Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[tvbcof]

Actually there are many, many other paths.

Many paths to the continued loss of biodiversity, many paths to destruction and ruin. Far fewer paths to an ecologically sustainable Earth, abundant with life, none of which involve industrial capitalism.

In 100 years everyone on this forum will be dead, just let that sink in...... do we really care that the planet becomes venus? We will be dead.

Witness the shallow, suicidal logic of the capitalist. "If it doesn't affect ME, why should I care?"

Friend, that logic allows for slavery, genocide, torture, rape, and all things horrible to persist. Don't you think it'd be nice if we did our part to leave this place a little better off than we found it?
...

Actually humans can live in rural areas without undue strain on 'biodiversity' and many people in the U.S. do just that.  At this point very few rural living people do not live in such a way that there is a 'sustainable' balance here.

It's fairly easy to convince condo-dwellers in giant population centers that 'biodiversity' is suffering because that is all they see.  Public transportation does not extend even to the periphery of such 'human habitats', and they are highly trained to rely on 'experts' and the media piped into their heads to tell them how the world is.  If these people got out more to look for themselves they would see an abundance of diversity and vast tracts of area where humans never set foot in.  They would also find a sky filled with stars which is something I never noticed when living in the San Francisco Bay area.

As for genocide, it is worth note that the concept of reducing human populations and limiting their existence to compact core areas is a re-occurring theme with the thought leaders in the 'sustainability' movement.  They write books and papers about it, give TED talks about it, give presentations to the Royal Society about it, etc and have done this to some degree for generations.  Seems to be accelerating lately.  I have little doubt that if mass depopulation (of humans) comes to the planet it will be a result of a project spearheaded by some elements of this group.  Already reproduction rates have been brought below replacement rates in a lot of countries, and an analysis of the mechanisms by which this has occurred leaves some serious questions about whether there have not already been some successful strategies by these folks employed.

[1715427835]

1715427835

[1715427835]

1715427835

[Wilikon]

Actually there are many, many other paths.

Many paths to the continued loss of biodiversity, many paths to destruction and ruin. Far fewer paths to an ecologically sustainable Earth, abundant with life, none of which involve industrial capitalism.

In 100 years everyone on this forum will be dead, just let that sink in...... do we really care that the planet becomes venus? We will be dead.

Witness the shallow, suicidal logic of the capitalist. "If it doesn't affect ME, why should I care?"

Friend, that logic allows for slavery, genocide, torture, rape, and all things horrible to persist. Don't you think it'd be nice if we did our part to leave this place a little better off than we found it?

If you don't believe in God, then most definitely why would you care.

How about ethics, hard of it? Reason is my god, and reason demands ethics.

If You Think Communism Is Bad For People, Check Out What It Did To The Environment


And it's not a coincidence or accident of history



In addition to being an advocate for an ideology directly responsible for tens of millions of non-war deaths and untold human misery, Myerson has revealed himself as something of an ignoramus concerning communism’s shocking record on environmental issues. Not only a blight on the human condition, communism’s impact on the planet’s ecology has proven consistently ghastly.

When the Berlin Wall came down and the Iron Curtain was finally lifted to expose the inner workings of communism to Western eyes, one of the more shocking discoveries was the nightmarish scale of environmental destruction. The statistics for East Germany alone tell a horrific tale: at the time of its reunification with West Germany an estimated 42 percent of moving water and 24 percent of still waters were so polluted that they could not be used to process drinking water, almost half of the country’s lakes were considered dead or dying and unable to sustain fish or other forms of life, and only one-third of industrial sewage along with half of domestic sewage received treatment.

An estimated 44 percent of East German forests were damaged by acid rain — little surprise given that the country produced proportionally more sulphur dioxide, carbon dioxide, and coal dust than any other in the world. In some areas of East Germany the level of air pollution was between eight and twelve times greater than that found in West Germany, and 40 percent of East Germany’s population lived in conditions that would have justified a smog warning across the border. Only one power station in East Germany had the necessary equipment to clean sulphur from emissions.

