I suspect people will start caring real fast if and when the populations of the underwater island nations start migrating to other places, like to our country.  

Exodus of refugees sure would be a wake up call but that is going to happen at a point of no return as I call it. That will happen in 2050 and by then it will alraedy be too late to stop things from getting progressively worse on their own without the help of humans to make things worse. Check some of the views on this on the site cuddlendance.com

Kristen.

The problem whereby people like you feel like pulling their hair is
the focus of my website work in particular the link - To all enviro-activists at http://cuddlendance.com/tea.aspx
Please take an hour of your precious time and try to grasp the concepts presented by me.Thanks.

Pat Verma

Dear Emily, Kirsten and others

I wish to respectfully submit that the problem cannot or should not be  how the message is being framed. It really is not emphasizing positivity when we mention the outcomes of a "clean energy future" and "green jobs" what is done there is mention of remedial action, or constructive criticism. If a child spills his glass of milk it is better to hug him and help him do the clean up rather than just scold him and do the cleaning yourself. We have made this mess and we must clean it up and not expect that someone else is going to pitch in and do it for us. We need to take responsibility and take action and do that soon.

What really disconnects activists, legislators and public over  "the heart of global warming" is the disparity between their expectancies. That is a uniquely human behaviour where we allocate personal expectancies and match them with reality and if they are unmet we feel sad and if the reality exceeds expectancy we are ecstatic. Say you buy $15 worth of groceries and you give $20 bill. You expect $5 back. You can be ecstatic if you are paid back $95 because cashier mistakenly believed you gave a $100 bill. If you get only a quarter back you are understandingly infuriated.

The mention of 300,000 people   dying, or the millions of acres of agriculture being lost, won't bother people unless they connect that to their own personal suffering. They can go on suffering in silence and do nothing unless they can see the connection. The trouble is that things are happening on the other end of the Globe and are invisible. There are groups who profit from keeping public in the dark and that only aggravates situation. There are conflicting financial incentives of various factions of society and that disparity has to go. In fact in natural course of events it would vanish. It is matter of time until everyone begins to feel "the heat".

Those who stand to profit in very serious way would have no incentive to concede the truth that global warming could and almost certainly WILL lead to the end of not merely human existence but all life form including plants. We do  have to change our behaviour and do that NOW. But we are enjoying  the complacence and being held back by lethargy that I have explained we are genetically programmed with due to our humongous brain size. Those who profit from the pollution need to brought on board and that is not easy. We have to find ways to do that.

Although actions by public would be paired with hopefully larger steps by governments through passing aggressive legislation it is a folly to rely too much on the governments. The corporate greed is best fed by the pollution promotion agenda. The environmentalists are enemies of the corporate giants and the corporate giants control the political action. Therefore the policy makers are inherently acting contrary to the interests of the public unless they are not left with any other choice. There is this war going on between the governments and the climate conscious public and the public is not winning. Politicians are going to design our collective demise. That has to be admitted and dealt with.

 We need to innovate. We can do that only if we can unite against the Corporate greed and Political Greed. That is not easy. We are too split amongst ourselves. We must stand up united against both these greeds and I suggest that we do that through building a greater human fraternity through FREE HUGS movement. There is a sizable price to pay. We have to give up comforts and luxuries e.g. shun drinking pop and fast foods. Walk, peddle , car pool or use transit as opposed to taking a car.

 We need not forget the risks that we are not even aware of.   We do have lots of stories to tell the public. But the public is deaf as well as blind. And that is self imposed deliberate ignorance and the public would not come out of that shell of ignorance. That is the real hurdle.  The public is overly exhausted in the chore of earning their livings to pay the huge bills imposed upon them by the Corporate giants and their greed and the high taxes imposed by the inept governments. Things are simply too complicated for an average layman to grasp. The public simply surrenders quickly. We have to build a fraternity where we care for each other and not try to rip each other off to gain tiny advantages. We have BIG enemies, the Corporate Giants, the State and now the Climate. We must unite against them and they are going to make sure that we never unite. Love and compassion towards the fellow man is the sole answer and that is not happening. We hate each other too much. We see each other as our enemy.

Strong federal legislation cuts both ways. Reliance on the Government to solve problems for us is naïve. They are not our allies. They never have and never will give a damn about us. There has to be demonstration of power by the public to make them stay on the right path. They will use police forced to dismantle any unity that we raise against them.

We are much better off relying on our own efforts to reduce greenhouse gas pollution to the extent possible. Only a very wide circle or environmentalist sentiment would create a situation where the Corporate giants and the Politicians would feel compelled to act properly.

 Grim details of global warming's impact on human life and livelihood is not going to budge the Corporate and the Political Agenda. They are in a serious conflict to start with.  Unless we truly unite and form coalitions there are going to be destructive storms; public health disasters; devastating mean sea level rises; newly set high temperatures records; disruption of agriculture; raging and uncontrollable forest fires; glacial melts that paucity of drinking and irrigation water and agricultural lands. We are going to see the deforestations and their replacements with deserts. The only hope is that we the 7 billion residents of this planet take our planet back from the "Corporate-Political pillagers" who I refer to as Red pillagers to distinguish them as enemies of the green movement which is feeble and at their mercy. We have to recognize the enemy first. Electorate in every democracy including India must begin to make the  demand effective action from Congress?

The masses must  become more motivated to admit the onslaught of the calamity and the part of learning how the heat-trapping gas emissions dynamic is way less important. Action on the part of masses does not require everyone to understand everything in depth. Public only need follow the few who in the know.

 The dream of a cleaner, more verdant environment, plentiful well-paying green jobs, a secure planet to live on, and  a stable climate on it all are very lofty goals but the probability of this dream being realized is slim and is slimming by the day or hour.  It is not impossible to calculate how many hours we are left with the target execution date of the planet of 2050. Let us start appeal process now so that by that date those appeals get heard. Let us unite in a humongous brotherhood of mankind and begin to care about each other and all of us come out alive.

Best regards. More on the website link I have set for the activists to understand the cuddlendance philosophy at http://cuddlendance.com/tea.aspx

Regards.

Pat Verma HUGS@cuddlendance.com        

Readers might find it easier to read this huge post on this link where it is bit better organized

http://cuddlendance.com/Selfreliance.aspx

Regards

Pat Verma

WOW, after all that, I just need a big HUG!

Abu Dhabi's first solar power plant which has 87,777 solar modules is spread over 200,000 square metres an area the size of 27 football fields and has a capacity of 10 megawatts with an average daily output of at  least half of that i.e. 47,945 kilowatt hours because the plant functions at 60 per cent of its capacity due to dust in the air. Can you please for the benefit of us all find out how much energy one football field worth of area  generates and how much surface is needed to power a home?

That's some impressive numbers. Now, if we can plaster over the Arabian, Sahara, Mojave, Sonoran, Gobi, Kalahari, Atacama, and Great Sandy Deserts, we might just be talking.

Can anyone enlighten me on this point I came across in a vague passing that with the warming of the surface temperatures we are noting poorer quality clouds with low moisture content and poorer probabilities of precipitation. Seemed reminiscent of the phenomenon of hanging rain over deserts I read about long while back.

Pat Verma

Source of my views on the Low-level clouds that are said to be involved in a positive feedback mechanism that could exacerbate global warming - according to a study of cloud and temperature records from the north-eastern Pacific Ocean. Scientists in the US have found that low-level cloud cover decreases when the sea surface gets warmer. Fewer clouds mean that more sunlight reaches Earth's surface, leading to further warming.
is http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/39908

Are you a petroleum geologist?  Because I can't think of too many other reasons that a scientist would not wish to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence of human-propelled global warming. And even then it would only comprehensible, not excusable.

The "Algore" baiting is tired. Flame throwing is unwelcome.  And this blog is not about debating the reality of climate change.  I'll leave this comment by Mr. Freeze comment up as an example to others of how not to participate around here.

What has geology got to do with climatology. They are two separate birds.

Pat Verma

cuddlendance.com

Pat Verma, please tell me you are not serious! It is pretty clear that you know little about either. Landforms, elevation, locations of water bodies (especially oceans), and movements of continents have huge implications to climate. Furthermore, the science of geology lets us interpret earth history. That history shows that climate has always been cyclic and always will be. It is no wonder I am tearing my hair out when I venture ono this site. Science and "journalism" should be two separate birds.

I myself often remain in constant doubt whether I am serious or otherwise so I really cannot answer whether I am or I am  not serious! If you concluded that it is pretty clear that I know little about either you can be right. But to me it seemed that these two are different. But my background is in studying brains. I am a neurologist. I do have a plenty of interest in psychology and psychiatry. What my role is to help the enviro-activists to show them a great tool to control the masses to attain the goal they are after. In any way my focus is on smiles, laughter, cuddling, hugs, dancing etc. All fun sort of stuff. Never serious about anything. Why be serious. We are all about to perish soon anyway. Why not depart laughing?

Sure it seems rational that landforms, elevation, locations of water bodies (especially oceans), and movements of continents have huge implications to climate. But the continent movements to me were geography. But why split hair. Let us get to the business.

I am not very cognizant of the history of the planet which shows that climate has always been cyclic. If that has been the case then it is possible that it will be. It is like saying that in the air show two planes have had several close calls and that they will continue to have such close calls in the future. Many right thinking people would say that one of those close calls would end up with demise of both the planes. It is being now predicted that this Globe of ours is on a collision course with itself and it going to commit a suicide like forest fires trying to end the left over rain forests, without the help of humans burning or chopping them down. We are going to become passive bystanders as the collision course takes place.  Sure if you are of the view that you are tearing your hair out when you ventured on to this site you have to stop pulling on them. If I read you correctly your purpose of joining the site was to calm down the alarmists like me that nothing is going to happen. Things are going to keep happening. There have been too many close calls in the past and even if these two planes are now within 100 m of each other there is no need to panic. Even the air drag of the bigger plane is not likely to suck the twin engine one into its close proximity. These idiot alarmists are trying to make money out of this show by cashing on the panic or human timidity. I am probably not the best person to ask the answer how huge and how proximate the problem of global warming calamity is. I openly admit ignorance to that. But I speak from the healthcare perspective. We have another pandemic of NCD (non communicable diseases - obesity, diabetes, heart disease, stroke, dementia and stupidity ) upon us to deal with and it is going to cost big bucks. And we do not have the bucks. So if we start doing things like power walking and dancing like crazy and fight the  NCD  pandemic we are going to perish from that as well. It so happens that power walking and aerobic dancing would help with the fighting of global warming and the human health. So whether the warming or CO2 overload based doom is pending or not even a remote possibility, my position that we accept befriend, hug and cuddle with each other and that we have fun dancing and power walking together is still smart life choice. So I am going to spread that message and may be ride the global warming bandwagon because there are believers in that who would very likely use the tool of fraternity that I am suggesting that they use. I would not subscribe to your philosophy of "science" and "journalism" as two separate birds because then we have to banish all scientific journals and there are thousands of them. This last line of your does make me serious question your ability of rational thinking and you have inflicted so serious damage to your credibility by proposing that many would feel no need to pay any attention to what you say. If you wish to retain credibility with the highly knowledgeable circle that you are amidst you have to weigh every line before you publish it. Even if you apologize and retract the line the damage to credibility has been done and not curable. Best regards. More on the website link I have set for the activists to understand the cuddlendance philosophy at http://cuddlendance.com/tea.aspx

Regards.

