The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Does It Really Matter If the Human Species Survives? Options
ithink140
Posted: Tuesday, July 7, 2015 8:26:16 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/4/2013
Posts: 2,453
Neurons: 17,922
Willy dear boy, your attacks on my posts are akin to being 'savaged by a dead sheep,' to quote a phrase used by Denis Healey.

'Life is too short to be eaten up by hate.'
Hope123
Posted: Tuesday, July 7, 2015 8:43:20 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,710
Neurons: 49,922
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
iThink, I meant dealt with here. I had already posted an updated 2014 report by the same group. Yours was an earlier report by them. Life is not static. And I had already given you statistics with percentages about those eminent scientists - which you ignored. There is no use in arguing about that anyhow, because, as the studies show, it is not the science but the solution proposed, your worldview, politics, religion I suspect in your case, and self identity.

Quote iThink - "Many of those who claim that global warming is man-made, seem to think that they hold the high moral ground… they do not. They often dismiss as idiots and cretins those who take them to task...This being so there is no room for high-mindedness."
[/color][/quote]

Why do you keep repeating this mantra every time there is a discussion about science? This is part of your "religion". By generalizing with 'many of those' so that no one knows who, that infers it is the whole group. I would ask for specifics of who, why, when, and where, but I am no longer interested.

I have always been civil and treated you with respect. If you feel like a cretin or idiot or that I am or anybody is high minded, or that there is a clique on the Forum, that is YOUR problem, not mine. Check your last fifty posts and see just how many people you have sniped at and argued with, then add a few more that I can remember, myself included. ETA - You get what you give. And how you give it is important. People don't remember what you say. But they do remember how you made them feel.

Edit - lol. Your last post came in while I was writing. QED.


"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons." Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
Hope123
Posted: Tuesday, July 7, 2015 8:48:57 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,710
Neurons: 49,922
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Thanks idk and Will. I did spend a lot of time trying to paraphrase the first two weeks of a course. But I learned a lot myself as I wrote and managed to clarify some of my own ideas, even changed some of them.

And thank you to everyone who participated. I learned a lot. I hope others did too. Learning of any kind is a good use of a Forum.

Five more courses I am interested in just became available so I am going to have to make a decision as to which ones I will audit. So not much time left for this discussion for me. So have at it!

Enjoy and have fun. I will keep reading.


"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons." Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
FounDit
Posted: Tuesday, July 7, 2015 10:06:37 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 11,214
Neurons: 56,941
Thanks to Hope123 for providing us with an abundance of links and articles that support the Climate Change model. I thought I would contribute just a couple of things that I find convincing for not accepting Climate Change.

The first is meteorologist Joe Bastardi, who makes a lot of sense to me. He is an expert in meteorology who studies weather history, and is currently a Chief Forecaster at WeatherBell Analytics LLC. His forecasts have proven to have been more correct than that of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and more often. He is a critic of Climate Change, so of course, the ad hominem attacks will be forthcoming, I am sure. But as I said, he makes sense to me.

The second source is from CO2 Science, a website that is updated weekly and concerns CO2 and Climate Change. It's not a long article, so I'll post it here for anyone who is interested in hearing the other side of the argument on Climate Change.


Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming
Where We Stand on the Issue

C. D. Idso and K. E. Idso
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
There is little doubt the air's CO2 concentration has risen significantly since the inception of the Industrial Revolution; and there are few who do not attribute the CO2 increase to the increase in humanity's use of fossil fuels. There is also little doubt the earth has warmed slightly over the same period; but there is no compelling reason to believe that the rise in temperature was caused by the rise in CO2. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that future increases in the air's CO2 content will produce any global warming; for there are numerous problems with the popular hypothesis that links the two phenomena.

A weak short-term correlation between CO2 and temperature proves nothing about causation. Proponents of the notion that increases in the air's CO2 content lead to global warming point to the past century's weak correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global air temperature as proof of their contention. However, they typically gloss over the fact that correlation does not imply causation, and that a hundred years is not enough time to establish the validity of such a relationship when it comes to earth's temperature history.

The observation that two things have risen together for a period of time says nothing about one trend being the cause of the other. To establish a causal relationship it must be demonstrated that the presumed cause precedes the presumed effect. Furthermore, this relationship should be demonstrable over several cycles of increases and decreases in both parameters. And even when these criteria are met, as in the case of solar/climate relationships, many people are unwilling to acknowledge that variations in the presumed cause truly produced the observed analogous variations in the presumed effect.

In thus considering the seven greatest temperature transitions of the past half-million years - three glacial terminations and four glacial inceptions - we note that increases and decreases in atmospheric CO2 concentration not only did not precede the changes in air temperature, they followed them, and by hundreds to thousands of years! There were also long periods of time when atmospheric CO2 remained unchanged, while air temperature dropped, as well as times when the air's CO2 content dropped, while air temperature remained unchanged or actually rose. Hence, the climate history of the past half-million years provides absolutely no evidence to suggest that the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 concentration will lead to significant global warming.

Strong negative climatic feedbacks prohibit catastrophic warming. Strong negative feedbacks play major roles in earth's climate system. If they did not, no life would exist on the planet, for some perturbation would long ago have sent the world careening into a state of cosmic cold or horrendous heat; and we know from the fossil record that neither of these extremes has ever occurred, even over billions of years, and in spite of a large increase in the luminosity of the sun throughout geologic time.

Consider, in this regard, the water vapor that would be added to the atmosphere by enhanced evaporation in a warmer world. The extra moisture would likely lead to the production of more and higher-water-content clouds, both of which consequences would tend to cool the planet by reflecting more solar radiation back to space.

A warmer world would also mean a warmer ocean, which would likely lead to an increase in the productivity of marine algae or phytoplankton. This phenomenon, in turn, would enhance the biotic production of certain sulfur-based substances that diffuse into the air, where they are oxidized and converted into particles that function as cloud condensation nuclei. The resulting increase in the number of cloud-forming particles would thus produce more and smaller cloud droplets, which are more reflective of incoming solar radiation; and this phenomenon would also tend to cool the planet.