Sten Nilsson, a Swedish forest ecologist who was kicked out of East Germany in 1986 for his efforts at collecting data on the health of its forests, said in April 1990 that many forests were “dead, completely” and described the country as “on the verge of total ecological collapse.” The environmental policy of the communist government, according to then Environment Minister Karl-Hermann Steinberg in 1990, “was not only badly designed but didn’t exist.”

Perhaps nowhere suffered more grievous environmental harm than the town of Bitterfeld. Translated as “Bitterfield” in English, its name under the communist regime would prove apt. Pronounced by Der Spiegel as Europe’s dirtiest town, Greenpeace as well as government statistics suggested it may have been the filthiest in the entire world. Home to a variety of manufacturing facilities which spewed a witch’s brew of chemical and industrial byproducts into the air and water, Bitterfeld was nothing less than an environmental horror show. This is how the Washington Post’s Marc Fisher described the town in the spring of 1990:


Here, rivers flow red from steel mill waste, drinking water contains many times the European Community standards for heavy metals and other pollutants, and the air has killed so many trees — 75 percent in the Bitterfeld area — that even the most ambitious clean-up efforts now being planned would not reverse the damage. East Germany fills the air with sulfur dioxide at almost five times the West German rate and more than twice the Polish rate, according to a recent study. One chemical plant near here dumps 44 pounds of mercury into the Saale river each day — 10 times as much as the West German chemical company BASF pumps into the Rhine each year.


Writing for The New York Times in September of that year, reporter Marlise Simons said of Bitterfeld that “[t]he air stings, and the water in brooks and rivers has turned to syrup[.]” And a 1994 article in the UK newspaper The Independent recalled that in communist times the town’s leaves would turn brown by June, a local guest-house featured “gas-masks lining the walls of the lobby,” and that in the years since reunification “Bitterfeld’s children were sent for up to a month each year to the coast or the mountains” to give their lungs a break from the relentless assault.

East Germany was hardly the exception to the rule, with environmental degradation being the norm throughout the communist countries of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Sourcing from articles in Time and Business Week, a 1992 Cato Journal paper noted that “[c]hildren from the Upper Silesia area of Poland have been found to have five times more lead in their blood than children from Western European cities,” while half of the region’s children suffered from pollution-related illnesses. Some areas of Romania, the paper added, experienced such heavily polluted air that horses were only allowed to stay for two or three years.

A similar story was found in the Soviet Union. Writing for the now-defunct (and Ralph Nader-founded) Multinational Monitor in September 1990, James Ridgeway noted widespread pollution of both the air and drinking water:

40% of the Soviet people live in areas where air pollutants are three to four times the maximum allowable levels. Sanitation is primitive. Where it exists, for example in Moscow, it doesn’t work properly. Half of all industrial waste water in the capital city goes untreated. In Leningrad, nearly half of the children have intestinal disorders caused by drinking contaminated water from what was once Europe’s most pristine supply.

A 1996 Russia country study published by the Library of Congress’ Federal Research Division described the country’s air as “among the most polluted in the world,” and found that 75 percent of its surface water was polluted and 50 percent of all water not potable according to 1992 quality standards.

While the explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear reactor probably counts as the country’s best-known environmental disaster, it was but one of numerous episodes of serious environmental damage which plagued the Soviet nuclear sector. Wikipedia describes a 1957 explosion at the Mayak nuclear reactor as resulting in “long-term contamination of an area of more than 800 to 20,000 square kilometers” with 10,000 people forced to evacuate and an unknown number of deaths related to the accident. Unsurprisingly, it also notes during the plant’s construction that “[e]nvironmental concerns were not taken seriously.”