Pat Verma HUGS@cuddlendance.com

First, we don't need to eliminate fossil fuels now, and it isn't going to happen for a long time, anyway. Eventually they will proably be replaced. Second, if you think environmentalist whackos are going to tell the truth about nuclear energy, you are dreaming. They hate it, too. They hate all energy that is realistic and practical. They hate capitalism and American affluence.

What American affluence?

Which journalists are lying about nuclear power?

The pollution mess that nuclear energy creats is way worse then other energy forms. Solar energy is way better source given that in essence sun is the only true source of energy in the entire solar system. Why not focus on the SUN ?

Pat Verma

cuddlendance.com

Pat, do you mean the same SUN that couldn't possibly have anything to do with our climate variations? Just how do you propose to power all our vast technology with solar cells? How much of the landscape are they going to cover? Did you know that fossil fuels have stored and concentrated the sun's energy for us?

In grade 4 we learnt that SUN is the cause of the four seasons that we enjoy. It is the relationship of the pole (North or South) to SUN that determine the season. Poor Aussies have to celebrate X-mas due to their relative position to the SUN at that time of the year. Every toddler knows that SUN is the key determinant of our day and night, seasons, weather climate etc. My best suggestion to the alarmists and environmentalists would have been to ask President Obama to order a lower setting of thermostat of SUN to cure the global warming. But no one listens to me.

There can be no sanity in the assertion that SUN couldn't possibly have anything to do with our climate variations? Even if you were to implicate winds, cloud cover, glaciers etc. , as other determinants of the climate conditions, even then it is the mischief of SUN, which is responsible for everything including life on the planet. Without the sunlight we would have no vegetation nor the meat to eat.

I am not an energy engineer. Just a "practical joker" at best. Hugger of trees and humans stuff like that. What do I know of energy.  I wasted plenty of time reading physics, ergs, calories, joules, megawatts all that stuff. Followed and understood nothing.

But allow me to how do we propose to power all our vast technology with solar cells? First shut down half of the industry. Let me start with textile mills. We all will be lot better of going au natural. What need we really have to cover our fabulous bodies. But wait, we have to cover up all that flab. So if the flab goes so would the clothes. And the rest of the industries too can be eliminated. Stop using cars altogether. Use bikes or ride horse-backs. Better still run to work and way back. Next come the housing. We have to start living in real dens and caves. They do have some in Australia to fight the heat.

How much of the landscape the solar plates are  going to cover to power the left over industries? Now I would have to ask the techies who know how much surface area coverage is needed for powering a household but I have heard that there are houses who can capture enough power from their own roofs and windows to become self-sufficient energy wise. So the fears that we would need to cover all of the globe to generate power is not realistic. In any event there is nothing stopping us the oceans (tidal waves and non-tidal ocean oscillations) which they say can generate enough power for Canada (with  three huge oceans to tap from) that we can meet all power needs of entire Canada merely from oceans. There I would say that even the ocean energy is solar to begin with because the moon came out of SUN and the ocean oscillations are solar in origin.

Yes despite my vast ignorance, I did  know that fossil fuels were stored and can be viewed as concentrated form of solar energy. But I would respectfully beg to differ from you on the point that nature had intended it to be use by us because the depth at which nature buried them seem to me as a clear attempt at concealing the coal and petroleum from greedy humans. We are certainly stealing these from earth. And theft is bad thing. Even Bible says that. May be we are now being punished through being choked to death with smog as a penalty of that theft. But Mr. Petroleum, what is going to happen by 2050 when we run out of all the petroleum and burn off all the accessible coal?  We would have to paddle machines to make light-bulbs burn like in Gilligan's Island. That sure is going to be fun. Plenty of time for cuddling and dancing around. Right. So in the end I am going to prevail no matter what happens, as long as not everyone ends up dead. That is the only thing that must be avoided. Agreed?

Let me explain the subconscious conflict or cognitive dissonance which underlies your honestly believed denial of the warming. You have devoted your life to petroleum and that has supported your livelihood. You are incapable of rational thinking when it comes to petroleum. You have to tell yourself that you have lived your entire life wrongly. That conflict in your mind where you wish to uphold your view of having been a conscientious person precludes you from conceding to any rationale that conflicts with your viewpoint. That is not unique to you. Everyone whose livelihood depends on destroying the planet is going to bitterly resent the global warming awareness. That is the focus of my website. We have to hug and accept you and do things to help you live and be happy and then and only then can we hope to get you and others like you to join us. We propose to use HUGs, HUMOR and HUMILIATION to accomplish that and in that order. We HAVE TO do this for your own good. In a way brain wash you and if rational thinking does not work, which we know would not, we have to resort to the cult type startegies where we would ask you to convert to our religions of environmentalism because we love you not because the scientific arguments which you would never subscribe to.  

Best regards. More on the website link I have set for the activists to understand the cuddlendance philosophy at http://cuddlendance.com/tea.aspx

Regards.

Pat Verma HUGS@cuddlendance.com

Pat Verma, I was kind of hoping you were  a woman and that you lived somewhere near Victoria, Australia. I wanted to introduce you to Ishe Boge. You two might have been a match made in heaven.....or somewhere. Oh, well. You should meet him anyway. You seem to have a lot in common.

Sorry to dishearten you. I live near Victoria, Canada. If you had wanted to introduce me to Ishe Boge then please proceed. I think I will establish contact anyway.  I am happy to meet and hug anyone person, animal, tree whatever. We could not however have been as a match made in heaven or somewhere because Heaven does not exist nor does Hell. But soon when this planet is on fire it would seem very much like Hell. Second, I am a genius and no match to me exists. Only person who matched my intellect was Albert Einstein. We do have a lot in common as far as style of thinking goes. Now you know why I am so brilliant. It is a natural gift, can't be acquired. Sorry!

Well, Pat, you can introduce yourself to Ishe. He has posted just below. Send out some vibes his way. You two can hug and make beautiful music. I am disappointed that I can't share that Einsteinian intellect. I guess I will have to limp along on the limited amount that I was given by God, if he exists.

Here is the ACTUA l Proof of Global Warming http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryUcq1ztQN8

Why would any reasonable person resort to the act of making "just a few comments now and more later when - have more time" with full knowledge that no one care what the comment is.

What if Al Gore has made himself an issue. Let us say he  is a gigantic liar, hypocrite, and fraud too. So are you. What can we do about the two of you and the Hollywood cronies of both of you.

Sure consumers of energy in the current manner cannot possibly be "carbon neutral," and I too agree that the term is  a bullshit but the point is do you have the faintest clue what the phrase stands for? You should not open your trap about things that you are completely ignorant about. Until you find out what Carbon neutrality means you undertake to not post anything here. We could not care less what the role of Nobel Peace Prize in recent years is. Do not waste our time over that. Speak to the board of directors of Nobel Prize in Norway about that. Not here.

Let us say he does ridicule liberalism but how does it relate to environmental issues?  NO we do not "really want to hear hate radio" so we won't try Err America. You however are free to stay tuned.

 Alright let us assume "Global warming" is not causing environmental degradation but it seems to be clearly doing that to your intellect. Okay there is absolutely no credible evidence of any such thing. What is the thing here by the way? Kindly present to us the "zero evidence"
 that man is causing global warming. But to be kind to us do that on a separate website and post the link here and prove to us that humans have caused 3% of the global warming although global warming per se does not exist. Why do we need clowns in circuses when we have got you to keep us all amused?

So here is the real scoop sir. The burning of fossil fuels produces only as much CO2 as the rainforests were able to clear quickly and as per your own admission this human produced CO2 which amounts to no more than 3% of the total atmospheric CO2, is the amount that is accumulating over the past 100 years. So the sooner you stop breathing out any more CO2 we would all be safe. Do we have a deal sir? Sure we all know that CO2 levels have been far higher at previous times in earth history, and we welcome all of your thinking to go back, even if that require time travel and go live in that era with high CO2 given your strong insatiable affinity for high CO2.

Correct, Africa has very real problems, but so does Asia and so does Australia and also America. Your taking up residence in America is a problem enough I trust.

No one is flashing the word "global warming"  on the radar screens. Therefore it is not there. Why don't you buy a huge lamp and display "global warming" on the sky and there would be "global warming" and before that you can shout out aloud Let there be "global warming" ! Sure after that has been done and we all agree that there is "global warming"   we can begin to  deal with their real life problems like drug trafficking, human exploitation for sex and the NCD pandemic of obesity etc.

Please do enlighten us with these  "some real" environmental problems. I hope we are dealing with the environment as it relates to the air envelop of the planet earth not the inside or your skull! People sure are more interested in promoting a gigantic fraud in an effort to attain world socialism and proving that the climate calamities are a hoax is one such fraud. What should we do, Sir?

Albright we all would admit that is our goal if you consent to  post no further nonsense on this site, Do we have a deal Sir?

Regards,

Pat Verma

What I find interesting is that while people are eager to point out that human carbon emissions have skyrocketed in the last few decades nobody has bothered to mention the involvement of the Sun in this business.  Over the last 60 years solar luminescence has been more intense than in the last 1000 years (we are able to trace solar temperatures thorough beryllium 10 back 1,150 years), leading to our current increase in temperatures. Interestingly enough when we see reductions in sun spots we consistently see abnormally cooler weather.

Personally I'm ok with polution controll simply because I don't liek to breathe it but in the end we are spending a lot of money we don't have on a problem that to be honest we have little controll over.  Even if there was stronger data to support the idea that CO2 is a significant contributer to glabal worming (this makes us all gorss poluters by the way... :P ) we have no control over what other countries do and I doubt China has any interest in sacrificing it's productivity for "green" energies.  At the rate they are growing even if we all stopped driving cars, breathing, farting, and anything elst to produce C02 we aren't the only show in town.

At the end of the day we have a big damn solar lamp and us.  The lamp gets hotter, we get hotter, it get's colder, we got colder.  All the data is correlational but people who make a lot of money off "green" energy would rather us think that the data linking C02 and global warming is causal and the sun has nothing to do with it.  Just as in every other thing in life follow the money.  California's enviormental taxation has killed the beef industry and threatens to do the same to farmers, after all why control your budget when you can tax instead?