All of these warming-induced cloud-related cooling effects are very powerful. It has been shown, for example, that the warming predicted to result from a doubling of the air's CO2 content may be totally countered by: (1) a mere 1% increase in the reflectivity of the planet, or (2) a 10% increase in the amount of the world's low-level clouds, or (3) a 15 to 20% reduction in the mean droplet radius of earth's boundary-layer clouds, or (4) a 20 to 25% increase in cloud liquid water content. In addition, it has been demonstrated that the warming-induced production of high-level clouds over the equatorial oceans almost totally nullifies that region's powerful water vapor greenhouse effect, which supplies much of the temperature increase in the CO2-induced global warming scenario.

Most of these important negative feedbacks are not adequately represented in state-of-the-art climate models. What is more, many related (and totally ignored!) phenomena are set in motion when the land surfaces of the globe warm. In response to the increase in temperature between 25°N latitude and the equator, for example, the soil-to-air flux of various sulfur gases rises by a factor of 25, as a consequence of warmth-induced increases in soil microbial activity; and this phenomenon can lead to the production of more cloud condensation nuclei just as biological processes over the sea do. Clearly, therefore, any number of combinations of these several negative feedbacks could easily thwart the impetus for warming provided by future increases in the air's CO2 content.

Growth-enhancing effects of CO2 create an impetus for cooling. Carbon dioxide is a powerful aerial fertilizer, directly enhancing the growth of almost all terrestrial plants and many aquatic plants as its atmospheric concentration rises. And just as increased algal productivity at sea increases the emission of sulfur gases to the atmosphere, ultimately leading to more and brighter clouds over the world's oceans, so too do CO2-induced increases in terrestrial plant productivity lead to enhanced emissions of various sulfur gases over land, where they likewise ultimately cool the planet. In addition, many non-sulfur-based biogenic materials of the terrestrial environment play major roles as water- and ice-nucleating aerosols; and the airborne presence of these materials should also be enhanced by rising levels of atmospheric CO2. Hence, it is possible that incorporation of this multifaceted CO2-induced cooling effect into the suite of equations that comprise the current generation of global climate models might actually tip the climatic scales in favor of global cooling in the face of continued growth of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

There is no evidence for warming-induced increases in extreme weather. Proponents of the CO2-induced global warming hypothesis often predict that extreme weather events such as droughts, floods, and hurricanes will become more numerous and/or extreme in a warmer world; however, there is no evidence to support this claim. In fact, many studies have revealed that the numbers and intensities of extreme weather events have remained relatively constant over the last century of modest global warming or have actually declined. Costs of damages from these phenomena, however, have risen dramatically; but this phenomenon has been demonstrated to be the result of evolving societal, demographic and economic factors.

Elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 are a boon to the biosphere. In lieu of global warming, a little of which would in all probability be good for the planet, where do the above considerations leave us? Simply with the biospheric benefits that come from the aerial fertilization effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment: enhanced plant growth, increased plant water use efficiency, greater food production for both people and animals, plus a host of other biological benefits too numerous to describe in this short statement.

And these benefits are not mere predictions. They are real. Already, in fact, they are evident in long-term tree-ring records, which reveal a history of increasing forest growth rates that have closely paralleled the progression of the Industrial Revolution. They can also be seen in the slow but inexorable spreading of woody plants into areas where only grasses grew before. In fact, the atmosphere itself bears witness to the increasing prowess of the entire biosphere in the yearly expanding amplitude of the its seasonal CO2 cycle. This oscillatory "breath of the biosphere" - its inhalation of CO2, produced by spring and summer terrestrial plant growth, and its exhalation of CO2, produced by fall and winter biomass decomposition - has been documented to be growing greater and greater each year in response to the ever-increasing growth stimulation provided by the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content.

Atmospheric CO2 enrichment brings growth and prosperity to man and nature alike. This, then, is what we truly believe will be the result of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content: a reinvigorated biosphere characteristic of those prior periods of earth's history when the air's CO2 concentration was much higher than it is today, coupled with a climate not much different from that of the present. Are we right? Only time will tell. But one thing is certain now: there is much more real-world evidence for the encouraging scenario we paint here than for the doom-and-gloom predictions of apocalypse that are preached by those who blindly follow the manifestly less-than-adequate prognostications of imperfect climate models.

Our policy prescription relative to anthropogenic CO2 emissions is thus to leave well enough alone and let nature and humanity take their inextricably intertwined course. All indications are that both will be well served by the ongoing rise in atmospheric CO2.

Supporting references. This brief was written in 1998. References to the voluminous scientific literature that supports the many factual statements of this position paper may be found on our website - www.co2science.org - which we update weekly.

Copyright © 2015. Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. All Rights Reserved.



We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
MelissaMe
Posted: Tuesday, July 7, 2015 6:06:41 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/10/2014
Posts: 5,413
Neurons: 347,528
Location: Gualala, California, United States
Speaking of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change


"Global Warming Skeptic Organizations

An overwhelming majority of scientists agree — global warming is happening and human activity is the primary cause. Yet several prominent global warming skeptic organizations are actively working to sow doubt about the facts of global warming."

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/global-warming-skeptic.html#.VZxMbSjn9Ds

This is my only now.
will
Posted: Thursday, July 9, 2015 7:47:08 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,167
Neurons: 4,830
Coincidence... I was going to link to the Idso Family Blog... sorry, 'Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change' in my last post, for my example of Exxon funded lobby groups masquerading as legitimate science. I went with the 'Advancement of Sound Science Center' instead because of the smoking link to my expert oncologists analogy.

There is (apparently) a defence that because Governments fund scientific research, it is justified for corporations to fund their own science too. The main problem with this logic is that there is no such thing as 'our science' and 'their science'. There is only a distinction in how science is used... and the fact that Governments have (as imperfect as democracies can be) a mandate and a duty to act on our behalf.

Regardless of which 'side' one is on, this thread does seem to confirm the adage that truth is the first victim of 'war'. Without the tools to make informed choices we are powerless; perhaps this is part of the reason for apathy and inaction.

FounDit wrote:
He is a critic of Climate Change, so of course, the ad hominem attacks will be forthcoming, I am sure.

Looks like your own suspicions kinda negated the need. Whistle
.
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Thursday, July 9, 2015 8:50:32 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 32,783
Neurons: 201,989
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
It is not really on this topic (related, but not fully on-topic), but I did want to mention this small 'side-comment' by will.