This casual approach to nuclear issues extended to the country’s military, where the Soviet fleet — the largest nuclear-powered navy in the world — opted to sometimes dispose of reactors by simply dumping them into the ocean:


A Russian government report acknowledged in March 1993, that “during the period of 1965 to 1988 the Northern Fleet had dumped four reactor compartments with eight reactors (three containing damaged fuel) in the Abrosimov Gulf in 20 to 40 meters of water.” Six other compartments, containing nine reactors in all, had also been dumped into the water in the 1960s and 1970s.


Wikipedia also notes that the improper removal of control rods on board a Victor-class submarine outside Vladivostok in 1985 led to an explosion, the “release of large amounts of radioactivity,” and ten deaths, while a 1961 nuclear accident on board the K-19 submarine — later immortalized in a 2002 movie starring Harrison Ford — resulted in the contamination-related deaths of 22 crew members within two years of the incident and radiation poisoning of the environment. After the vessel’s nuclear reactors were removed and replaced, the Soviets predictably decided to dispose of the original compartment used to house them by dropping it into the Kara Sea.

The sea was also a favored method for the disposal of nuclear waste as noted by this 1992 New York Times article:

Of possibly greater concern [than the nuclear reactors disposed in the ocean] is the radioactive waste dumped at sea. Russian authorities told Dr. Charles Hollister [of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution] that 11,000 to 17,000 waste containers, holding 61,407 curies of radioactivity, were dumped off Novaya Zemlya from 1964 to 1990. In addition, 165,000 cubic meters of liquid waste were dumped in the Barents Sea west of Novaya Zemlaya from 1961 to 1990. For comparison, the Chernobyl accident released about 86,000,000 curies of radioactivity.

[In addition], Dr. Hollister reckons the amount of nuclear material within some of the [four Soviet submarines lost at sea] at seven times that in the ill-fated Chernobyl reactor.


[...]
Central economic planning is also largely responsible for the devastation of the Aral Sea. Once the world’s fourth-largest lake, its massive decline can be directly traced to directives issued by top economic officials in Moscow:

In the early 1960, the Soviet government decided the two rivers that fed the Aral Sea, the Amu Darya in the south and the Syr Darya in the northeast, would be diverted to irrigate the desert, in an attempt to grow rice, melons, cereals, and cotton. This was part of the Soviet plan for cotton, or “white gold”, to become a major export.

…From 1960 to 1998, the [Aral Sea]’s surface area shrank by approximately 60%, and its volume by 80%…The amount of water it had lost is the equivalent of completely draining Lake Erie and Lake Ontario.

Camels and rusting ships on the bed of the Aral Sea:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XIMKQ6gzGA

http://thefederalist.com/2014/01/13/if-you-think-communism-is-bad-for-people-check-out-what-it-did-to-the-environment/

[galdur]

CONGRESSWOMAN CLAIMS CLIMATE CHANGE WILL TURN WOMEN INTO PROSTITUTES



On Wednesday, California Democrat Barbara Lee proposed a resolution in the House of Representatives that claims women will eventually be forced into prostitution in order to obtain life-sustaining food and water for their families.

Lee introduced House Concurrent Resolution 29, warning that women will be forced into “transactional sex” to get enough food and clean water — all because global warming will create “conflict and instability” in the world.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/26/congresswoman-claims-climate-change-will-turn-women-into-prostitutes/

[Beliathon]

Honestly now, if we continue down this selfish, short-sighted path, where do you people think it ends? What is the logical conclusion of capitalism in your mind? Because it's certainly not a planet your grandchildren will thank you for. The science is clear on that.
Sooner or later we're going to have to face the fact that our current economic structures are both genocidal and suicidal, and then we're going to have to answer some hard questions about the future. All I'm saying is, why the hell should we wait?!

Your friendly local SJW,

World Citizen Beliathon

[Wilikon]

Honestly now, if we continue down this selfish, short-sighted path, where do you people think it ends? What is the logical conclusion of capitalism in your mind? Because it's certainly not a planet your grandchildren will thank you for. [/b]The science is clear on that.
Sooner or later we're going to have to face the fact that our current economic structures are both genocidal and suicidal, and then we're going to have to answer some hard questions about the future. All I'm saying is, why the hell should we wait?!