Hello Seth,

Allow me to start with a clear remark that sentimentalism never belonged nor should now belong in scientific debate. It is imperative to limit to facts and conclusions based only on those facts not on personal emotional repertoire. Therefore no one shall use phrases to the effect "I find interesting".  It is improper to quote "people eager to point out" as a source of information. No such thing as "carbon emissions" are known to climate sciences. What is emitted is CO2 or GHGs.  There are no  skyrockets here either.  

Reason nobody has bothered to mention the involvement of the Sun in this business is because we busy people have better things to do than keep stating the obvious.  Sun has everything to do with anything that happens in the solar system like a father in a household. That should put that argument to rest for good.

We have no reason to trust the conclusion that in the last 60 years solar luminescence has been more intense than in the last 1000 years. Firstly the statement is fundamentally ridiculous. The author has to decide if the delta (change) relates to 60 years or 1000 years.  Even if you   are able to trace solar temperatures thorough beryllium 10 back 1,150 years there is no reason to believe the calculations to mean anything. There is no direct relationship between luminescence and heating effect. Several other facts enter into the calculation of light (electromagnetic) energy to be converted into heat energy.

The anti-climate movement participants should explicitly relieve themselves from the burden of proving the determinants of "current increase in temperatures" which they deny. You may not concede and deny a fact in the same post. At a minimum for the sake of decency of the principles of perpetrating fraud, allow one day gap between two contradictory statements to be made so that people have the time to be disillusioned by fraud. This style of including two conflicting facts in the same sentences is blandly insulting to the intelligence of those who do possess it.

It would be strongly recommended that you make best use of your time trying to "see reductions in sun spots" and measuring their temperature. We are not interested in the consistency or inconsistency of abnormally cooler weather, partly  because we refuse to admit the existence of the phrase "abnormally cooler weather" The phrase if fundamentally flawed. Only recognizable phrase would be abnormally cool climate.

Your being okay with pollution control is what I call pseudo- environmentalism or cosmetic environmentalism.  Your conduct is driven solely by your own selfish concerns of unwillingness to breathe in foul air. Several professionals deal with foul smelling air as a part of their profession and render a huge service to all of us. You leave is purposely unclear what "end" you are speaking of where you refer to " spending a lot of money". The best sense that can be made of the sentence is that money is being wasted o cosmetic or pseudo environmentalism and to that extent your views are approved as correct but only for the purpose of admonishment of this behaviour. It is a falsehood that we have little control over CO2 accumulation. We are in full control of that emission and can decide to curb it but at present are choosing not to.  You need not add the speculative clauses "even if there was stronger data to support the idea that CO2 as a significant contributor to "global worming" (what worms are we talking here?)" because that is a firmly held scientific conclusion and irrefutable. But you are not denying that postulate so we will allow you to admit that CO2 is a significant contributor. Hope you get your worms taken care of in short order.

Nothing makes us all gross polluters. We go about doing our business and some of our nasty habits inadvertently led to this catastrophe. We never knew that this thing was brewing until recently and as soon as we detected signs of trouble we started to take action. We are not going to wait for conclusive evidence. Mere suggestive evidence is sufficient for us. If you are a fool of the kind who would try to solicit conclusive evidence that a cave is infested with poisonous snakes or a man-eating lion you are welcome to go inside and allow the snakes or lion to confirm you believe by devouring you. We timid bunch are going to begin to flee merely based on the speculation that there might be poisonous snakes or a killer lion there inside. We need no direct conclusive proof that the snakes are poisonous or the lion is a vicious one or whether the lion or snake is there at all. We are going to flee for life and stay alive. We believe in the theory that "a happy stupid or timid fool is way  better than a corpse of a genius". We would strongly suggest that you begin to subscribe to this philosophy of cuddlendance.

No one here as time to debate whether we have or we have no control over what other countries do. We are going to focus on our own conduct mostly. But to correct you we do have means to influence and are as we speak, taking steps to influence the large nations of the worlds who are contributing heavily to the CO2 load. And it is also clear that they would come around and do the right thing. We need confidence in our own words before we can reasonably expect others to believe us and obey us.

You must stop doubting China has any interest in sacrificing it's productivity for "green" energies. China is way ahead of USA in many things. They can take quick and harsh steps that USA never can. With one ordinance all plastic bags were history, something that will never happen in USA. So stop bothering with China. Just watch you own personal carbon footprint and take responsibility for your own behaviour instead of sorting out the apportionment of blame and clandestinely deflect attention from yourself. Leave that to the politicians to do. They are way better at that fraud than you would ever become unless you are training to run for office.

There is no basis for your conclusion that at the rate populations of China and India  are growing even if we all stopped all C02 there would be no impact. Allow me to explain. Out of the 22 gigatonnes annual CO2 emission some 12 gigatonnes is still being cleared by rainforest and some 8 gigatonnes by the oceans. It is only the left over 2 gigatonnes that is piling up. So if out of that 22 gigatonnes the G-8 nations are producing 8 gigatonnes and the developing nations 12 gigatonnes, by halfing our production to 4 gigatonnes annually we can being to reduce the accumulation by 2 gigatonnes annually. I hope you are able to do at least this much math. But the problem is that this whole thing  is meaningless and should be unacceptable to you because you do not believe that CO2 emissions have anything to do with the global warming and the sole cause of that is your personal fury and fuming over this all. Is that correct?

We are not yet "at the end of the day" but we are getting close so let me say  at the end of the decade" as it seems that the end of the next decade i.e. 2020 is going to be critically important year and will shape the fate of the planet and live on it by 2050.

 True, we do have a big damn solar lamp over us. It has been there since the day and even prior to earth coming into existence and the impact of sun has been so steady and so stable and so boringly mundane that it is not even worthy of any mention whatsoever. Nothing has changed about the sun that needs attention.  The Sun is incapable of getting hotter, it is only cooling but that cooling is so imperceptible because it changes by a fraction of degree over a billion years that it is immaterial.

We get hotter, because we cannot lose heat. It is like wearing a parka on a hot day. The whole mess is about the inability to get rid of the fumes and the heat of the factories that we have scattered all over the face of the earth and are so passionately in love with.  Sun never gets colder in the lifetime of anyone. It take millions of years to do that. When sun cools and we get colder and become like Mars that day is not going to dawn nor are you going to be posting on any blog on that type of day. For all purposes that is pure fiction.

What is wrong if all the data is correlational. Data is data. We make it correlation because we try to make sense out of it. So why are you concerned with that.  Sure there are going to be greedy people who will make a lot of money whether there is WW-II going on or the Hurricane Katarina. And by extension there are business who are going to make money from the climate control related evolution of humanity. Say for example the business of the vendors of solar panels is booming literally through the roof. And the best advice for you is to stop posting here and set up  a solar panel shop. This is merely one example. There  is a now full industry list based on climate change. Don't be surprised to see international trade fair dedicated to fighting climate control. Why not buy a stall there and make the money that you are so disgusted that the vendors of  "green" energy are going to make. When you go watch a movie or when you view a show on TV they actually never kill the bad guys. They only make you think that Harrison Ford has killed them all. So if people make money from making you think something there is no basis for you to complain, you chose to be illusioned.  That is true even of the magic shows and circuses. Illusions sell and it is time that you invest into that.

Scientists, even if they are engaged in this humongous conspiracy of selling you the illusion that they have genuine data linking C02 and global warming as causal are going to make the politicians do what they think would make them rich. So if you had any marbles left inside your skull you too would join those corrupt scientists and make money. But that is not your goal. Your life is devoted to misery so that you can howl and cry and blame others for your miseries that you so diligently keep on inflecting upon yourself merely to take pleasure in being able to blame the rest of humanity for your miserable existence. So go ahead continue with that. Who cares? Howl and cry all you want. No one is listening.

Yes CO2, Ozone, Deforestation and the Sun has nothing to do with anything. So you are right and you continue doing what you are good at. Proving that you are the most miserable creature on  the planet. The good news is that with the upcoming poverty that the global warming hoax is going to inflict on the planet you are going to become way poorer. The whole planet is going to be left with half as much wealth in short course.  Then plenty of your cronies would be able to join hands with you and all of you can hold misery mongered meetings (MM meetings) like they hold AA meetings in churches these days.

Yes you are absolutely right "Just as in every other thing in life people follow the money".  Have you ever stopped to think what money really is. Money is equivalent of work or effort invested in a marketable enterprise and that ranges from prostitution to presidency of USA. If effort is invested you enmint it into cash. Honesty dictates that to secure services from others we barter our services with them and use of currency is very secondary. So if people offer their services to those who offer them in exchange why is that giving your stomach-ache? It is called market or fair economy my friend. That is the fundamental rule of economics.

It is not the California's environmental taxation laws  that   killed the beef industry. It is the rule of demand and supply. Laws have barred heroin and cocaine marketing for decades and to my reading the business that is most flourishing and lucrative to get into is drag trade. So your theory of legislation killing a trade fails. You simply do not have the analytical skills to be able to think. Thinking is a very sophisticated process and not the prerogative of every average human being. Only few elite humans are truly capable of rational thinking based on facts and rendering conclusion that stand the test of time. What threatens farmers most at this time in  California is draught. No amount of subsidy to farmers is going to keep them afloat if the draughts, floods and hurricanes kill the crops year after year and that my friend, is starting in ten or twenty more years, like it or not.  Why would Aarnie control California's budget when he can BE BACK to ask for more in taxes? Good question. Better ask the Terminator himself. He is coming after you with huge tax bites. Ran for your life.

PS: We cannot require everyone making posts here to possess outstanding writing skills but it is uncivil and annoying to have to confront numerous spelling mistakes or other types of sloppiness. Please spell check your material before posting it. In some situations it even makes it impossible to understand the line.

Pat

Pat,

My apologies for the misspellings, the embedded spell-check didn't catch everything and I am going on very little sleep adjusting to a PM schedule.  Future posts will be spellchecked through WORD.  That being said I find your general attitude rude and condescending, especially to someone you have had no prior interaction with.  Quite the opposite of your posted site cuddlendance.com/.  Maybe you are being ironic, whatever it is it's your business. 

Moving past that unpleasantness (I hope) There is empirical data that suggests that solar activity does play a role in global temperature. Articles such as this one by K Lassen of the Danish meteorological institute shows data that would correlate among other things arctic ice in the Arctic sea back to the mid 1500's. (link to article below) That being said there is data that suggests that C02 levels are not the end-all and be-all of the global climate.

On the point of the beef (and dairy) industry in California, I have personal experience.  I worked in California until 6 months ago.  I was employed at a private school where some Dairymen sent their children.  Diaries that were profitable before the methane tax were loosing thousands a month after the tax went into effect.  As a result I got my hours cut because of lower enrollment in the school and a lack of donations.  Call it trickle down poverty if you will.  I lost my livelihood over a tax on cow farts, now how many people can say that? 