I feel it is actually the major failing of Democracy (in its many forms across the world).
The existing government, powerful cliques of various sorts, and the news-channel owners all act as a 'filter' and 'censor' - the voting public never get "The Truth" - the information to make a vote into an 'informed choice'.

will wrote:
Without the tools to make informed choices we are powerless; perhaps this is part of the reason for apathy and inaction.


Exactly - why bother voting when the two parties are exactly the same, except for a few minor 'trappings' and their vocabulary?

Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
ithink140
Posted: Thursday, July 9, 2015 9:40:58 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/4/2013
Posts: 2,453
Neurons: 17,922
Hope. No I do feel like a cretin, I just object to be termed one by Will.. but then it is par for the course on his part. I will take to ignoring his posts once again... that means not reading them... I Deplore his style anyway.

'Life is too short to be eaten up by hate.'
Hope123
Posted: Friday, July 10, 2015 6:21:44 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,710
Neurons: 49,922
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
I did not intend to post further on this thread, having made all the salient points for the need for action now, with no wish for repetition. But having finished my reading I did want to relate a bit more information from the rest of the course.

Non believers should skip these posts, and believers as well. I don't wish to flog a dead horse nor is it necessary to preach to the choir.

But if you are not sure, this information may surprise you. It is a summary of what I was shocked to learn.That there has been serious personal harassment and threatening of scientists. There's a growing body of literature into the nature of complaints being received by academic institutions. Why would they do this? The intent is to interfere with one of the basic principles of scientific work - the freedom to responsibly conduct research and accurately communicate the results. The immediate consequence is that some academics are now facing what amounts to scientific censorship. I believe the information is mainly about the United States.

Although with the general state of the way things happen these days with media and the Internet, I don't know why I was surprised that people, under the guise of anonymity can do mean, despicable, greedy things. To be fair, I admit that I am not trying to present both sides. But harassment and threatening of reputable scientists just doing their job seems over the top and is well documented. Indeed, Santer was an unpaid volunteer spending many hours when he was attacked.

Actually, others plus a US Senator did not stand behind anonymity. Senator James Inhofe wrote a book called "The Greatest Hoax - How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future". Calling the work of respected scientists a hoax is a conspiracy theory in itself. (He included Naomi Orestes as being in the conspiracy theory in his speech. See below.) Apparently Inhofe's proof is that 'God is still up there'.

With that preamble here is what I learned from the videos of several prominent climate scientists. I shall post excerpts from the interviews of Naomi Oreskes, Ben Santer, and Peter Doran.

Ben Santer was lead author of the historic 1995 IPCC report that first declared a discernible human influence on climate change, Naomi Oreskes talks about her landmark paper that found an overwhelming agreement in the scientific peer reviewed literature at 97%, and Peter Doran recounts his research that first established the 97% consensus within the climate science community - in the climate scientists themselves.

In the Spread of Denial topic, Katharine Hayhoe talks about how she got into science as a career and how misinformation is broadened and spread, Michael Mann discusses attacks on scientists, and Eugenie Scott addresses the similarities and differences between evolution denial and climate science denial.


All the scientists who spoke for this course said their research was questioned by spin and by the misrepresentation of peer reviewed scientific studies by a small but vocal minority with personal ideology. The critics complained to the scientists' universities and tried to get them fired, they requested excessive access to their emails, they attacked them online, on social media, by phone and email, they bullied editors, they applied pressure to journals and universities, and they hacked personal correspondence and published it.

A scientist had to call the FBI because a package that was sent to them contained a white substance that was feared to be anthrax. Scientists said the critics did everything they could think of to make life miserable for the them.

Instead of presenting peer reviewed papers to counteract, they just were trying to destroy the reputations of scientists, and trying to intimidate them, by attacking their integrity. Santer says that he expected to defend his research. But he never expected to have to defend his integrity. He says it is about the money.

And there was a connection between other scientific controversies from the past and climate change through the same people and their connections. "Merchants of Doubt" became a book when the scientists recognized this pattern. See next post.

::
Three Miscellaneous bits of information from the course.
There is a cluster rejection of evolution and rejection of climate science with ties to Conservative politics and a sector of the evangelical community. And of course, economics plays a big part too with fossil fuel interests.
::
If someone gets the idea that science is a hoax, then any additional information will just be seen as more proof of the conspiracy. And once a belief is strong, it will be defended vigorously.
::
True skeptics reject things that are false, but they also endorse things that are true. Landowski's comments on skeptics who have done no research and go by the media - "That’s quite interesting because their actions aren’t skeptical at all because they will accept with great gullibility pretty much any false information about climate science that’s out there even if it is mutually incoherent."


"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons." Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
Hope123
Posted: Friday, July 10, 2015 6:49:57 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,710
Neurons: 49,922
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
I got copyright permission from the course admin to post these quotes from the interviews here as the Course videos of lectures and interviews can be publicly seen on Denial 101x's YouTube Channel.

Ben Santer Quotes - This is part of a transcript of an interview so expect errors in spelling and typing. I would love to have posted the whole excerpt but it is too long as it is, so I have removed some details. If anyone wishes the whole interview, I could send it to you by PM.
:::
"My name is Ben Santer. I’m a climate scientist. I study the nature and causes of climate change
at Lawrence Livermore National Lab in Livermore, California...

My focus has been, in the last 10 years or so, on two things. One is the vertical structure
of temperature changes in the atmosphere. If you look from the surface of the Earth
right up into the stratosphere, 20 miles above the surface of the Earth, what we’ve actually
observed in weather balloon measurements and satellite measurements is this complex pattern
of warming low down and cooling up high. The lower atmosphere, the troposphere, has shown
warming pretty much across all latitude bends, and the upper atmosphere has shown cooling
over the last 30 to 40 years or so. It turns out that that pattern of warming low down
and cooling up high is really distinctive.
We know of no natural mechanisms that can
generate something like that, sustained for three or four decades. Volcanoes can’t do
it. The sun can’t do it. Internal climate variability can’t do it, nor can some combination
of natural causes: volcanoes, the sun, and internal variability generate that complex
pattern of warming low down and cooling of the upper atmosphere. The only thing that
we know of that can generate that distinctive fingerprint is human-caused increase in heat-trapping
greenhouse gasses, and human-caused depletion in the upper atmosphere of stratospheric ozone...

