Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[Wilikon]

So should we expect an entire continent of economically disenfranchised people to wait for "green" energy to become economically feasible? How many will die between now and then of entirely preventable causes? How many lives are destroyed every single day that could be saved by a modernized infrastructure or modern food production methods?

Yeah, let's just concentrate on the big cities. Ignore the rural areas. Good plan. </irony>
It's already economically feasible for rural areas.
Of course if you want aluminum production or other energy intensive things you need big power plants.
I wouldn't choose coal if there are other options.
But maybe we should ask the people first about what they really want, instead of making assumptions.

Do you think that might be just a small part of why it is easy to recruit people willing to die if they can take just a few of us with them? 

I can't remember any suicide bombers from Africa.

Boko Haram Suspected of Detonating Suicide Bomb, Killing 14 Watching World Cup in Nigeria
http://www.christianpost.com/news/boko-haram-suspected-of-detonating-suicide-bomb-killing-14-watching-world-cup-in-nigeria-121789/

[Wilikon]

UN-Backed Conference Calls For Ending Capitalism To Save World From Global Warming…

A UN-backed conference in Venezuela has ended with a declaration to scrap carbon markets and reject the green economy.

The Margarita Declaration was issued at the end of a four-day meeting of around 130 green activist groups, which the Venezuelan government hosted in order to raise the volume of civil society demands in UN discussions on climate change.

“The structural causes of climate change are linked to the current capitalist hegemonic system,” the final declaration said. “To combat climate change it is necessary to change the system.”

The declaration will be handed to environment ministers when they meet ahead of the UN’s main round of talks in Lima this year.


http://www.thegwpf.org/130-green-ngos-call-for-end-to-green-economy/

[Spendulus]

UN-Backed Conference Calls For Ending Capitalism To Save World From Global Warming…

A UN-backed conference in Venezuela has ended with a declaration to scrap carbon markets and reject the green economy.

The Margarita Declaration was issued at the end of a four-day meeting of around 130 green activist groups, which the Venezuelan government hosted in order to raise the volume of civil society demands in UN discussions on climate change.

“The structural causes of climate change are linked to the current capitalist hegemonic system,” the final declaration said. “To combat climate change it is necessary to change the system.”

The declaration will be handed to environment ministers when they meet ahead of the UN’s main round of talks in Lima this year.


http://www.thegwpf.org/130-green-ngos-call-for-end-to-green-economy/

POINT OF NO RETURN IS NEAR!

http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-climate-change-skeptics-could-reach-catastr,36521/

[Spendulus]

“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable.” - Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit

“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” - Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” - Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC

“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” - Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” - Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” - Christine Stewart, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” - emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

“We require a central organizing principle - one agreed to voluntarily. Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change - these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary.” - Al Gore, Earth in the Balance

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?” - Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” - Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies

“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.” - Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

“Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.” - Professor Maurice King

“Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.” - Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

“The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.” - Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” - Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

“The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.” – Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.

“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.” - Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund

“I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.” - John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

“The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.” - Christopher Manes, Earth First!

[Wilikon]

“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable.” - Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit

“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” - Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” - Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC

“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” - Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” - Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” - Christine Stewart, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” - emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

“We require a central organizing principle - one agreed to voluntarily. Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change - these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary.” - Al Gore, Earth in the Balance

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?” - Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” - Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies

“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.” - Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

“Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.” - Professor Maurice King

“Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.” - Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

“The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.” - Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” - Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

“The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.” – Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.

“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.” - Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund

“I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.” - John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

“The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.” - Christopher Manes, Earth First!

Saved. I can never remember where to look online with all those quotes together.

[Wilikon]

GREENPEACE IN CHAOS AS STAFF REVOLT AGAINST MANAGEMENT

Greenpeace is in turmoil after more than 40 staff signed a letter calling two of the group’s most senior officials to resign. The group faced ridicule last month after it emerged that Husting chose to regularly fly between his home in Luxembourg and work in Amsterdam, leaving a massive carbon footprint.

NL Times reports that staff members have now penned a letter to Husting and Greenpeace director Kuni Naidoo, calling for Husting’s sacking and also urging Naidoo to "consider his position", adding that only their departure can repair the damage they have caused the environmentalist group.

The letter has spread among the group’s employees and has now been signed by almost all important campaign leaders and senior staff. Only Dutch director Sylvia Borren is missing, as she believes that dismissal is unnecessary.

Staff are also angry at Husting’s salary, believing it to be far too high. At €6,075 (£4,790/$8,170) a month, staff members say that the amount is "multiple times the average income and a lot of money for most of our supporters".

The letter adds that there is no way for the group to recover its reputation unless both Husting and Naidoo go, as keeping them on will continued to undermine their credibility.

"It will come back every time as soon as we criticize politicians or organizations. Like is actually happening now already. If Greenpeace can't do it right, who can?" staff members told Dutch paper Volkskrant.

Last month, Breitbart London reported that the carbon footprint generated by Husting’s flights was equivalent to leaving a low-energy light bulb on for 220 years, or the average household energy consumption for two years.