A note on correlational data.  The theory of global warming cannot be proven, the burden of proof for something to be ruled a scientific fact is just too great. To eliminate all other possible variables one would have to show that C02 was the only factor by eliminating all other variables and that is just not possible on earth, we simply have too many variables.  It's a statistical sin to extrapolate causal conclusions from correlational data.  Above all no result is above retesting and re-evaluating, on the contrary scientific riggers demand that we verify and eliminate for all variables before claming a scientific truth, or causal data.  As we really can only draw correlational data from global phenomena it behooves the scientific community to leave the door open for other theories and possibilities. 

California politics are a bit more complex than I think you understand.  You have three distinct sections of the state, each with it's own characteristics.  There has not been a severe drought for about 15 years, the Valley is a desert though so water supply has more to do with snow pack and distribution between LA and the Central Valley than actual rain.  Rain that doesn't form a decent snow pack is pretty useless in the summer months.  There is a lot more to it; the tax surplus over the last 10 years that was squandered, Arnold fighting to keep the legislators from levying taxes on the Central valley (the poorest part of the state), the list goes on.  let's just leave it at this California's problems have less to do with Arnold than they have with the fact that you have 3 states in one.

I struggle with how I want to end this post.  In reading other posts you have written you tend to default to aggressive language when dealing with people who have a differing point of view.  I do not wish to engage in that kind of negative dialogue so I will try to make this as positive as I can.  You state that "Only few elite humans are truly capable of rational thinking based on facts and rendering conclusion that stand the test of time." I would challenge that statement.  In the spirit of keeping a civil tone I would submit this; no conclusion should stand beyond it's functionality.  We as humans do not have all the answers and being too ridged in ones opinions usually ends up being to the individuals detriment.  It is by learning to integrate new information that we make better, wiser, and ultimately decisions that allow us to thrive.  To me the mark of wisdom is someone who can fully entertain an idea without fully accepting it as his own.  I would encourage you to re-evaluate your definitions.  It will help you in engaging in more positive and constructive dialogue in the future.  I wish you peace and good fortune.

Sincerely,

Seth Piepgrass

PS the link to the article

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html

Instead of finding my attitude rude and condescending, especially to someone you have had no prior interaction with is more accurately stated as zero tolerance for nonsense.  Sure my nastiness here on the posts is directed at the few stubborn targets only. You might recall the three tools I use. HUGs, HUMOR and HUMILIATION. So here I find myself using the third one most. The fact of prior interaction or not is not relevant. Your future communications would dictate how respond to them. I would admit that on my website cuddlendance.com I have to lure people with the HUGS and HUMOR and there would be little justification for humiliation I am being iron fisted not ironic. This bit of pun is sure humorous.

What unpleasantness?

Now you dig yourself by stating "empirical data" which you assert suggests that solar activity does play a role in global temperature. Now without asking you the experiment that was undertaken by illiterate grandmother at age 90 did know that she would have to sit in the sun to make her knees warm up. What is the magic there. In fact any and every energy form on Earth came or comes from the sun. End of debate on this point.

Should we really refer to the whole Arctic region as a sea is open for debate in my mind. Now what was generated in the mid 1500's. can really have no relevance today unless we can trace the entire curve of the studied trend with some reliability.

 Sure let us assume that CO2 levels in the air is not the end-all and be-all of the global climate. But you read about my telling you that most of the CO2 is in the vegetation and in the oceans. Our blood too carries dissolved CO2 in it. That controls pH and high CO2 in breathed air has serious implications on person's health and small changes make big difference, especially if the kidneys are not in top shape. That is what I mean, some arrogance with me is natural given how much I know. So that must be taken into account when dealing with me.

Let us talk of your personal experiences with beef and dairy  industry in California. We have a similar headache in Alberta too. K.D Land and Oprah got burnt fighting with them. Beef and Diary are not going to love the environmentalists. Cows are producing megatonnes of CO2 and Methane and that is a source of pain to the environmentalists. There is a lot of sense in the methane tax and I can see how it would kill some dairy farms.

Now my friend, with all sympathy for your lost job, something I lost 13 years back due to head injury rendering me crippled. You must stop seeing the reality as having "lost livelihood over a tax"  you can see yourself as a martyr where the good of the community prevailed over your personal interests. As you just heard me telling you that makers and vendors of "green" products are going to be laughing so all that is going to happen is a transformation of jobs. The older CO2 emitting what I have called RED jobs are going to be replaced with these new era GREEN Jobs. Now I also have suspicions how far these Green jobs are going to stay green. I am sure the manufacturing, shipping and installing of solar panels is going to add to the CO2 overload. But the environmentalist might not wish to speak of that but I will make sure that someone does look at that. I am only on the side of truth. I am not an ally to any one personally and arbitrarily. I will go with the logic, rationality and truth. With all my due sympathies of your job loss, I have to give you hope that there are plenty of openings coming up in the green job rush if you want to call it that. The environmentalists are going to push for them and they are there for you to go and grab.

I can spend time and try to persuade that the theory of global warming can be proven, but I can  bring you on board with me without doing that so I will take that route for you now. As I was telling you that I am of a genius level IQ, and have wide knowledge database. I know a lot of law too. So the term  burden of proof is a legal one and there are several levels. In criminal law it is called beyond a reasonable doubt and in civil law it is probability balance. I am sure you know this. So you cannot sell me that a scientific fact always carries a too great burden of proof. Science is merely gathering of information. Proof is needed only to support a theory. If the temperature today is 70F there is no need to prove anything other than the thermometer is reading it correctly.

No my friend you never need to eliminate all other possible variables. What you do is control them. You compare two sets of things. You take a dozen plants. Feed six the plant food and not feed it to the other six and see if the fed plants were taller. You focus on the variable under study and let nature deal with the task of making sure that all other variables are controlled.

One need not show that CO2 is the only factor to cause global warming. No one is even suggesting that. It is a multi-factorial mess. We don't have to split hair over who is how much at fault. All we need to do is that CO2 has got something to do with it. It does not even have to be a proved theory. Even a hypothesis that is still awaiting proof would do. The example I gave you is that of the possible gravity of threat. If the threat is very serious you don't bother with high level of proof, you flee based on minimal evidence. Awaiting the confirmation can prove delay and let me tell you, if you now trust that I do know what I am talking that  would be a mistake to wait for the confirmatory proof. The sooner you land a GREEN job the sooner your desire for that solid proof would vanish. You would start singing he environmental songs to sell the solar plates.

Nature never allows us the power to eliminating all other variables and it is foolish to try to do that. It costs too much. Let us not try to do what is not possible to do on earth, we simply have too many variables.  It's a regular sin nothing to do with statistics to extrapolate causal or anecdotal observations and make generalizations based on them. True. But conclusions from correlational data are fit for generalizations. Mind you all generalizations are subject to exceptions including this one. So that creates plenty of room for vagueness and that if real life, VAGUE. What to do? If you are craving absolute certainty, short of taxes which you obviously hate the only certainly that you are able to enjoy is death. I am sure you won't settle for that.

Learn to live with the vagueness and gray. Stop chasing white and black.

True no result is above retesting and re-evaluating, but let me assure you the data on CO2 and warming is well tested and truly verified. You have to trust the people who have done that. They are trustworthy.  It is rigor not the scientific riggers (not even  scientific niggers) which demand this or that. We often do not have the luxury of verifying things. When you go grocery shopping and pick up some cabbage you are best of trusting the clerk who weighs it for you. Do not bother calling the manager and compel that he eliminate all variables before you purchase. You would be banished from that store and not able to buy food any more. There has to be some level of trust between us. What the obligations on the scientific community are they are being discharged fairly well, even if not perfectly. We are not perfect. We cannot leave the door open for other theories and possibilities. The thing is that we cannot undertake a controlled experiment given that we do not have the luxury of having two earths. Nor can we use the Earth of 1900 and of 1800 to compare reliably with Earth of 2000 if we are to control all variables.

Okay I will allow you to get away with the assertion that California politics as a bit more complex than I think or understand.  But I am not buying that there has not been a severe drought for about 15 years, even mild and moderate ones count.

The admission that the Valley is a desert is sufficient for my purposes. Water supply is short and I would not be bothered what has more or less to do with. If you are blaming the snow pack distribution then you should fear that warming would melt them and render California a desert.

Your allegation that tax surplus of the last decade was   squandered, is not unique. That is the job of the politicians and that is the sole purpose you elect them for, stop complaining or stop voting. I am telling everyone to take the power back from their hands and do things yourself, Grow up! Quit whining.

I resort to aggressive language when dealing with people who have NO point of view and are just babbling and venting anguish. You affirm that by admitting that your loss of job is the reason why you post. My reason for posting is that I have time to educate people common sense and their mistakes, and I see no point in pointing  it out mildly. If the most bitter language fails, nothing would work to make people change their habits.

I appreciate the sentiment that you do not wish to engage in a "negative dialogue" . What I promise and offers is facts and rational thinking. I want you to adopt that too and if you have a point fire back at me. In that way I can teach you how to debate things. I have been an outstanding debater in my college and medical school years.  I appreciate your attempts to make things as positive as I can but your problem is going to be  you cannot present a falsehood to me in a positive manner given that fraud is always negative. 

I do standby my view that "Only few elite humans are truly capable of rational thinking based on facts and rendering conclusion that stand the test of time."  Let me tell you that out of the 7 billion of us of which 1 billion are infants, toddlers and senile seniors, half of the 6 billion are illiterate. Of the 3 billion educated people few have university degrees. In sum the people who are truly capable of analysis and comprehension of abstract are a handful 2-3% of the whole global population and they have to be allowed to lead things for the good of the whole herd.

I  can even take upon myself to show that your attempted challenge to my statement is thoughtless and proof in itself of my assertion.  It is like you have challenged Arnold to wrestle with you. Your arbitrary submission that "no conclusion should stand beyond it's functionality" is in itself irrational. A conclusion serves a specific function.  An example would be an assertion that very high CO2 levels in air promote warming of the climate. It serves only that function.

 While it is true that we humans do not have all the answers but it is missing the part that we human need only a few hundred answers in our lives to complete it. We live so short you would not believe it, we do not count in the big scheme of things at all. I would support your views critical of rigidity of  views but to a limit. There are views that must be held rigidly. You are never going to persuade me to believe that I am not Pat. You can persuade me into thinking that CO2 is not the major element underlying warming. But then you would have to plug in some other thing in its place to explain all the things that I am going to ask you to explain.

What "usually" ends up being to the individuals detriment is often an unknown. In fact the same thing that was good for the same person at one time can be detrimental to him at another. So all is very context dependent. The fact that your generalization is prefixed with usually means that it cannot be applied universally and is essentially meaningless for all practical purpose. You need to make a narrower statement a very targeted one. Tell me doing what is certain to cause me injury like if I inhaled a megatonne of CO2 in an hour I will die.