The other thing we’ve looked at is water vapor. We’ve looked at satellite-based estimates
of the moistening of the atmosphere, and that moistening is kind of interesting because
it’s consistent with very basic physics and with very basic theory. We know from something
called the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship that, for roughly every one degree Celsius
warming of the lower atmosphere, you expect about a seven percent increase in the total
amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. That’s exactly what we see in models and in observations...
That means that one really neglected aspect of change, of human-caused change, is the seasonal cycle...
it’s kind of disturbing to think that we’re now at a point where humans have
a detectable signature on the seasons themselves...

***The 17-year statement—where does it come from, and what do we know about human effects on climate on different time scales?

Let me back up a minute. A few years ago, I testified
in front of Congress. One of the witnesses in those hearings claimed global warming stopped
in 1998, a claim that one has heard a lot in the last few years. This witness claimed
that roughly 10- to 15-year periods with little or no warming of the Earth’s surface or
the lower atmosphere were evidence of absence of human effects on climate. The witness also
claimed that no computer-model simulations, when run with human-caused changes and greenhouse gasses,
could produce such hiatus or pause periods—again, 10- to 15-year periods with little or no warming.
The witness engaged in what I like to call science by eminence
of position: eminent physicist, member of the US National Academy of Sciences, but provided
no evidence to document or support those claims that were made to Congress.

We decided to do the science to look at those claims and see whether they were correct or
not. Well, they weren’t. As we and others have shown, computer models, even run with
historical estimates of human-caused changes and greenhouse gasses, can, just like in the
real world, produce short periods with little or no warming. That’s noise, noise in the
system. Our expectation never was, as climate scientists, that each year would be inexorably
warmer than the previous year in response to human-caused changes and greenhouse gasses.
You expect to see some warming signal, but that warming signal is imbedded in the rich
year-to-year and decade-to-decade noise of phenomenon like El Niños, La Niñas, Pacific
Decadal Oscillation. That noise isn’t going to go away just because humans are, through
burning fossil fuels, changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere.

What we did back then is we looked at all of the world’s computer-model simulations
pretty much then available to us. We showed, first of all, that even models run with historical
greenhouse gas increases could, by chance, produce 10- to 15-year periods with little
or no warming. We also looked at so-called control runs. Those are simulations with no
human-caused changes and greenhouse gasses or particulate pollution, no changes in the
sun or volcanoes, just rich internal climate variability of these models—again, things
like El Niños, La Niñas, other oscillations of the climate system. What you could do was
then look at those model simulations of a world without us but with this natural climate
variability. You could ask this question: how long would an observed warming trend have
to be in order to rise above the model estimates of noise, of internal climate variability?
It turned out that the answer was 17 years. We were very, very careful to say, “We’re
interrogating these model control simulations, and we were not making any kind of prediction
at all.” That’s important.


Some critics out there such as Mr. Anthony Watts of the “Watts Up With That?” blog
have maintained that our 2011 paper where we published this analysis of models and observations
made a specific prediction about the next 17 years. That’s a complete misrepresentation of what we
actually did. Again, what we were doing was looking at signal to noise,
saying, “How long would an observed record have to be relative to model control runs before that observed
record was unusual?”

Of course, in the real world, of the last 17 years, we’ve had many things going on
simultaneously, not just internal climate variability. As we and others have shown,
there’s been volcanic cooling. There’s been an uptick in volcanic activities since
the beginning of the 21st century. That’s not natural climate variability. That in fact
is an external factor. There’s been an unusually long and low solar minimum during the last
solar cycle—again, not pure internal climate variability—so folks like Mr. Watts who
have maintained that all that is going on in the real world is natural climate variability,
so the Santer, et al paper is incorrect, are really fundamentally misrepresenting the complex
climate system where multiple things, the sun, volcanoes, internal variability, human
influence, are happening simultaneously.

Perhaps he can convince some of his followers of the correctness of his interpretation of
our results, but he’s wrong, and if you really feel so adamantly that the entire scientific
community published incorrect science, then it’s incumbent on him to set the record
straight, to publish stuff in the peer-reviewed literature, but sadly he has not done that.
Instead, his focus has been on trying to cast doubt on the motives and reputations of individual
scientists, rather than to try and truly shed light on complex scientific issues—a shame.

What actually drives scientists—I hear this a lot. Perhaps this kind of criticism was
best phrased by Pat Michaels, who famously said, “Climate scientists are like lab rats
waiting for their next cocaine fix,” the idea being that we’re all just in it for
the money or to alter world systems of government, to get rich somehow—baloney.
I have absolutely no time for people like that who make those kind of claims.
It’s been my privilege over my career to know men and women who are motivated by desire
to understand. That’s why they do it. That’s why they get up in the morning: to try and
understand the complex climate system, the factors that influence it, to, maybe for one
to two moments in their scientific career, have a tiny piece of the puzzle that nobody
else in the planet has. That’s why you do it: for that joy of understanding, for nothing
else.


In my opinion, it’s pure projection behavior. The folks who make those kind of allegations
are doing quite well for themselves. They’re doing well not because they’ve made fundamental
scientific advances. They’re doing well by portraying themselves as the lone wolf
howling against the establishment, but they’re not creating understanding.

I was the convening lead author for the Detection and Attribution chapter of the IPCC’s Second
Assessment Report back in 1995. It was unpaid work. It was in addition to my normal responsibilities
as a scientist funded by the US Department of Energy. I thought that it was worthwhile to do. A
clear assessment of the science, clear explanation to the public and policy
makers and other scientists of what we do—that seemed to me to be an important and
worthwhile thing, which is why I signed on. I had no idea what I was signing up for. In the end,
I do think that the IPCC is still the best mechanism we have for explaining complex scientific
issues to both our peers and to the general public and to policy-makers, but it is tremendously
difficult.

You’re in a quest for the holy grail of total objectivity.
Think about that for a
minute: how difficult it is to put aside all the subjective filters through which you see
the world, your familiarity with these research methods or what scientists A or B and you
don’t like scientist C and D. You’re asked to put all that aside and for a couple of
years work on the best possible portrayal of our current state of understanding—really,
really tough, no matter how objective you are, but you have dozens, hundreds of scientists
around the world looking over your shoulder, providing input, criticizing you. It’s this
fierce marketplace of ideas.