Your friendly local SJW,

World Citizen Beliathon

If You Think Your Friendly Local SJW Is Bad For People, Check Out What It Did To The Environment



[...]
A Fortune magazine story from the same year adds some additional color to the issue:

Last year a Russian scientist from Murmansk disclosed that contrary to official denials, the Soviet navy had been dumping nuclear waste in the Barents Sea for nearly 30 years. The dumping site, he claimed, was several hundred miles from the Norwegian coast in a known fishing area. Even worse, the barrels of nuclear waste at first floated. So what did the Russians do? They punctured the protective containers, apparently so the highly toxic barrels of radioactive waste would fill with sea water and sink.

When the Soviets weren’t dumping nuclear waste or reactors into the ocean they busied themselves by declaring war against the world’s whale population, killing at least 45,000 humpbacks alone between 1946-1986. Sickeningly, according to Charles Homans, the slaughter was performed simply to satisfy the demands of central planners:

The Soviet whalers, [Russian scientist Alfred] Berzin wrote, had been sent forth to kill whales for little reason other than to say they had killed them. They were motivated by an obligation to satisfy obscure line items in the five-year plans that drove the Soviet economy, which had been set with little regard for the Soviet Union’s actual demand for whale products. “Whalers knew that no matter what, the plan must be met!” Berzin wrote. [A Soviet whaling ship] seemed to contain in microcosm everything Berzin believed to be wrong about the Soviet system: its irrationality, its brutality, its inclination toward crime.
Berzin contrasted the Soviet whalers with the Japanese, who are similarly thought to have caught whales off the books in the Antarctic (though in numbers, scientists believe, far short of the Soviets). The Japanese, motivated as they were by domestic demand for whale meat, were “at least understandable” in their actions, he wrote. “I should not say that as a scientist, but it is possible to understand the difference between a motivated and unmotivated crime.” Japanese whalers made use of 90 percent of the whales they hauled up the spillway; the Soviets, according to Berzin, used barely 30 percent. Crews would routinely return with whales that had been left to rot, “which could not be used for food. This was not regarded as a problem by anybody.”

This absurdity stemmed from an oversight deep in the bowels of the Soviet bureaucracy. Whaling, like every other industry in the Soviet Union, was governed by the dictates of the State Planning Committee of the Council of Ministers, a government organ tasked with meting out production targets. In the grand calculus of the country’s planned economy, whaling was considered a satellite of the fishing industry. This meant that the progress of the whaling fleets was measured by the same metric as the fishing fleets: gross product, principally the sheer mass of whales killed.


http://thefederalist.com/2014/01/13/if-you-think-communism-is-bad-for-people-check-out-what-it-did-to-the-environment/

[Spendulus]

....Don't you think it'd be nice if we did our part to leave this place a little better off than we found it?
.....reason demands ethics.

Yes.  We all want to leave the planet better than when we found it.   We don't, though, want you or others telling us what "better" is.  And we don't want you controlling our lives to implement your personal vision, which we may not share.

That is to say, "You" or any other person or organization, many of which themselves have been corrupted.  Like wolves in sheep clothing, avaricious sociopaths lurk under the umbrella of "green and good for the planet."  

[Spendulus]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/150313-oceans-marine-life-climate-change-acidification-oxygen-fish/

This is rather interesting, quite puzzling, and has splendid photographs. 

It seems they argue that there are low oxygen areas in the deep ocean which are expanding.  In typical Climate Alarmist fashion, they quote the Shockingly Hugh Number (4.5M square km of water) but not the fraction (1.5% of ocean).  Also they do not explain how any of this is known.  Argument that 4.5M has gone oxygen poor in 50 years is presented.  I know that 50 years or 25 years ago we had little ability to measure O2 levels a half mile down in the ocean.

More importantly, the article seems to take many good things and present them as bad things.  Fish and game fish, they say, are staying closer to the surface than in the past.  They say this is bad.