Learning to integrate new information in one's repertoire will only make one  better, wiser, and make better   decisions only if the information is correct and is used in the correct context. There is a saying that there are no wrong answers only the wrong questions. So any answer would be correct if the question is posed in a manner that fits the answer. That should suffice to emphasize the context aspect. It is vital to understand that the debate on this blog is over not how rotten or caustic person I am or whether I am a genius or an imbecile but how much panic should be raise in the minds of the pubic to insure that the steps that need to be taken to avert the possible disaster are taken. Sure it might happen that the Armageddon that we are panicking about is coming in 2050 never comes. No environmentalism is going to commit suicide over that, believe me. We all would be much relieved if that never comes true, but we know better. In any event we are much better off having a fire truck in our village in anticipation of the possible fire as opposed to trying to order one after the village is on fire. Would that be prudent?

Sure the mark of wisdom can be  one who can fully entertain an idea without being prejudicial but failure to fully accepting it as his own to me means that the person has not arrived at any conclusion and that is cowardly. In fact it is my conclusion that the refusal to admit the possibility of the climate calamites that I say are coming is an attempt on the part of such cowardly uncertain people who are imposing deliberate ignorance upon themselves as they do not want to take responsible action after concluding that it is going to happen. So denial is their defence, akin to the pregnant teenager who has missed a period but refused to go to doctor to find out whether she is pregnant or not.  It is common wisdom that she better find out the truth sooner than later.

I must with regrets, dismiss your request to  re-evaluate my definitions. They are pretty much set and have been for couple of decades. I cannot afford to change and keep on changing my own views if I have taken upon me the task of changing others. That won't work out well. If people rely on me to guide them I better be stable like the railway tract or they would all be derailed.  What would help me in engaging in debates and persuade people to follow the message of harmony, brotherhood, altruism, acceptance, fraternity etc., is reasonably well known to me and is well outlined on my website and that all is cast in stone. My harshness here is what has been called in some circles as "tough love". My philosophy is and it has worked fairly well, that if I give a couple of jolts to a person more like the thing that you might have seen doctors doing with paddles on the chest to the dead people,  and hope that the person would come back alive, and if that does not work I deem the person incorrigible and dead and move on to who would listen to me. I am not a big believer of the flowery  "more positive and constructive dialogue" . This is a chick phrase to suck guys into doing stupid things which they would not otherwise do. How can a dialogue be positive when I am telling someone that he is an idiot and he is telling me that I am even a bigger idiot.  In spirit of brotherhood of men I am compelled to reciprocate you and I too wish you peace and good fortune. Luckily for me I am at a great height of peace with myself and content with my fortune and that it why I find myself suited to send out that message to others. I am attempting to set up what I call happiness coalitions in every city. You are invited to read up on that concept as my website Vancouver Happiness Coalition gets all set up. So in conclusions whether you believe the CO2 mess and the global warming and stuff or not just take up a job selling solar panels and you would find peace. Spending more time on my website would help as well. It is very therapeutic I am told. Staying in touch with me would be a good idea for you to learn where you are off the tract and how you have been derailed and how you can get back on that tract by making right choices. You and anyone else is welcome to me write to me directly. The address is on the website and is

HUGS@CUDDLENDANCE.COM

Cheers

Pat Verma.

Pat,

I must admit your reply has me troubled.  Not about the tone, as the tone was much as I expected, but the use of a racial slur was uncalled for.  I don't know if the "N" word is acceptable in Canada but it certainly is not in the United States or on sites that are not supremacy groups of some kind.  Such language has no place on this or any board so refrain from using it. I will respond to your post in kind soon but this needs to be pointed out as I can tolerate your berating me as an individual but I will not tolerate use of hate language, nor would the administrators of this site.

Nothing in my response can support your false admission that my reply has you troubled. You have not proved that you are troubled nor have you proved a link to my  response. Remember the burden of proof that we spoke of.  What your thrust is on blame shifting. You have been defeated on every single false argument that you advanced. Instead you attacked me for being a racist. I am a person of the dark color so immune from being accused of being a racist. My use of word Nigger, was just an attempt at poking fun at your mis-spelling. I never have felt nor would ever feel the need to show my superiority over anyone else by showing that he belongs to an inferior race of negro. I am able to do a superb job at showing anyone down by use of my intelligence alone. I need not and in fact cannot play the white supremacy card because I am not white to begin with. I am in fact a victim of racism for over three decades.

No the "N" word is not acceptable in Canada. I have already told you that racism is alive and well in Canada but that is not the topic of debate here so I would not go into details. Why would I attempt to derogate you by calling you a Nigger. You are not a black man or at least I do  not know that. I know that such language has no place anywhere and I never used it in the context you are implying that I did.  I know that you must not tolerate use of hate language, nor would the administrators of this site but who is using the "N" word to begin with. You are trying to cook up a false allegation to falsely discredit me. That is not going to happen.  If mere reading the word has offended you I have no hesitation in apologizing. However, I was using it to point out that just by accidental misspelling you had come so close to using the "N" word, a bit of caution with spellings was needed. Remember you having apologized for having been sloppy with spellings? Let us get back to the topic of steps we need to take to deal with the global warming. Okay?

Slandering the messanger if you cant fight off the message and dont like the message is below the belt and pretty shoddy. Grow up a bit.

Pat Verma

Pat,

I am dealing with this matter separately as I think the term lends nothing to productive conversation.  I more appropriate way to "poke fun" would have been to ascertain that one who riggs stage design for theatres has little to do with scientific endeavors.  This is a more witty and less openly offensive way to quip at a subject that has little to do with the subject at hand.  I understand you feel superior to others and feel the need to express that, let's just keep it in good fun and out of the realm of generally offensive terms. 

I have family of African decent and have a dark complexion myself (especially in the summer). I have been on the receiving end of a few ignorant comments regarding race as well.  I find it distasteful that someone who had experienced prejudice would use a word that promotes it.  I am willing to let it go as a joke in extremely poor taste, but I will not tolerate prejudice in any form, so I will not apologize for the intensity that such a term invokes.

Pat,

I think that greater transparency would do our discourse well.  I have shared portions of my background but I think you have come to erroneous conclusions.  I have posted my real name on this board I think to do so having an apposing view to many of this sites objectives proves that I am dedicated to honest discourse.  I grew up in California but now reside in South Carolina after relocating six months ago in response to the job situation.  I went out, hit the pavement and in the process never once took public assistance even though I was qualified.  I have a strong personal ethos that I would not ask a person to support me outside their own free choice.  I am a proud libertarian and even though it was tough my wife and I got through it and are now in a better place in both our professional life and our marriage.  We lost our pride, were hit with sickness and a personal loss that I will reserve for private correspondence.  Suffice to say I'm not a rich white man who drives a SUV and lives in the suburb.  I have a Bachelors in Psychology with a minor in conflict resolution.  I have worked in technology for the last 5 years but have a job at the Medical University of South Carolina in the Pediatric Oncology unit.  It is the toughest job I have ever had but it is the most fulfilling job at the same time and I believe I have finally found my place in the world.  I live in a small townhouse, my wife and I share a car that gets 35 MPG and I am a big supported of alcohol as an alternative energy source as it is a relatively accessible and sustainable fuel.  I believe in the free market as a vehicle of equality and support the efforts to reduce the rights of Corporations as legal entities.   I have not set foot in Wal-Mart in 10 years because of their abusive international and domestic business practices.  I could go on but that would be redundant, my point is that assumptions you observed were erroneous and based on bias.  It's not a crime, we all have it but it is a mind-killer, it prevents us from deciding for ourselves what is and what is false.  

Getting back to the debate I find it hard to believe that you are comparing an article published in a national meteorological institute as written by a 90 year old women... Honestly I'm having trouble understanding the thought process as even a rational insult.  I don't know how it is in Canada but in scientific communities peer-reviewed articles published in scientific periodicals are hardly something to poke fun at.  Honestly I have a hard time believing someone who has an MD would be so eager to play down periodicals.  Maybe they don't come in handy when you are debating other MD's but in my training it was important to understand and interpret peer reviewed articles.  If you have a few that support your conclusions I'd be more than happy to read them and base my conclusions on the data that they contain. When you are eager to site an article that supports your opinion at another point in the thread but unwilling to read one that has a differing point of view it smacks of hypocrisy.  I'm willing to read and article and comment on its merits rather than just insult the author based on my opinions of the subject matter, can you do the same?

I would like to touch on a matter I think others have tried to bring up in a less constructive manner.  I find some of your posts on the killing of aids children in Africa fundamentally disturbing.  I hope that this was just more dark humor but I fear you are   serious and fear that you believe that the collective has the absolutes power over the individual to the point of control over life and death.  To me this is the danger of collectivism.  It is why we are ruled be law with high regard to individual rights instead of by collective will.  It's telling to me that you downplayed the quote of entertaining an idea without accepting it, it was a paraphrase of one of Aristotle's quotations.  Aristotle was one of the first proponents of rule by republic rather than rule by majority.  When the will of the government (or oligarchy) trumps the rights of the individual, that is the very definition of fascism. 

I fail to understand the term  " greater transparency" in this debate but if you have a meaning for it that would suffice. If you think I have come to erroneous conclusions the onus is upon you to fix it given that I being the victim of the confusion is not able to detect the flaw but you as the originator of the idea can. It is good that like me you too have posted your real name on here. 

Let me point out the problem I have with the frequent use of the phrase "I think" before every sentence in scientific debate. I conclude that this attitude makes it a political debate where everything is a thought. Let us deal with facts for a change. I will be ignoring all remarks about you as a person after reading them carefully because that would not be relevant to the topic of global warming. So if you do not drive around in a SUV you might be not to blame for the warming.  I would wish to tap on your talent of Bachelors in Psychology as I do not have the degree but I have read more than necessary so we can talk.   That is  great. My reason for plunging into the climate issue is because I think I understand human behaviour due to my profound understanding of neuro-psychology and that is the hurdle. All the data on CO2 and warming is futile if no one is changing  habits, that is the crux of the problem and many here have briefly pointed out that concern. Not much has been written about that and that is a weakness.  Your views on  alcohol as an alternative energy source would be relevant to the public only if you devised  a way to make people follow that. I think we can work on that and devise methods to make people comply. It is not easy to make people change their habits and obey.  Even if most of my assumptions about you are erroneous that is irrelevant to the key issue here that I am interested in. My question to you is what do you think can be done to make people adopt green lifestyle that you seem to be practicing and trying to promote.

How one allocates credibility to work of  a 90 year old women is an interesting question. She might well be dementing. But mere age is insufficient clue to anything. We can be extra careful about the significance of that work but if she is right, she is right.

I have seen lot of non-sense even in scientific communities' peer-reviewed articles published in scientific periodicals. So I do feel entitled to poke fun at anything that I find funny. I have taken special interests and done copious reading and obtained special honours from my supervisors in training about my special talent of poking holes in the work published in reputable Neurology publications. Humans make mistakes all the time. It takes a critic like me to find them. But I often forgive and let go.