It’s not, as some have portrayed it, like Judy Curry, for example, some old boys’
club where people are just slapping each other in the back, saying nice things. That’s
not the way science works, not in the IPCC, not at AGU. Again, it’s fighting for those—that
supremacy of ideas, of theories, of understanding—really hard, really draining, very glad I did it
in the end...


We know beyond the shadow of a doubt that we’ve changed the levels of heat-trapping
greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. It’s not a belief system. It’s not my opinion.

That’s fact. We’ve monitored levels of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse
gasses for over half a century now at dozens of locations around the world.
Those measurements tell a really clear story. Levels of atmospheric CO2 have increased
about 40 percent. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, traps heat that would otherwise escape out into space.
By looking at lighter and heavier isotopes of carbon, we know that most of that increase in
carbon dioxide is us, is burning of fossil fuels—no doubt, no ambiguity.

The real pedal to the metal question has always been how much climate change comes
from that human-caused change in levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gasses. That’s where all the
fingerprinting comes in, that not just our group but dozens of groups around the world
have done. Again, as I mentioned earlier, we’ve looked everywhere, not just the surface
temperature but in the oceans, in the upper atmosphere, in water, in continental runoff
from major rivers, in ice. No matter where you look, nature alone can’t explain the
changes that we’ve seen. The best explanation of all of these independently measured things
in the real world is a strong human influence.

I wish it were otherwise. I truly do.
I have a son. He could be living to see nearly 2100.
He’ll know. My real concern is that he doesn’t look back one day and say, “Hey, my dad
knew this stuff. He knew what was going on. Why didn’t he try a little bit harder? He
had knowledge; he had understanding of what was actually going to happen.” I don’t
want to have him retrospectively looking back and thinking, “My dad could’ve done more
but didn’t.

...Like me, my sons are climber. I’ve taken him climbing since he was a little kid,
and the idea that some of the places, some of the glaciers I stood on, some of the ice
fields that I’ve now visited in Alaska—he will experience them fundamentally different
from the way that I experienced them. That’s not just a scientific issue. That’s a moral
and ethical issue as well."


::
http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/the-relentless-attack-of-climate-scientist-ben-santer/

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/climate-scientist-benjamin-santer.html#.VZ_MYEr3arU
::

This link is about what happened after the 1995 IPPC's second report.

http://www.ucar.edu/communications/quarterly/summer96/insert.html

::
"Santer shrugs off the criticism.

"The bottom line is I don't feel like I'm a victim -- Some people will try to portray me as some kind of victim of powerful forces of unreason but I don't see myself as a victim," he said. "I have the extraordinary privilege of coming into work every day and learning something about the physical climate system and trying to understand human contributions to historical climate change and what the likely climatic shape of things to come might look like in the 21st century."

Above quote is from Midwest Energy News.

*** I think this is an explanation of the phenomenon FounDit was citing as an example that the science did not jive with reality.

"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons." Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
Hope123
Posted: Friday, July 10, 2015 7:05:46 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,710
Neurons: 49,922
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Naomi Oreskes is a Professor of History of Science at Harvard University, and works on the history of climate science. Quote -

"The “Consensus” paper was sort of an accident. I have been interested in scientific consensus
for a long time and the question of how scientists come to consensus, how they decide they have enough evidence to say,
“Yes, we know this,” and also the question of, “Well, if scientists
have a consensus, how do we know they’re right?” I
got invited in 2003 to do a talk
at AAAS, the George Sarton Memorial Lecture. It’s a pretty kind of big deal lecture,
and I decided I would do the talk on the question of scientific consensus. The title of the
talk was: “Consensus in Science: How Do We Know We’re Not Wrong.” ... if consensus is
our marker for scientific agreement, we know that’s a social category, not in an epistemological category,
how do we think about the connection or disconnection between the social definition and the
epistemological definition? That’s what it’s really about.

It wasn’t about climate science.

I had a couple of different examples, a couple of examples from history, where we would say,
“We kind of know the truth.” Then I thought, “Well, let’s use an example from science
that’s going on now,” and so I thought, “Let’s talk about climate change because
that would be topically interesting... I thought, “Well, yes, but you know, just because
the leadership of a scientific society say it, that doesn’t really prove that it’s what the
rank and file believe. I mean, that’s Sociology 101. Just because the leader says it, it doesn’t make it true
for the people.” I thought, “How could I test that? How could I judge whether or not
the IPCC reports and the National Academy reports are accurate reflections of what working
scientists actually think?” I thought, “Well, I could do a Science Citation Index survey.
I can do a sample of a thousand papers, look at them and see what they say.” That’s
what I did. It was just a small part of the lecture. It was an hour-long lecture.
It was one slide out of more than a hundred slides, and I didn’t even really think it was that big a deal.

I thought of it as a kind of crosscheck. ** When the lecture ended, and there were
about 600 people in the room, the only thing anyone wanted to talk about was that one slide.
All these people were stunned. They were like, “Oh, my god. I had no idea.” I thought, “Really?
Like people don’t know this?” I really didn’t think of it as being that big a deal, but because people
were so interested, then I thought, “Okay, I should try to publish this.” After the lecture was over, I
went home and I wrote up just that little piece of it, and I sent it to “Science” magazine, and they published it.

The paper essentially just says that if you look at what scientific experts have to say
on the subject of whether or not climate change is underway and whether it’s mostly caused
by human activities, the scientific communities’ clearly answer to that question is yes. The
paper was simply just saying that. That’s it. That was the whole thing. Nothing more.
“Yes, this is what scientists have to say.” I thought that was an important message because
it seemed like a lot of people didn’t actually know that and because the media was presenting
it as a great big debate.

The paper doesn’t make any recommendations about what to do about climate change. It
doesn’t talk about the details of climate models. It doesn’t talk about the uncertainties.
All it does is say, “If you ask the experts, this is what they’ve said.

Well, that’s when I started getting attacked, and that was when life sort of changed.
It was a bit like, you know, going through the looking glass. I
started getting hate and threatening phone calls and e-mails and all kinds of weird things from people in strange places."

(When it became publicized, she got nasty hate emails, was called a Communist,
was attacked on social media, was threatened, and a US Senator James Imhofe accused her of being
in a global conspiracy to bring down global capitalism.)
She said, "I remember thinking, “Conspiracy? Scientists are not that organized."