Below is the full letter, courtesy of WattsUpWithThat:

Dear Pascal, Dear Kumi,

In this letter we would like to express the deep concern that a great number of GPNL staff have regarding the reaction of you both on the issue of you Pascal, commuting to the Greenpeace International office in Amsterdam by plane. We are gravely disappointed by the role you both played in this matter.
Furthermore, we feel that you are not dealing with this disaster in a pro‐active manner and to the benefit of the whole organization. The lack of an appropriate external response is seriously undermining the campaign, mobilization and fundraising work our organization is doing. We find it shocking that our International Programme Director has been commuting by plane and that there was an agreement made between you both about it, even though this goes against the official Greenpeace code of conduct.
[...]


http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/07/24/Greenpeace-in-Chaos-as-Staff-Call-for-Managers-to-Resign

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Can you save a polar bear or two from being crushed by a melting glacier while I read my magazine? My plane is getting stuck in air traffic. Pretty please? Thanks a lot!"

GreenPiss Boss 

[SgtMoth]

Seems to me that are too many planes flying period.  Why doesnt anyone ever talk about that.  Do you know how much fuel a plane goes through in one flight and how much pollution that is.  I use mostly 1, but sometimes 2 tanks of gas a month in my car.  Ive flown once in my life and dont care if I ever do it again.

[KonstantinosM]

Major misleading quote by Willikon on his misleading quote post:

The whole quote by Schneider was the following:

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

[Wilikon]

Major misleading quote by Willikon on his misleading quote post:

The whole quote by Schneider was the following:

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

Can you point me to my post with me quoting Schneider and I will point to your comment and update it with it accordingly.

[Wilikon]

The backlash over a controversial 2013 government rule exempting wind farms from prosecution for the unintentional deaths of bald and golden eagles—for up to three decades—continues to play out in emotional online comments.

“Eagles along with other birds are being chopped out of the air and suffer horrible injuries and death by the blades of high-speed wind turbines,” wrote Patricia Lewko. “This practice has been given a green light by this administration in the name the name of Clean or Green Energy. … What is so clean about chopping up birds to either lie in agony or be mutilated?”

Bald eagles were removed from the endangered species list in 2007, yet killing bald and golden eagles remains a felony punishable by a $250,000 fine and prison time.

“As the nation seeks to increase its production of domestic energy, wind energy developers and wildlife agencies have recognized a need for specific guidance to help make wind energy facilities compatible with eagle conservation and the laws and regulations that protect eagles,” according to the wind energy development section on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife website.

In 2009, the agency first instituted a permit system to allow exemptions from prosecution—for five years—for wind farms and certain other projects that inadvertently harm or kill eagles. Last year, it extended the duration of permits for “non-purposeful take of eagles” to 30 years, responding to pressure from the wind industry to provide more certainty for investors.

“The industry suffers a lot from uncertainty about policy of all sorts, environmental as well as tax policy, and a variety of things like that,” said Dan Turner, an analyst with Windustry, a Minneapolis renewable energy advocacy group. “It’s very hard to plan, especially these major projects that take multi-years, if you don’t know what the policy is going to be. It might just close you down.”

There’s no requirement to obtain the permit, but wind farms and other potential threats to eagles risk prosecution without one. Opponents will get the chance to discuss their concerns during five public meetings across the country to reconsider eagle-kill permits.

Estimates vary widely on the collateral damage to eagles, bats and birds that tangle with wind turbines. A recent Wildlife Society survey estimated 1.4 million bat and bird fatalities annually, including 83,000 raptors. In the past five years, wind farms have destroyed at least 67 eagles, mostly golden eagles, according to a 2013 government report.

But the American Wind Energy Association claims turbines account for less than 2 percent of reported golden eagle deaths, and even fewer deaths of bald eagles. The group calls lead poisoning, vehicles and power lines greater threats.

http://dailysignal.com/2014/07/25/federal-agency-faces-backlash-wind-farms-get-exemption-killing-eagles/


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We need to kill some of the bald eagles to save the polar bear from being crushed under the melting ice caused by the caterpillar vehicles we use to build those wind farms and the roads leading to them, in the middle of nowhere, because our cause is just. Don't forget to ask for your carbon tax credit (1-800-GUILLOTINE) and get a 6 pack of Vintage Coca-Cola With Lime, for free..."  

[Wilikon]

Seems to me that are too many planes flying period.  Why doesnt anyone ever talk about that.  Do you know how much fuel a plane goes through in one flight and how much pollution that is.  I use mostly 1, but sometimes 2 tanks of gas a month in my car.  Ive flown once in my life and dont care if I ever do it again.

And none of those people sees Skype as an amazing carbon foot print terminator for their meeting...

[Spendulus]

Major misleading quote by Willikon on his misleading quote post:

The whole quote by Schneider was the following:

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

Can you point me to my post with me quoting Schneider and I will point to your comment and update it with it accordingly.

from my list.  But all Schneider does in the extended quote is further try to justify the Lying.