It is the very fact that I undertook research for 7 years after my MD that allows me to play down scientific periodicals. You would hear people concealing the truth in scientific work. I can cite at least three examples in Canada the most scandalous one of which was in Sick Children's Hospital in Toronto. A pathologist was fired because of blowing the whistle on the flawed research. I guess the plot of the Harrison Ford movie  Fugitive was taken from that scandal. If you cannot recall Fugitive you might want to rent the movie again and watch it or go to this link http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106977/

In everyone's training it is very important to understand and interpret peer reviewed articles. But that is when you are their peers. Then you go to the next step of becoming their critic and then you find out the scandals that have been introduced. You may also want to watch Pelican Brief and Erin Brokovitch to find out that all that is said in the papers, journals and so on is not really true. The truth gets very dangerous to speak and like Julia Roberts in Pelican Brief you might have to leave the country. The trillions of dollars that are involved in the climate debate are such a power that truth would never see the light of the day and heads will literally roll. It is a very very dangerous game my friend. There are several Steven Segal movies on pollution issues as well if you care to watch them. And I can tell you reality is lot uglier than the fiction. Only no one dares report it as he does not want to get killed or simply vanish without a trace.

I don't need anyone to support my conclusions. To my knowledge my views are so novel that there is nothing published about it. My hypothesis is that if humanity binds together in a universal brotherhood and stop bickering like you and I are doing, there is a lot of hope for getting a lot of good done. But that is not what happened today as hundreds of people were killed through suicide bombing and other evil acts in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

I do not write to make anyone happy to read the message. In fact my whole point is that if steps are to be taken to deal with the NCD pandemic, pollution, homelessness, discriminations, hatred, climate issues, we have to do things that we do not like. We have to start to walk in place of taking the car and so on. That is the real obstacle.  We have to find a way to ask people to suffer some pain so that everyone can live happily, and that is not easy.  I cannot make you bakes your conclusions on data as I do not have any.  All I have is a theory and hypothesis.  But it sounds so great that I have no need to base it on data. There is enough collateral evidence that hugs and cuddles work in bonding primates. Harlow has done that work for us and there is no need to challenge it. It is true. If you hug people they love you and tend to obey you and that can mean eating the veggies too. Simple as that. I do not need any proof or data or any other support for my theory. In fact the onus is on the sceptics to show me wrong. So you can present to me data that compassion and caring would not help influence other humans. I am not  eager to cite (note the spelling of this word from the site which means place) an article that supports my opinion and I could not even do that because nothing would directly support my view given its novelty.

I am not too thrilled to see your eagerness to  read any article and comment on its merits either. I am not into data, articles and research. In fact I want everyone to get away from that. I am into people, living human beings. I want you to go out and hug some 20 people for no reason and ask them to do the same and bind the entire humanity into a chain of brotherhood. When we being to care about each other it would become redundant to even say that it is good idea to pick up our trash and not to pollute things all around and not to deforest our rain forests and make species extinct. We would begin to do that as a duty guided by our own conscience. I am not seeking the opinion of anyone on the climate issue. The only question I would ask you is if you know of a better way to deal with the pollution related mess.

Firstly you have mis-stated the fact by calling it my intent to "killing of aids children in Africa". The correct statement of issue is : Do we in North America have a moral obligation to feed the starving and dying children of Africa, Asia and the rest of the third world. I admitted that the ethics of that are unclear and in my view which I know are not popular there is room to open discussion for passive or even active euthanasia. That is being done now in England as an act of compassion in England. The high court there has legalized it. There is nothing you can do about that. People who have tried it in USA and Canada have been deeply hurt when the courts refused. Even the judges were sorry for the denials. They had to respect the law, so the issue is are we at a stage where we can change the law in USA and Canada on following the Europe. You are welcome to give your views and criticize mine but that would have to be another platform not here.

It sure was never intended to be a dark humour but you are taking a stab at my integrity by misconstruing facts and that would not work. More people are going to side with me now or in future. Yes I am serious and there is no rationality behind your fears because those children are moribund anyway. If starvation does not kill them malaria will or the soldiers will. How many fronts are you capable of protecting them at when you cannot deal with homelessness and lack of healthcare at home herein USA. Why do you even feel that you have the ability to do that. It is very misdirected effort. Get your own home in order before you promise outsiders any help. And if you do wish to help the poor nations do that through equitable wealth distribution which would mean trillions of dollars not a couple of million here and there. That is nothing but photo op political gimmickry.

No one yet has the absolute power over the individual to the point of controlling their lives and death. My point is not to play God. In fact God if did exist, which I know for a fact does not, has already condemned those children to death by starvation. Why would you interfere with the Divine script and infuriate God. He might commission a huge Plague upon all of us. Remember that is the only thing God of the Old Testament is famous for. There are 34 mentions of wrath of God in that book.

I am not clear what you call  "danger of collectivism" but I can see that collective action of humans with respect to the CO2 emission has certainly created an awful mess.  You are in a serious illusion that we all are ruled be law. There is more lawlessness in the world than law. So calm down and see reality. Start with establishing law and order on Taliban and Al Quida. US and UN both have failed to impose any law on either. And you are disillusioning yourself with law on the planet. The state of lawlessness that is about to ensue from the global warming is something that you are totally unaware of. Ignorance is certainly operating as a huge bliss to deniers of global warming. But that is only a short-lived comfort. Soon we are going to have to face lot more chaos than we are facing now from poverty, disease, climate calamites, wars, unrest and so on. The list is too huge to complete at this point for me. I can do that on my website someday.

The regard to individual rights is on a rapid decline my friend and it will take a lot of money to retain that and we are not going to have that luxury shortly.  Sure Aristotle might be a proponent of rule by republic rather than rule by majority.  To me there appears to be no significant difference between the two. Use of political terms especially the word fascism never scares me. Nothing scares me actually for my own sake. I am only concerned about the collective fate of the planet and its people and that does scare me badly that is the reason why I am investing time on these posts. That is why the title of this blog site caught my attention. I do not give any serious damn to animal rights, women's rights, gay rights, healthcare insurances, and other topics being debated here. They are all too secondary to this outstandingly vital issue of climate. It is going to subsume all other issues and make them too insignificant to matter at all. If we do not have resources (wealth) to allocate to the issues and needs of the wildlife, climate and people we are going to become passive bystanders of the natural disasters. If we act smart after we join hands and minds there is hope. If we keep bickering as these posts are a clear example of there is NO HOPE and I am know I am absolutely right about this one. And this is the only message I have to spread and I am sure you are not going to accept this simple common sense rule and would keep throwing scientific mumbo jumbo upon me without realizing that I know hundreds of time more on those topics that you ever will.  Let us be friend and you follow my advice and befriend and hug 20 people and ask them to do the same. Like those old fashioned chain letter. Let us make a human chain around the globe. A friendly humanity. Deal ? Given that the topics discussed in your post and my reply post are so removed from the topic of whether and how much public need be scared about the impeding global warming (which may or may not happen given some uncertainty about that matter in the minds of some), that I would be compelled to ignore any response to this posted on this blog. I would however respond to them if you write to me directly.

Pat Verma

HUGS@cuddlendance.com

Question: How do you explain the "global cooling crisis" of the 1970's. "There wasn't one" is not an acceptable answer.

Cliches work for me if someone has already painted a word picture more clearly than I can.  The picture at the top of this blog is from my part of this planet we ALL call home.  The occasion is still raw in my memory.   We're not talking about the 1970's, this is 2009.  We are coming up to another summer and not expecting it to be any kind of cooling crisis.

While I'm here I'll knock around two more cliches from another environmental roman (I wish I knew his name).  In a public talk he spoke about just this dilemma of belief being like the Cassandra Syndrome, (Wiki has a definition of that).  The picture he presented was - imagine if Martin Luther King had said "I have a catastrophe" instead of "I have a dream".  Would he have been believed?  As a Cassandra myself, I'm done with persuading, people will know the truth when they hear it.

Here's another cliche - you can't solve a problem with the same means that created it (was that Einstein?).  Unless you're a homeopath.  Now there's a thought ... would When Hell Freezes Over be happy with coal consumption on a miniscule energetic level?

No.  Do you need a lot of room?

Here's the definition of Cassandra Complex :

Cassandra Syndrome 12 thumbs up

1) The condition of speaking the truth and having no one believe you.

2) The condition of being able to predict the future, be it the outcome of a particular event, or the reactions of others to the same event, and having no one believe your prophecy until it transpires.

3) Being able to see or understand things long before others, often resulting in them coming to the same conclusions long after your own initial analysis.

(All definitions come from Cassandra, the queen in Greek mythology who was appointed by Apollo with an inability to lie, yet cursed by having no one believe her prophecies.)

Maybe you don't know what a homoepath is.  Homeopathy treats people by giving diluted amounts of the same substance that would, taken in gross amounts, give those same symptoms of illness.  The principle is "like cures like".

Here also is Wiki's contribution of the Cassandra Complex as it relates to the environmental movement, just to stay on topic.

Environmental movement

Many environmentalists have predicted looming environmental catastrophes including climate change, rise in sea levels, irreversible pollution, and an impending collapse of ecosystems, including those of rainforests and ocean reefs.[15] Such individuals sometimes acquire the label of 'Cassandras', whose warnings of impending environmental disaster are disbelieved or mocked.[15] Environmentalist Alan Atkisson states that to understand that humanity is on a collision course with the laws of nature is to be stuck in what he calls the 'Cassandra dilemma' in which one can see the most likely outcome of current trends and can warn people about what is happening, but the vast majority can not, or will not respond, and later if catastrophe occurs, they may even blame you, as if your prediction set the disaster in motion.[16] Occasionally there may be a "successful" alert, though the succession of books, campaigns, organizations, and personalities that we think of as the environmental movement has more generally fallen toward the opposite side of this dilemma: a failure to "get through" to the people and avert disaster. In the words of Atkisson: "too often we watch helplessly, as Cassandra did, while the soldiers emerge from the Trojan horse just as foreseen and wreak their predicted havoc. Worse, Cassandra's dilemma has seemed to grow more inescapable even as the chorus of Cassandras has grown larger."[17]

Good points, Ishe.  (I sometimes work with Alan AtKisson, the author of "The Cassandra Complex." Smart fellow.)  

Martin Luther King Jr.'s message, "I have a dream," offered a compelling, powerful vision of justice and equality, that people were ready to hear and act on.  Were people ready precisely because of the years of violence that preceded it, though?  Is that where humanity is at right now: we're going to need several more years of disasters before we're ready for the positive vision?  