She was told to contact Ben Santer who was having similar problems. "That’s when I first got to know Ben and started talking to him, and that’s when the whole “Merchants of Doubt” story*** started to unfold, that told me what had happened to him, and then the pieces began to come
together because one of the people who had attacked Ben Santer was Fred Singer, and he was one of the people who was attacking me...

Part of the job of a historian of science is to understand that and to understand how scientists try to learn about the natural world as real people living in real worlds with institutional constraints and funding needs and all those different things... This is my stock and trade. This is what I do for a living.

When I started getting attacked by people, and the attacks clearly had kind of political undercurrent because I started being accused of being communist, I thought, “Wait. Where is this coming from? It was an obvious thing for me just to sort of turn the tables or turn the lens and say, “Well, who are these people, and why are they attacking me, and why are the same people attacking me that attacked Ben Santer and attacked Shirley Roland and work for the tobacco industry? Clearly there’s some kind of a story here. There’s got to be some kind of a story that makes sense of what otherwise seems like a really bizarre set of activities or bizarre set of coincidences...


If I have one message, that’s what my message has been all along and it still is: this is
not a scientific debate. It’s a political debate, but it’s a political debate being
made to look like scientific debate, being camouflaged as science, being dressed up like
a scientific debate.

We now know why people do that: because it’s a very, very effective strategy, because if
you can make people think it’s a scientific debate, then people will think it’s too
soon to act. If people see the truth, if they realize that this is certain—if it’s a
political debate and it’s related to people’s ideologies, to their values structures, that
gives it a whole different cast. It’s very, very important for people to understand the
character of what this thing is."


**The papers showed that 97% of peer reviewed scientific papers on climate change, (contrary to assertions that they have changed the terminology, climate scientists have always called it that).

***In 2010, Oreskes co-authored "Merchants of Doubt" which identified some parallels between the climate change debate and earlier public controversies such as tobacco smoke and lung cancer, acid rain, DDT.

"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons." Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
Hope123
Posted: Friday, July 10, 2015 7:23:22 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,710
Neurons: 49,922
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
"My name is Peter Doran, and I am an earth scientist from Louisiana State University
in Baton Rouge. I'm a climatologist and a limnologist studying lakes in the polar region...

"There were a couple of little tidbits in there that were fascinating. So
the meteorologists were largely against the idea that we were causing global warming.
That one I can't quite explain. Potentially meteorologists deal with short term phenomenon
and they're not climatologists. They'll have the argument, "Well, it's hard to predict
the weather two weeks from now; how can we predict the weather 30 years from now?" It's
the wrong perspective. We're not trying to predict whether it's going to rain in San
Francisco on June 15th, 2025. We're trying to predict the global average temperature
or the regional average temperature over a long period of time.

The group that had the most doubt that humans were causing global warming, and it was very
low, I think it was in the 60s, was the petroleum geologists, the people that study oil and
oil reserves. That one, for me, is not too hard to figure out. They're getting their
funding from the oil companies who are not really big supporters of this idea that we're
causing global warming....


I don't know about Australia, but in the US there's a machine. There's a machine, a right
wing machine, and I'll be blunt, that is disinformation. For whatever reason, I believe that there
is some incentive behind the oil industry funding to certain parts of the right. It's
a cultural thing, too. It's almost become uncool in the Republican side to believe
global change. That's their party line and they're sticking to it. There's many people
that love to argue, and they just want to win the fight regardless of the truth; the
truth has been lost. Unfortunately those people have loud voices, and they have outlets for
their information, they have radio shows, they have books, they have a whole television network in
the US devoted to this disinformation. Their message is getting out there and a lot
of people get that and they read it and they view it. It's a lot of confusion and it's
being intentionally put out there by certain factions of the right wing.

There's certain arguments - that humans aren't causing the CO2 - that is so easy to disprove.
We have chemical signatures in the CO2 going into the atmosphere that are clearly tied
to humans. The Carbon 14 in the CO2 is caused by fossil fuels being put in the atmosphere.
You can actually do a budget of how much we've thrown up there, and so that's easy to disprove.

The one that's harder is that the CO2 is actually causing the warming, but again if you look
at the IPCC report recently, actually the one before last, where they actually showed modeling of
what the temperature would be with and without the CO2, and it clearly is
having a huge impac
t. Those models are done without any preconceived outcome and they
are run multiple ways with different inputs and different boundary conditions and they
always come up with the same answer that the greenhouse gases are very important and we
can show it.

I don't know how much more we have to do to prove that there's a consensus. It seems like a silly
argument at this point. We've proved it over and over, and clearly there is a strong consensus. It's time
to take the next step, whatever that is."
:::

My addition -
I don't know anything about the meteorologist Bastardi except when I was looking at Fox News and came across a quote attributed to Bastardi. Did he really say 'C02 could not cause warming because it did not mix well in the air? My only source is Wiki. (If so, "it's hard to beat a complete rejection of well-established atmospheric physics.) I did see a clip where he claimed that warming would violate the First Law of Thermodynamics, which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. (In fact, global warming has nothing to do with newly created energy, but with the atmosphere trapping energy that's already around.) Wiki - "CO2 cannot cause global warming. I'll tell you why. It doesn't mix well with the atmosphere, for one. For two, its specific gravity is 1 1/2 times that of the rest of the atmosphere. It heats and cools much quicker. Its radiative processes are much different. So it cannot -- it literally cannot cause global warming. --- Joe Bastardi, Fox Business, March 9, 2012.[20]

Physicist Richard A. Muller says Bastardi's explanation of CO2 is "completely wrong" and "even skeptics of global warming, if they know physics, would disagree with him."[15]

This is not an ad hominem (against the man personal attack). It is an attack on his scientific knowledge.


"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons." Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
Hope123
Posted: Friday, July 10, 2015 7:32:15 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,710
Neurons: 49,922
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada

https://courses.edx.org/asset-v1:UQx+Denial101x+2T2015+type@asset+block/ALL_REFERENCES.pdf Edit - sorry, I can't get it to post.



I have never been given 34 pages of references for any of these courses till now.

Summary -
When I drive over a bridge, I don't haul out my bridge building app to check on the work of the engineers. When I think about climate science, I prefer to accept the work of the actual 97% of climatologists, not weathermen, politicians, nor Fox News.

"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons." Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
FounDit
Posted: Friday, July 10, 2015 7:38:38 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 11,214
Neurons: 56,941
Hope123 wrote:
, "I don't wish to flog a dead horse nor is it necessary to preach to the choir."