I think it looks like a good thing....

[Wilikon]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/150313-oceans-marine-life-climate-change-acidification-oxygen-fish/

This is rather interesting, quite puzzling, and has splendid photographs. 

It seems they argue that there are low oxygen areas in the deep ocean which are expanding.  In typical Climate Alarmist fashion, they quote the Shockingly Hugh Number (4.5M square km of water) but not the fraction (1.5% of ocean).  Also they do not explain how any of this is known.  Argument that 4.5M has gone oxygen poor in 50 years is presented.  I know that 50 years or 25 years ago we had little ability to measure O2 levels a half mile down in the ocean.

More importantly, the article seems to take many good things and present them as bad things.  Fish and game fish, they say, are staying closer to the surface than in the past.  They say this is bad.

I think it looks like a good thing....

The thing I don't get with science in general (beside me sucking at science in any field) is my feeling each scientist pushes forward its own research in its own field, in a 'vacuum'. Who criss-crosses everything trying to find a unique pattern to know more about, well, everything?

[tvbcof]

Honestly now, if we continue down this selfish, short-sighted path, where do you people think it ends? What is the logical conclusion of capitalism in your mind? Because it's certainly not a planet your grandchildren will thank you for. The science is clear on that.
Sooner or later we're going to have to face the fact that our current economic structures are both genocidal and suicidal, and then we're going to have to answer some hard questions about the future. All I'm saying is, why the hell should we wait?!

Your friendly local SJW,

World Citizen Beliathon

As I've mentioned several times, I live in timber country.  I've also grown up in said.  Some of it on a semi-defunct commune complete with aging hippies from the 70's who were generally found the city to be ultimately more interesting and lucrative, but who maintain to this day modest activity in figuring out how to deal with the property.  They are decent, and intelligent people for the most part, but not always the most practical of folks.

Having grown up in timber country and watched things go from forest to clear-cut to burnt slash to poisoned wasteland to saplings and back to fairly impressive forest again, it is just innately obvious to me that the environment chances and recovers.  One can within a few seconds be in a zone which is a slash burn to deep forest by crossing a boundary.  Within a year or two, crossing the boundary leads one from deep forest into an environment with a relative abundance of grasses.  An animal who eats grass or hunts creatures who eat grass are well served by this type of activity.  In a dozen years or so the trees get dense enough to change the environment again to dense but recent forest and the grasses and underbrush start to go away.  The animals who exploit a given type of environment migrate away as conditions shift.  If anything, land use activity in this way goes a long way towards fostering 'biodiversity'.  A uniform mature forest is actually just the opposite.  I'm not a big fan of mono-culture and believe that it is rational to design well thought out corridors which can mitigate impediments to a healthy ecosystem with minimal and realistic economic impacts.

For a long time I thought that people looking at a picture such as the above understood that forests re-grow after a clearing operation and the so-called SJWs were using such imagery mostly for propaganda purposes.  More recently it's dawned on me that a fair percentage of people looking at such a photo genuinely believe that the land is permanently ruined and vegetation will never grow back.  Especially young people who know only a concrete environment.

In fact lands can be significantly and semi-permanently damaged without appropriate consideration of run-off impacts, but these can be mitigated with some care.  And they should be!  This is often not the case, and countries where there is a starvation for energy tend to be where it is most common to see the level of deforestation which creates permanent damage.  Making fossil fuels a non-option is going the opposite way to solve this real and observable problem.

I might mention also that exploitation of biomass (e.g., having a wood burning stove for heat as I do) is on the extreme end of the spectrum in terms of, 'sustainability'. 'solar energy' and 'carbon neutrality'.  The cycle is extraordinarily tight.

edit - slight

[Wilikon]

Feared terror group al-Qaeda discussed strategies to combat CLIMATE CHANGE

EVIL terror group al-Qaeda once discussed strategies to combat CLIMATE CHANGE, a newly-emerged series of documents and letters has revealed.