Remember this guy was a global coolhead before he was a global warm hothead.

[Wilikon]

Major misleading quote by Willikon on his misleading quote post:

The whole quote by Schneider was the following:

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

Can you point me to my post with me quoting Schneider and I will point to your comment and update it with it accordingly.

from my list.  But all Schneider does in the extended quote is further try to justify the Lying.

Remember this guy was a global coolhead before he was a global warm hothead.

Yes. I know it was from your list. That is why I asked to point me to MY post quoting this DIRECTLY... Alas, like roaches, as soon as you turn the light ON they run behind the fridge...

[Wilikon]

The average temperature needs to be defined by a certain methodology.  Yes, there are infinite ways of measuring the average of the Earth.  What a scientist will do is lay forth his methodology and use it to compare relative temperatures. 

Not sure why anyone but an idiot or a lunatic would take from that belief that I personally should know the current average temperature of the atmosphere.

I like how you guys continue to try to misrepresent my arguments. 

When you're a bunch of marginalized lunatics, what else are you going to do, but murmur bs to yourselves to avoid the obvious that you're all quite wrong.

BTW I haven't had an iphone since the first generation iphones.  Not an Apple fan.   (since you guys care so much)

... For anyone reading this, let me give you a good analogy...

Do meteorologists understand the weather?  A certain group of people would say meteorologists don't because they're so often wrong.  Others would understand that although meteorologists do understand weather better than just about everyone else, it doesn't mean meteorologists can perfectly simulate the weather and the billions of factors that go into play.  Yet, go somewhere with enough dumbasses and 100% you'll be able to find someone who will pontificate how the weathermen don't know anything.  Same basic thing going on here.

If you go somewhere with enough dumbasses, knowingly well in advance the path you are on, can this dumbassery be airborne and you be contaminated too?

[Spendulus]

The average temperature needs to be defined by a certain methodology.  Yes, there are infinite ways of measuring the average of the Earth.  What a scientist will do is lay forth his methodology and use it to compare relative temperatures. 

Not sure why anyone but an idiot or a lunatic would take from that belief that I personally should know the current average temperature of the atmosphere.

I like how you guys continue to try to misrepresent my arguments...

Not sure if I have done that.  I do like to discuss thermodynamic equilibrium or the lack of and it's effect on people trying to lamely discuss "planetary temperature".

I am not of the opinion but certain that in discussions of climate change there isn't any reason at all to misrepresent anyone's arguments.  That's not helpful in an attempt to understand phenomena.

[taylortyler]

I think banning them was an overreaction.

[Window2Wall]

Seems to me that are too many planes flying period.  Why doesnt anyone ever talk about that.  Do you know how much fuel a plane goes through in one flight and how much pollution that is.  I use mostly 1, but sometimes 2 tanks of gas a month in my car.  Ive flown once in my life and dont care if I ever do it again.

there is demand for the flights and airlines can fly them profitably so why shouldn't they fly?

[Spendulus]

Seems to me that are too many planes flying period.  Why doesnt anyone ever talk about that.  Do you know how much fuel a plane goes through in one flight and how much pollution that is.  I use mostly 1, but sometimes 2 tanks of gas a month in my car.  Ive flown once in my life and dont care if I ever do it again.

there is demand for the flights and airlines can fly them profitably so why shouldn't they fly?

A 747 IIRC can do about 100 miles per gallon per passenger, so it probably would beat your car in efficiency.

[redHeadBlunder]

Seems to me that are too many planes flying period.  Why doesnt anyone ever talk about that.  Do you know how much fuel a plane goes through in one flight and how much pollution that is.  I use mostly 1, but sometimes 2 tanks of gas a month in my car.  Ive flown once in my life and dont care if I ever do it again.

there is demand for the flights and airlines can fly them profitably so why shouldn't they fly?

A 747 IIRC can do about 100 miles per gallon per passenger, so it probably would beat your car in efficiency.

Liberal green groups do not care how efficient your mode of transportation is. They simply want to only use solar energy.

[KonstantinosM]

Airplanes are at around 80 MPG per seat.
Cars have the potential of 140 MPG (in highway travel with all the seats occupied)
Volvo buses are at 570 MPG (per passenger)
Hybrid cars have the potential of 240 MPG (assuming all seats are occupied).
Electric cars like Tesla? Forget about it. Trains?
Airplane trips are meant to be a factor of difference longer than car trips.




Green groups want to improve efficiency standards in every aspect of life. Where there is a coal plant, there can be a more efficient coal power plant.
Climate denier's education is either deficient or they have a profit motive to spew garbage. What good is it debating morons?
It's a good philosophical argument that you shouldn't allow idiotic ideas to go unchallenged. Simply stating the superior argument and just letting others build on top of it should be enough.

Provably, economies which go Green improve over economies that don't.

You need to read a couple of books, but if the prospect of reading for a couple dozen hours scares you, there's nothing I can do.