I can't help but wonder what flogging a dead horse, or preaching to the choir looks like in your world...Whistle

We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Hope123
Posted: Friday, July 10, 2015 8:10:21 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,710
Neurons: 49,922
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
FounDit wrote:
Hope123 wrote:
, "I don't wish to flog a dead horse nor is it necessary to preach to the choir."


I can't help but wonder what flogging a dead horse, or preaching to the choir looks like in your world...Whistle



Wow, you actually listened and didn't read the next sentence about it being for the unsure, for people who are interested and want to learn something.

So I guess I need to spell it out for you. Angel There are two sentences in that second paragraph, not one. Non believers - have to flog them. Believers are the choir. (Next paragraph. Unsure should read.)

No matter. You attacked the messenger, not the message, FD. (What is it you called that? Ad 'wominem'? Whistle
(ETA - QED - anybody who reads the personal stories of the scientists will find that more than ironical.)

"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons." Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
FounDit
Posted: Saturday, July 11, 2015 10:47:06 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 11,214
Neurons: 56,941
FounDit wrote:
Hope123 wrote:
, "I don't wish to flog a dead horse nor is it necessary to preach to the choir."


I can't help but wonder what flogging a dead horse, or preaching to the choir looks like in your world...



Wow, you actually listened and didn't read the next sentence about it being for the unsure, for people who are interested and want to learn something.

So I guess I need to spell it out for you. There are two sentences in that second paragraph, not one. Non believers - have to flog them. Believers are the choir. (Next paragraph. Unsure should read.)
Non-believers have to be flogged? Surely this is not what you are saying.

No matter. You attacked the messenger, not the message, FD. (What is it you called that? Ad 'wominem'?
I attacked no one. I was teasing you about the long, verbose posts that you put forward, which give the appearance, at least in my opinion, of flogging a dead horse – i.e., repeating over and over, the same arguments in favor of man-caused Climate Change. This is supported by your own words below with the QED initials, which represent the meaning, “I have proved what I intended to prove”. But in reality, if you have already proved it, there would be no need to keep repeating it over and over and over…

Yet, in all your repetition, you added nothing. Anecdotal stories and personal opinions by those who believe in man-caused Climate Change are not evidence. You wind up looking desperate. I find it amazing, and somewhat amusing, how panicked believers appear whenever any one person expresses doubt about the subject; all of this because of little ol’ me, and my one person’s doubt? Damn, I’m good!

(ETA - QED - anybody who reads the personal stories of the scientists will find that more than ironical.)
And of no use whatsoever in proving humans cause the climate to change.

************
My Opinion:

This climate change argument appears to me to be like a bridge connecting two communities. Each community operates by a different system. While both communities use the bridge, one has prospered greatly, while the other is still developing.

Some in the prosperous community see this as unfair, and feel that both communities should prosper in equal ways. So to achieve that goal, it was decided by this group that something needed to be done to slow the growth of the prosperous community.

One day, it was noticed that there was a crack in their side of the bridge. Now, it might have been a severe problem, or it might have been a simple surface crack, and meant nothing at all. But it could serve a purpose for the group seeking to equalize both communities. The call went forth that the bridge was in danger of collapse. Scientists were paid to examine the crack, and because they worked for this group, they found that, indeed, the crack indicated a dangerous condition. All bridge traffic was to be modified, loads lightened, and if possible, new avenues of transportation invented to avoid making the crack worse. In the meantime, however, traffic from the other side of the bridge was to be allowed to continue unimpeded.

Some in the prosperous community raised a protest, but this was not to be allowed. The crack believers had to have their way. They accused the doubters of wanting to kill people by being so careless as to allow passage over the bridge to continue (any potential damage caused by traffic coming from the other side was ignored by believers, since the issue was raised by doubters).

The debate raged over decades, while the bridge was used less and less, and more expensive means of transportation were invented and used. Costs rose, industries struggles to meet fantastical goals, while people died in greater numbers because of the lighter weight wagons used in transportation over the bridge. But this was all fine, so long as the bridge was used less, and the loads lightened.

Believers gathered unto themselves the media, the entertainment industry, and heads of state, convincing them through sheer volume of voice that the bridge was dangerous. Any scientists who disagreed with the findings was shouted down, mocked, or accused of making threats towards other scientists (as if this is how scientists behave in scientific disagreements). So fearful and desperate did believers become that a single, lone voice on a forum could find himself in a flood of believer propaganda for simply expressing his doubts. But this is where we find ourselves today. It is a sad state of affairs, in my opinion, but one that hopefully will be rectified in the near future.




We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Hope123
Posted: Saturday, July 11, 2015 12:54:19 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,710
Neurons: 49,922
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
FounDit.


Trying to 'go green' is not trying to close safe 'bridges' of any kind. It is about cooperating and finding different roads to the same bridges so we can all continue to cross them.

I did see your 'tongue-in-cheek' smiley face. I just didn't believe it.

The QED meant that you proved my point when you managed to find fault with me, get a dig in at me, even if it was supposed to be funny, rather than find peer reviewed studies for rebuttal, as it is exactly what I was just describing as what Deniers do to the expert climate scientists when presented with facts. Your next post in fact did elucidate your true feelings. I do wish you had been alarmed at the level of underhanded attacks and harassment against these experts, which was the background information I was conveying. Actually, you dismissed proven physical threats as whining unless you think it is being done to Deniers! This is a trend towards violence that my American friends are decrying. (BTW - most of them are Republicans.)

It is also typical of Deniers that you dismiss those same top experts as giving anecdotal information when I supplied insight into what exactly they are working on. Santer and Orestes were the in the first group to realize there is a problem about which we can do something. We are not helplessly and completely at the mercy of Mother Nature. It is a positive stance to take. They helped to sound the alarm and are important climate scientists. Instead you supply as your proof information you believe from Fox News and a weatherman who knows nothing about which he speaks about climate science.

And write little 'parables' about 'your' opinion which proves nothing either. Except to show your 'not in my back yard, no way' perspective. I also find it ironical that you want all countries to share fairly if there are negative aspects of solutions, but in other threads want no part of sharing the positive economic aspects of tax proceeds.