The trove of articles – which consist of correspondence between former leader Osama bin Laden and other senior jihadists – paints a picture of the terror network in the months leading up to Bin Laden’s demise.

However, they also provide insight into some perhaps surprising agendas – including the organisation’s concern over much-debated climate change.

In one particular exchange, a member of the group expressed worry over drought and flooding in areas of the Middle East, adding that their “brothers” must be warned.

The letter, published by Foreign Affairs magazine, read: “You don’t fail to notice that due to climate change, there’s drought in some areas and floods in others.

“The brothers in Somalia must be warned so that they can take the maximum precautions possible.

“This lays on the shoulders of the leadership more than on the residents living along the rivers and valleys.

“One of these precautions is to establish an alert system to warn the families and establish an advanced observation point on the upper part of the river to warn people when heavy rainfall and flooding occur using a wireless device.”

The exchange then signed off with a note at the bottom reading: “Attached is a report about climate change, especially the floods in Pakistan. Please send it to Al-Jazeera.”

It is not clear who exactly wrote the passage, or who it was sent to.


http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/566981/al-Qaeda-discussed-strategies-combat-climate-change

[galdur]

It is not clear who exactly wrote the passage, or who it was sent to.

How about 1) Room 102 and 2) Room 204 Langley, Virginia ? Nah.

[hdbuck]

mehehe, its about time al Qaeda IPOes.

edit: damit, i just wrote a red alert word on the internet. al-Qaeda. damit!!  

[tvbcof]

Feared terror group al-Qaeda discussed strategies to combat CLIMATE CHANGE
...
“This lays on the shoulders of the leadership more than on the residents living along the rivers and valleys. ..."

It is not clear who exactly wrote the passage, or who it was sent to.

It was sent from CIA agent #1 to CIA agent #2.  Just thought I'd be helpful to those scratching their heads on this one.

Actually this story is a bit interesting.  I've noticed for the last several months little attempts to ease al-Queda (a database of Islamists that our intelligence services know of and understand enough to use for projects (initially against the Russians)) into a position of 'maybe not that bad after all' in the public eye.

[Spendulus]

Feared terror group al-Qaeda discussed strategies to combat CLIMATE CHANGE
...
“This lays on the shoulders of the leadership more than on the residents living along the rivers and valleys. ..."

It is not clear who exactly wrote the passage, or who it was sent to.

It was sent from CIA agent #1 to CIA agent #2.  Just thought I'd be helpful to those scratching their heads on this one.

Actually this story is a bit interesting.  I've noticed for the last several months little attempts to ease al-Queda (a database of Islamists that our intelligence services know of and understand enough to use for projects (initially against the Russians)) into a position of 'maybe not that bad after all' in the public eye.

That dog won't hunt.

[tvbcof]

Feared terror group al-Qaeda discussed strategies to combat CLIMATE CHANGE
...
“This lays on the shoulders of the leadership more than on the residents living along the rivers and valleys. ..."

It is not clear who exactly wrote the passage, or who it was sent to.

It was sent from CIA agent #1 to CIA agent #2.  Just thought I'd be helpful to those scratching their heads on this one.

Actually this story is a bit interesting.  I've noticed for the last several months little attempts to ease al-Queda (a database of Islamists that our intelligence services know of and understand enough to use for projects (initially against the Russians)) into a position of 'maybe not that bad after all' in the public eye.

That dog won't hunt.

I call it like I see it.  There are actually two close parallels between my views on so-called 'terrorism' and my much more recent views on this climate stuff:

  1) With both of these as well as almost all other things I'm interested in, I use the technique of favoring the hypothesis which has the best sustaining explanatory power as observations come in.  Even better when it provides predictive power as well.  In this instance I predict that 'al-Qaeda' will be just as helpful in some of the next countries that we seek to have 'regime change' and/or set up shop in as they have been in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Libya, Syria, etc.

  2) I assume that the message from the mainstream media has at best very little relevance if taken at face value at least.  The most reliably information comes from alternative sources, and this is especially the case when such sources have no feasible way to benefit from producing information and analysis.