Here is the psychologists mumbo jumbo about what you have said in plain and easy to understand English. Even if you don't understand every word of technical jargon on the mind analysers I can tell you what you are saying is correct and furthermore there do exist legitimate psychological explanations for it and here it is. Momentum and cognitive dissonance couple is the ultimate determinant of adult behaviour. Extent of scrutiny and demand of volume of evidence supporting a viewpoint is directly proportional to the divergence of the view from his instincts (prejudices), cognitive style (belief system or conditioning), and the resulting cognitive dissonance induced by this divergence upon attempting internalization or assimilation of the presented viewpoint into own personal cognitive style and inversely proportional to the convergence of the above; such that no need of scrutiny or a demand for evidence is perceived if the viewpoint offered has been well internalized by the subject such that choir members require no evidence to believe in God and atheists would never concede to the existence no matter how much evidence is proffed.

Best regards. More on the website link I have set for the activists to understand the cuddlendance philosophy at http://cuddlendance.com/tea.aspx

Regards.

Pat Verma HUGS@cuddlendance.com        

Dear Ishe, allow me to show you my debating skills. They dig not bestow upon me those trophies for no reason. Here I am taking on Einstein in his aphorism "you can't solve a problem with the same means that created it" not by a full frontal rebuttal but at least with a meagre exception to that rule. And that is the principle of flash fires used to douse the wells in Iraq intentionally set afire by the losing army. There they used the trick of making all oxygen suddenly unavailable to choke the fires to the oil wells. You attack on poor homeopaths was certainly an overkill. In medicine we do often take that approach when using immunizations e.g. BCG vaccination in fact is made from semi-dead TB bacteria as are all viral vaccines. Snake venoms are used anti-sera in the same fashion. May be if we are sufficiently brilliant we can find out a trick where one manner of pollution and warming can be made to neutralize another means of pollution and warming. That would be the cheapest way to win, don't you think? Something like making Turk and Seth fight with "Whe (sic) Hell Freezes Over"!

Your mention of underlying current (of conscience) is precisely my real itch and reason for participation here. I recently mentioned a bit about the pecuniary interests as driving the need to be right and even more than that. That glitter of dollars is the whole dispute as is always the case in modern (post currency) world.  Those who stand to profit from Green jobs are going to be pro GM and those who would lose jobs are going to keep denying it until they manage to sink us all. That is what has to be avoided. We have to do a mass psychological intervention of some sort to deal with that. And that brings me to the Cassandra's dilemma, which I find even more fascinating that you appear to appreciate. I see it going on Mandelian lineage of genetics. It's a bit more than either lose/lose or win/win, depending on the need to be right. That need to be right is what psychologists call cognitive dissonance and it has the ability to explain more than 40% of human behaviour and is in serious play here in the climate debate as well. So there are two additional outcomes of lose/win and win/lose that needed a mention. But the troubling aspect of this experiment which puts is apart from the pollination of peas by Mandel is that we do not have the luxury to do several repetitions of the experiment. We are going to get only one stab at it and who is right or wrong really is immaterial if the outcome is a disaster. That is why I have attempted to argue that even if the risk is meagre the gravity of the risk is so huge that we better not seek additional proof and choose to panic. The reality is that suffering has already begun and is taking place every day. We need not await any further proof. I am going to write an essay rebutting that of Dr. David Evans on Global Warming or Global Cooling? A New Trend in Climate Alarmism based on There Is No Evidence   12 July 2009  however it might be better if someone more qualified in climatology attempted that. I do not find myself well equipped to do so as I am not a climatologist. See if you want to take it up on yourself.

There wasn't one.

We are at war with Eurasia, We have always been at war with Eurasia. We have never been at war with Eastasia.

There was a fad in the popular press on the notion of an impending new ice age, but there was no significant scientific debate about such a phenomenon taking place.

Recently, some researchers took a look at the scientific literature of of the 1970s and discovered that only 7 supported a theory of global cooling, while 44 supported the theory of global warming.  

USA Today reported on this last year, and the actual paper was published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.  The authors of the study are Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center, William Connolly of the British Antarctic Survey and John Fleck of The Albuquerque Journal. 

Since you're a geologist, I'm sure you'll be interested in these findings!

MS Geology, University of Illinois, 1977.

Yes, I am a working geologist trying to survive the Obama recession, which would be made much worse by crap-and-tax. I am aware that the 1970's cooling scare has been sent down the memory tube. But, the problem is that many of us were there and still remember it. You do an adequate job of regurgitating the pat answer, and I have seen it before, but it doesn't fly here. Those warmingists of that period must have had really bad PR because all the agenda "journalists" were on the side of the coolingists. For an example, try googling "Newsweek global cooling 1975," or Time would also work. I work at a regulatory agency with several other geologists, all of which regard the whole global warming thing with total scorn.

Now, Emily, perhaps you will share your science credentials with the group. Do they trump mine, or are you just more "enlightened?" I also read, have a modicum of common sense, and a well-tuned BS detector. But, not to worry, you will always have the following of a little group of lemmings, who share you leftist ideology, but lack technical knowledge or critical thinking skills.

I predict that if crap-and-tax passes, there will be a mass extinction of Democrats in Congress in 2010. Fortunately, the Senate Democrats are running scared of the House version.

When someone, like yourself say, touts him/herself as a scientist, and expects that to command respect for her/his opinions, then you really do have to put up or shut up, don't you think?

Now, let's see: You are taking refuge behind a pseudonym.  You have not offered up the name of your employer, or any citations to research that you've done.  You demonstrably would rather throw insults and slogans ("leftist," "crap and tax") than discuss facts.  And your scientific views as expressed here...well, whatever.  

Your attempt to accuse me of lacking common sense and promoting bullshit is just painful...in fact, it's the kind of transference often seen the words and works of people who have trouble adjusting to the fact of human-propelled global warming, and feel a need to argue about it on the internets. 

I've given you an answer on global cooling, based on independent research done by others, who also reveal their names, employers, credentials. You don't like the answer, so you call it "pat" and "regurgitated."  More looking in the mirror and reporting what you see.

My background as a science and environment journalist are out in the world for anyone to see, in particular at my website, where there are links to many of my articles, and a resume.   There's also my bio here on Change.org. 

Bye.

OK Emily, we have been beating up on each other a lot. I'm going to try a slightly more conciliatory approach. I think you could use a little education about this country and its people. There is a vast tract of land between NYC and the west coast. Most of the people here in "flyover country" think a lot differently from you. We tend to be hard-working, God-fearing, sometimes gun-toting, Rush-listening, patriotic folks. We also enjoy our relatively high standard of living. We are the envy of the world. Billions of people around the world would love to trade places with you or me. Many have literally died trying to get here.

Poor Africans would love to have just a fraction of what we have. Why would you want to impose restrictions on them that will keep them down in grinding poverty or dying from malaria? Conservatives want all to have the opportunity to share in prosperity, while socialists want to spread misery equally. And that is what they do (except for the elites) where they have power.

Yes, I am a geologist in a regulatory agency in the intermountain west. We oversee the state's oil and gas industry. We do our best to see that they are kept honest and comply with environmental regulations. It is not our mission to put them out of business. They contribute greatly to our economy, and they provide us with a much needed commodity. And, frankly, they are why I have a job, don't keep collecting unemployment, and pay my share of taxes. I'll bet you can't imagine all the hoops they have to jump through to drill wells or properly dispose of their waste byproducts. Most do a good job, but there are a few who need some extra attention.

No, I do not think Al Gore should have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Far more deserving people, like Irena, were passed over for a political statement. Even Rush Limbaugh, who was nominated tongue-in-cheek (for the purpose of exposing the folly of the Gore nomination) was more deserving. Past winners like Martin Luther King and Albert Schweitzer must be spinning in their graves.

And, no I do not for a minute believe in "human-propelled" global warming. The earth is 4.6 billion years old. Since the dawn of time it has gone through climate cycles. Yes, even before SUV's. There is nothing unusual about the current climate. For as long as there have been glaciers, glaciers have been melting, calving, and falling into the sea. It has been much warmer in times past, and there have been times when the CO2 concentration was much higher. Man's impact is, at most, miniscule. The mass of the sun is more than 99% of the total mass of the solar system, and the earth is a tiny speck in comparison. And you think the sun has little impact on our climate variations? Think again.

No, I don't do climate research personally, but I have the background knowledge to be an informed and discriminating reader. Sure I have a bias, just like you do.

Well, that is what I have to say for now. I hope you will take it to heart.

Al Gore's not the issue.  Happy, sad that he won the Nobel, anyone's entitled to an opinion.  But he is just one guy.  So's Limbaugh, for that matter. (But do you consider a man who promotes hate and fear of one's fellow humans, and flat out lies about the news, they way Rush Limbaugh does, deserving of respect on any terms?)

And sure, mention the Nazis. It's nearly inevitable in this setting that someone will. [[Godwin's Law: As a discussion on an internet forum grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.]]  

Setting one crisis against another is also bullshit.  Human beings are incapable of working on more than one thing at once?  (Wait; don't answer that.)

And in any case, poverty and environmental degradation are demonstrably linked in Africa (and elsewhere).  Climate change is and will continue to create even more environmental chaos there.  In fact, humanitarian relief agencies are among those calling for stronger action to slow global warming, precisely because it is and will continue to make their already hard jobs even harder.

As for that old argument that humans can't affect cycles or phenomena across the entire planet within a few generations?  Demonstrably untrue.  Look at trans-boundary pollution: Dioxins and related human-created persistent organic pollutants, or POPs, have been found in the tissues of polar creatures, for instance. .  Indigenous Arctic peoples, who rely substantially on their traditional hunts for food, have extremely elevated levels of POPs in their blood, and breast milk, enough that at times the Canadian health service has recommended that native mothers not breast feed their babies.  

Journalist Marla Cone wrote a very good book, Silent Snow, about how these pollutants travel thousands of miles away, from manufactories in lower latitudes to the Arctic food chain.

Since you work for a fossil energy - related regulatory agency in the intermountain west, I imagine you understand how failing to follow the environmental regulations around a drilling or mining operation can have severe ecological consequences both locally and regionally, so I'm sure the concept of transboundary pollutants is not a new one.

Human-created carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, at the volumes we're creating them, also spread across borders and affect the global environment.

I'd be foolish indeed if I tried to suggest that the Sun, the Gulf Stream, or phenomena like El Nino or La Nina *don't* affect earth's climate and weather, just to make a point about the impacts of greenhouse gas pollution.  It's a complex system, which is why it took a good few decades for scientists to determine, well well within the boundary of reasonable doubt, that human impacts are the primary drivers of current global warming.

Size doesn't predicate degree of impact.  From what I've read, a teaspoon of botulinum toxin could kill over one billion people if it were used as a biological weapon.

Frankly, if you take some time to read some of what I've written (some of it reported from places flyover country, even), and how I've reported, you'd discover that I have no problem reporting on the complexities in changing the energy foundation of our economy.

They're profound, and are certain to create a lot of unpleasant upheavals.  [[As someone in the internet and journalism industries for the past 15-odd years, I know from unpleasant upheavals that threaten to eradicate my livelihood, so I'm empathetic to fear of change and destitution!]]