I put those two sentences in there about not wishing to flog a dead horse by telling you and iThink, non believers, not to read it. I was trying to be considerate and you threw it back in my face in the guise of teasing, deliberately taking my meaning out of context. Even did that again in your 'rebuttal' re the flogging.

And no! Don't feel powerful that you had anything to do with my further posts. You give yourself too much credit. I even told you not to read it. I did it to be thorough, to finish giving information about a course I have now finished. It has nothing to do with (your opinion only of my) desperation because you are the vocal minority. I have no need to prove anything. I am just giving information.

You are no longer interested, but it was not directed at you and you are not the only one on this Forum. Others may even read it. I don't care. I do what I can.

So believe whatever you want.

The message of climate change is what matters and I have seen no credible rebuttal with peer reviewed scientific published facts anywhere on this thread.





"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons." Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
Hope123
Posted: Saturday, July 11, 2015 12:54:53 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,710
Neurons: 49,922
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
It is not really on this topic (related, but not fully on-topic), but I did want to mention this small 'side-comment' by will.

I feel it is actually the major failing of Democracy (in its many forms across the world).
The existing government, powerful cliques of various sorts, and the news-channel owners all act as a 'filter' and 'censor' - the voting public never get "The Truth" - the information to make a vote into an 'informed choice'.

will wrote:
Without the tools to make informed choices we are powerless; perhaps this is part of the reason for apathy and inaction.


Exactly - why bother voting when the two parties are exactly the same, except for a few minor 'trappings' and their vocabulary?


Applause Applause Applause

"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons." Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
Hope123
Posted: Saturday, July 11, 2015 12:56:32 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,710
Neurons: 49,922
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
MelissaMe,

About GMOs.

If you are still monitoring this thread, I was wondering what you thought about using canola oil, organic of course.

It used to be called rapeseed oil but they genetically modified it to remove a harmful ingredient and called it Canola - Canadian oil. The companies say it is only one gene for the harmful aspect that they modified, and the oil is exactly the same except that aspect is missing, which is good. Others say it has been modified so avoid it. But it is a heart healthy monounsaturated oil. I am still using it but a while ago when even the cardiologists started endorsing coconut oil as a medium chain triglyceride oil, I started to use more coconut and less canola. I also use olive and butter.

What is your take on the canola controversy?

::

ETA - my friend from down the hall just apperared at my door with two boxes of strawberries for me. She had just picked them at a local 'pick-your-own' farm. They are non organic but I cleaned them and am eating them. My problem with some GMO food is the taste and texture. These berries are huge, have big white tough centres in them, and do not taste like those little local ones we used to be able to buy. I am afraid my great grandchildren will not know what berries, even tomatoes, are supposed to taste like.

"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons." Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
MelissaMe
Posted: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 2:17:30 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/10/2014
Posts: 5,413
Neurons: 347,528
Location: Gualala, California, United States
Hope,

My take on GMO canola? Canadian canola farmers have been deliberately put out of business by Monsanto because the farmers wanted to keep the seed they had been selectively breeding for generations. Monsanto GMO roundup ready rapeseed nearby would contaminate the non GMO crop, and Monsanto would accuse the farmers of infringement of copyright on those seeds because the farmer had saved seed from the previous year. Monsanto, backed by the courts, has turned that into an illegal act. This has totally ruined many farmers world-wide, driving them to bankruptcy and even suicide. The roundup ready nature of these GMO seeds means tons and tons of highly poisonous toxins, glyphosphate, all around the planet.

That is why I say all GMOs are bad. Bombarding corn with mosquito poison gene fragments in too dangerously unpredictable a way introduces genetic material into plants that simply doesn't belong there. And the glyphosphate is very bad for us to have so much of it in our environment and in our food. It is a main reason for honeybee population decline. There is a better way to raise food!

I prefer organic olive oil and butter. =*___*= Simple, natural, healthy! Tasty! Sometimes I use walnut oil because of the omega content.

This is my only now.
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 6:45:36 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,710
Neurons: 49,922
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Thanks, Melissa. I had no idea!

"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons." Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
MelissaMe
Posted: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 8:24:07 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/10/2014
Posts: 5,413
Neurons: 347,528
Location: Gualala, California, United States
Hope123 wrote:
Thanks, Melissa. I had no idea!


Hundreds of thousands of Indians have committed suicide because their livelihood had been taken away. Farmers have been saving seed to replant for thousands of years. Making them criminals is inhuman, and allowing Monsanto to get away with it is criminal.

I wouldn't touch GMOs with a ten foot pole even if an independent study were to prove it wasn't unhealthy. However, that's another problem. There have been NO independent safety studies performed!

This is my only now.
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Friday, July 17, 2015 8:19:29 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 32,783
Neurons: 201,989
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Hope wrote: These berries are huge, have big white tough centres in them, and do not taste like those little local ones we used to be able to buy. I am afraid my great grandchildren will not know what berries, even tomatoes, are supposed to taste like.

I found this to be so well before the 'gene-splitting' days - fruits forced in greenhouses and bred for size and colour just don't taste right.

These are wild strawberries, as I know them, they are red all through, the seeds on the outside are red-brown. They are between ¼" and ¾" diameter.



These huge white things have no taste:


Mind you, this is the ultimate!



Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
MelissaMe
Posted: Saturday, July 18, 2015 11:10:27 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/10/2014
Posts: 5,413
Neurons: 347,528
Location: Gualala, California, United States
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
Hope wrote: These berries are huge, have big white tough centres in them, and do not taste like those little local ones we used to be able to buy. I am afraid my great grandchildren will not know what berries, even tomatoes, are supposed to taste like.

I found this to be so well before the 'gene-splitting' days - fruits forced in greenhouses and bred for size and colour just don't taste right.

These are wild strawberries, as I know them, they are red all through, the seeds on the outside are red-brown. They are between ¼" and ¾" diameter.





Really good small tasty strawberries and heirloom tomatoes can still be found in my local organic farmer's markets! Dancing Applause Drool

This is my only now.
jacobusmaximus
Posted: Saturday, July 18, 2015 6:34:35 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/17/2009
Posts: 12,208
Neurons: 511,753
Location: Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
If the human race should not survive it would matter a great deal. It would mean that God is not in command of his creation and that there is a force greater than He. Such a force would destroy what was left of creation just for the hell of it. Such a force already exists, does it not?

I remember, therefore I am.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2019 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.