I've very quickly become highly suspicious of the whole climate change scam after looking into it some because it hard not to smell a rat when a semi-broad view is taken.  The same thing can be said for the whole 'terrorism' charade as far as I'm concerned, and I came to that conclusion many years ago.  Both concepts are highly useful for the government to have imprinted on the herd, and the tools and methods they used to achieve this goal are similar.

[Spendulus]

Feared terror group al-Qaeda discussed strategies to combat CLIMATE CHANGE
...
“This lays on the shoulders of the leadership more than on the residents living along the rivers and valleys. ..."

It is not clear who exactly wrote the passage, or who it was sent to.

It was sent from CIA agent #1 to CIA agent #2.  Just thought I'd be helpful to those scratching their heads on this one.

Actually this story is a bit interesting.  I've noticed for the last several months little attempts to ease al-Queda (a database of Islamists that our intelligence services know of and understand enough to use for projects (initially against the Russians)) into a position of 'maybe not that bad after all' in the public eye.

That dog won't hunt.

I call it like I see it.  There are actually two close parallels between my views on so-called 'terrorism' and my much more recent views on this climate stuff:

  1) With both of these as well as almost all other things I'm interested in, I use the technique of favoring the hypothesis which has the best sustaining explanatory power as observations come in.  Even better when it provides predictive power as well.  In this instance I predict that 'al-Qaeda' will be just as helpful in some of the next countries that we seek to have 'regime change' and/or set up shop in as they have been in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Libya, Syria, etc.

  2) I assume that the message from the mainstream media has at best very little relevance if taken at face value at least.  The most reliably information comes from alternative sources, and this is especially the case when such sources have no feasible way to benefit from producing information and analysis.

I've very quickly become highly suspicious of the whole climate change scam after looking into it some because it hard not to smell a rat when a semi-broad view is taken.  The same thing can be said for the whole 'terrorism' charade as far as I'm concerned, and I came to that conclusion many years ago.  Both concepts are highly useful for the government to have imprinted on the herd, and the tools and methods they used to achieve this goal are similar.

The "naming of terrorist groups" and the use of those names in US propaganda seems to be very fluid right now, as Obama is operating with motives in the Middle East that have neither been stated or understood.  That is continuing.  I suspect as the media follows his path they simply make things up but have no direction from his organization.  At least it looks that way.

Most commonly the appearance of total chaos indicates that, really, there is total chaos.

[Wilikon]

[Wilikon]

Anglican Bishops Apologize For Climate Change: “We’ve Been Complicit In A Theology Of Domination”…

Climate change is the “most urgent” moral issue facing humanity, according to a group of 17 Anglican bishops, calling on the church’s 85 million-strong followers to take action.

The bishops, from Africa, Asia, Europe, Australia and the Americas, say they have been “complicit in a theology of domination” that has seen environmental degradation ignored.

Writing ahead of the most important Christian festival of the year, Easter, they urge fellow Anglicans to push for an ambitious UN climate deal in Paris later this year.

They also commit their own dioceses to divest from fossil fuels, invest in renewable energy and take energy conservation measures in church buildings.

“In the words of St Theresa of Avila, we are God’s hands and feet on earth – now is the time for us, rooted in prayer, to step up and take action on the climate crisis,” said the archbishop of Cape Town and primate of southern Africa, Thabo Makgoba.[…]

Although climate scientists have for many years warned of the consequences of inaction there is an alarming lack of global agreement about the way forward. We believe that the problem is spiritual as well as economic, scientific and political, because the roadblock to effective action relates to basic existential issues of how human life is framed and valued: including the competing moral claims of present and future generations, human versus non-human interests, and how the lifestyle of wealthy countries is to be balanced against the basic needs of the developing world. For this reason the Church must urgently find its collective moral voice.


http://www.rtcc.org/2015/03/30/anglican-bishops-lead-holy-week-call-for-global-climate-action/

[Spendulus]

Anglican Bishops Apologize For Climate Change: “We’ve Been Complicit In A Theology Of Domination”…

Climate change is the “most urgent” moral issue facing humanity, according to a group of 17 Anglican bishops, calling on the church’s 85 million-strong followers to take action.

