http://whitewraithe.wordpress.com/2008/11/...ientist-weig...

BBC SHUNNED ME FOR DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE

Story Image

FOR YEARS David Bellamy was one of the best known faces on TV.

A respected botanist and the author of 35 books, he had presented around 400 programmes over the years and was appreciated by audiences for his boundless enthusiasm.

Yet for more than 10 years he has been out of the limelight, shunned by bosses at the BBC where he made his name, as well as fellow scientists and environmentalists.

His crime? Bellamy says he doesn’t believe in man-made global warming.

Here he reveals why – and the price he has paid for not toeing the orthodox line on climate change.

He's a, as he says, botanist, I suppose we could complain when Hadley centre scientists aren't asked about botany...