The bishops, from Africa, Asia, Europe, Australia and the Americas, say they have been “complicit in a theology of domination” that has seen environmental degradation ignored.

Writing ahead of the most important Christian festival of the year, Easter, they urge fellow Anglicans to push for an ambitious UN climate deal in Paris later this year.

They also commit their own dioceses to divest from fossil fuels, invest in renewable energy and take energy conservation measures in church buildings.

“In the words of St Theresa of Avila, we are God’s hands and feet on earth – now is the time for us, rooted in prayer, to step up and take action on the climate crisis,” said the archbishop of Cape Town and primate of southern Africa, Thabo Makgoba.[…]

Although climate scientists have for many years warned of the consequences of inaction there is an alarming lack of global agreement about the way forward. We believe that the problem is spiritual as well as economic, scientific and political, because the roadblock to effective action relates to basic existential issues of how human life is framed and valued: including the competing moral claims of present and future generations, human versus non-human interests, and how the lifestyle of wealthy countries is to be balanced against the basic needs of the developing world. For this reason the Church must urgently find its collective moral voice.


http://www.rtcc.org/2015/03/30/anglican-bishops-lead-holy-week-call-for-global-climate-action/

Just curious.  Aren't there thousands of those fucking bishops?

And 17 have made it to Hell Gore.

[stasis-crypto]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QtnueIJGjc#t=116

Sun is the Main Driver of Climate Change and Global Warming or Cooling say Friends of Science – Not You or 400 ppm CO2

Carbon dioxide (CO2) levels reported to have reached 400 ppm at Mauna Loa Observatory sent climate change activists like James Hansen, Al Gore, 350.org and Scientific American into a frenzy but Friends of Science say solar and ocean cycles are the main drivers of climate change, not CO2. With no global warming in 16 years despite a rise in CO2, the role of declining water vapor in upper atmosphere partially negates the ‘heat-trapping’ effect of CO2.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/5/prweb10729310.htm

Well, it's rather interesting that at least in verbal or post driven argumentation, AGW believers typically don't fare too well.  Doesn't mean they are wrong - some subjects don't do well in debate as over simplifications lend credence to one side or another.  "If the glove don't fit you gotta acquit", etc...

I guess what I am curious about is for those here who sincerely believe in the general theory of man warming the planet, what do they think about Reddit banning so called 'deniers?' and why?

If you click back on my main link, just browse all the way down for the comments. Looks like they loved that move.

But Grist always has selectively deleted posts to drive away people who didn't like their attitude and worldview.  Grist, as I recall, the editor there is the guy that invented the phrase "Denier" as applied to climate skeptics.  Bunch of nutjobs.

Example from their postings...no, it isn't the Onion.

The only genocide here, active as well as passive, is that caused by the increased floods, fires, droughts, crop failures, storms, social chaos and other effects of global climate catastrophe. Those few rich people causing the vast majority of it are guilty of crimes against humanity and the Earth, and all you denying delayalists are guilty of conspiracy and aiding and abetting felons. In some places the felony murder charge is applicable. That's 150,000 to 300,000 counts a year; a lot of prison time for you folks. I'd like to help you avoid that but you have to cooperate. Stop spreading delayalist lies, go through the Truth and Reconciliation Committee process when you get the chance and help solve the problem, starting now.

Solar, wind, efficiency, reforestation, local organic low-meat permaculture are the answers. Pick one or more and learn about it so you help.

While I can see the point behind the statement, taking it literally obviously wouldn't make any sense. That would be like penalizing anyone who has bought processed meat for the inhumane treatment of animals - yes, it happens - no, you're not responsible for it (at least not in a macroscopic sense).