Then again, there will be pleasant upheavals as well. While fossil fuels contribute enormously to our standard of living as it's currently reckoned, the pollution created by burning fossil fuels -- particulate pollution in cities, for instance -- also sickens millions, puts them out of work and out of school, put them into medical bills, and right now none of that is being accounted for on the traditional P&L statement.

I'll make just a few comments now and more later when I have more time. Al Gore has made himself an issue. He is a gigantic liar, hypocrite, and fraud. He and his Hollywood cronies are massive consumers of energy and cannot possibly be "carbon neutral," which is a bullshit term anyway. The Nobel Peace Prize in recent years has become nothing but a leftwing political award. That would include such recipients as Jimmy Carter, Yasser Arafat, and Miklhail Gorachev (Reagan was more deserving).

You apparently have never actually listened to Rush Limbaugh, choosing instead to repeat the liberal talking points. He does not promote hate, but yes he does ridicule liberalism. If you really want to hear hate radio, try Err America. Ever hear a guy named Mike Malloy, or Mike Papantonio, or even RFK, Jr.?

"Global warming" is not causing environmental degradation. There is absolutely no credible evidence of any such thing. There is zero evidence that man is causing global warming. Human produced CO2 amounts to no more than 3% of the total atmospheric CO2, and CO2 levels have been far higher at previous times in earth history, anyway.

Africa has very real problems, and as the lady said, "global warming" isn't even on the radar screen. Let's deal with their real life problems.

There are some real environmental problems, but you people are more interested in promoting a gigantic fraud in an effort to attain world socialism. Just admit that is your goal.

Sir, given that you are compelled to hide your identity and face and do not do your climate research personally, it is not for you to day that  have the background knowledge because that is a lie. You are not  informed of anything and when you call yourself a discriminating reader you are mis-statign that fact that you are discriminating person. You have a passionate hatred for humans. Reasons of that are not clear but the  observation is not disputable. Your presence on this forum does serve a purpose for us to argue in support of the environmentalism to dispel the scepticism of some who have been misled by misinformed evil minds like yours. You are allowed to harbour your biases as does everyone else. There is nothing like an objective opinion all opinions are subjective. But the trouble is your opinions are toxic and hazardous and need to be doused. It is proper that you did that on your own or action would become necessary to have you removed from this discussion group. You must refrain from lying and deceiving. 

 You so called slightly more conciliatory approach was another fraud. Why would you qualify it with the work "slightly"? How do you grade conciliations. Does there exist a concilliometer that use can use to graduate the level of conciliation?

We all could use a little more education about this country and its people and everything else. But who appointed you to take the position to go about telling people what they need to learn more about.

Your stating that there is a vast tract of land between NYC and the west coast is a redundant information that took up space on this site and served no purposed. You are well advised to keep nonsensical statement to the lowest. We are busy people and important things to do and missions to accomplish. You impede us in that pursuit through compelling us to read your wasteful nonsensical statements like this one.

You may not use phrases like "Most of the people". State things if you have facts to state. There is no geographic phrase recognized by people like  "flyover country"  and what other think and how much that  differs   from the views of others is not for you to advocate. Those who hold different views than we do are welcome to state it themselves. You stating on their behalf is called hearsay and carries no weight therefore a wasted attempt and wasted time.  You cannot be viewed as being "hard-working" given that nothing in your views indicates that you have done any work ever. How can you be  God-fearing, when the entire concept of God is a figment of human imagination. Sure you might be "sometimes gun-toting" but you are failing to realize that mention of gun in platforms like this means that you are resorting to crime of intimidation. You may not repeat the mention of guns bombs or other weapons on this site or you will be banished. Understood?

You cannot be found to be a patriotic folk.  It is grossly unpatriotic to promote NCD and the Global warming. If you were really enjoying your relatively high standard of living you would have no time left in the day from your enjoyments to post nonsense after nonsense on this blog. You sir are certainly NOT the envy of the world. We do have to offer a bit of pity on behalf of idiots like you. There are not Billions of people around the world. There are only less than 8 Billion humans on the planet. There is no one who is willing to trade places with you. People sure have died trying to migrate to USA and Canada but the fault of the wealth mal-distribution that underlies rests on the G-8 rich nations.

Some Africans might love to have a fraction of what we have here in USA. But how does that relate to the issue of global warming and plane protection. Sure those idiots are being compelled to sustain their lives through deforestation that is now becoming a nightmare for us. We had better stopped them from doing that but we are not yet well organized. We - the environmentalists and planet lovers - would never want to impose restrictions on anyone  that will keep them down in grinding poverty or dying from malaria? We are interested in their happiness and welfare and wish them to have the amenities of life and be disease free. But we have our limits and there are people like you who keep hindering in our slow progress. We have too many enemies in our work and our work is hard.

We too want everyone to have the opportunity to share in prosperity, but first we have to find that so called prosperity. Remember there was a work thrown around recently called recession. We are hurting here in the West all over. When we recover we would have to look at the poor nations and help them out seriously or they would inflict demise upon us. That is the risk of environmental calamities.

Sure until then you can be viewed as right in that we have no choice but to  spread misery equally. Nothing wrong with that. Why not share the sadness and hardship as well?  

If you are a geologist in a regulatory agency in the intermountain west that does not make you an expert in climatology or human behaviour. The fact that you oversee the state's oil and gas industry is the clear evidence of your skewed biases. Your livelihood comes from gasoline you will never hate it. I have explained it well why it is impossible to convince a butcher that red meat is bad for heart and that it can kill you.

How you  do your best to see that people are kept honest. Honesty is an innate property. You cannot inflict honesty upon anyone. You can try to make people comply with environmental regulations but a starving man knows no laws and never obeys any. Unless the poor nations are well fed they are a risk to us all.  It may not be your mission to put them out of business but if things are not dealt with properly they would be out of business anyway. Those who rely on logging would be out of job as soon as the forests are all gone. Can you grasp that?. The same is true also of the petroleum industry. As the wells dry up so would the jobs.

Their contributing greatly to our economy is the fallacy that you are unable to shake. The trouble is that the good that addition to economy does is outdone by the harm that accompanies. They are doing or will shortly begin to inflict more harm upon us through the cost of repairing the damages done by the climate calamities that any so called contributions to the economy would pale in comparison to the repair costs. The cost is just too high and would have to be paid and you have to begin to see that writing on the wall.

While it is true that for now  they provide us with a much needed commodity of natural gas and oil but that is an illusion and even a fraud. The good that those product do to economy is being outdone by the harm of the CO2 overload using that project is causing. That is why we have to quickly move away from that. You are not likely to grasp that and your views are going to the grave with you and the only hope for us is that you enter there sooner than later.

The admission on your part that  they are the reasons why you have a job, places you in such a serious conflict of interest with the climate issues that you are not capable of objective assessment of the situation and should voluntarily remove yourself from this panel.

Your use of the phrase "properly dispose of their waste byproducts" is an attempt to shun responsibility of your sins. The key byproduct is CO2 and it is impossible to "properly" dispose it of.  Let us assume that most do a good job, and only  a few need some extra attention. But that is not relevant here. The net result is that we are now sitting on the brink of a calamity and denying it is not the answer. Admitting its onslaught and preparing for it is the answer.

Sure you do not "for a minute" believe in "human-propelled" global warming and that puts you in line with Holocaust deniers as well. That view of yours is fraudulent and injurious to the public health and the planet's health and must be suppressed. Fortunately your numbers are tiny and the suppression would not be very difficult in time to come.

Okay let us concede that earth is about 4.6 billion years old although there are other estimates of making it some 15 billion years old. There is no such thing as the dawn of time nor is it relevant to the issue here of the planet and its fate. May be Earth has gone through climate cycles. Why would that happen?  If the theory of planets coming out of sun and Earth being a ball of fire just like sun and cooling gradually as shown by the lava at the core of the earth is true then the inevitable conclusion is that Earth has had a constant trend of cooling.

No one is in a position to say that there is nothing unusual about the current climate. The fact is the climate of 2009 is very anomalous.  There sure have been glaciers, and glaciers have been melting, calving, and falling into the sea and may be refreezing. That is not the whole picture. The picture on the whole is that their total volume or weight on the planet is shrinking and doing so very rapidly. That is scary to say the least. In any event the climate calamity is not limited only to glaciers. We have ten aspects of harm coming to the planet from deforestation to land becoming desert to shortage of potable water etc.

It is admitted that the surface temperature of Earth has been much warmer in times past, but then the life forms on Earth must have been scanty. Humans are incapable of living on a land warmer than 35C. Ask the desert dwellers and Australians if you do not believe us. Only rare desert species tolerate temperatures over 40C. It must be understood that the Earth would have continued its gradual cooling trend if unnatural things like burning up the coal , oil and natural gases did not take place in the tremendous amounts that it happened over a century. That is the tragic thing that has happened and needs to be undone. Can you grasp that. Earth has means to get rid of CO2 methane etc. But we managed to overwhelmed those outlets and accumulation took place and is going on.

There is no proof that there have been times when the CO2 concentration was much higher. Even if that were true there would have been other compensatory mechanisms that co-exited such that life continued. CO2 is not the sole determinant of things like surface temperature of earth. The plant and animal life on the planet can be properly sustained only at the correct temperature settings as is true of food in the fridge.

You are not permitted to say that man's impact is, at most, miniscule. How did you apportion out the  contribution  to man and non-human contributors. Firstly you are not permitted to talk of apportioning blame when you do not believe the blame in the first place. So you are best of not making any mention of who is at fault. You must first admit that there is a CO2 overload to begin to say who is responsible for how much. You cannot assign responsibility for non-existent elements.

Even if the mass of the sun is more than 99% of the total mass of the solar system, and the earth is a tiny speck in comparison it is completely irrelevant to the climate change on the surface of earth.

It is not that we think, because we know that the sun has ABSOLUTELY NO impact on our climate calamities. We need not think again because logic tells us what has happened and what is going to continue to happen. The amount of energy sun has been emitting and throwing at the Earth has not changed to any measureable extent. What has happened is that we have change the Ozone and CO2 levels in the atmosphere so much and so rapidly that the earth is no longer able to lose the heat at the rate it should have lost. That is in essence the global warming the greenhouse effect for you. It is not possible to make things any simpler given your toddler level comprehension skills.

Covering up these huge deserts over the Arabian, Sahara, Mojave, Sonoran, Gobi, Kalahari, Atacama, and Great Sandy Deserts, with solar panels would permit the retention of moisture in the soil and make things lot  better. A large amount of water that is entering the oceans is coming not from glaciers but the soil which are getting dryer by the day. The deforestation is making the land very dry because the water that was previously held by vegetation growing there is no longer being retained. Point grasped ? But you could not do even the simple math assignment I gave you as your homework right? That is why you have no business posting your views as you are not possessed with enough intelligence and information to do so. So please remove yourself and join some religious group and defraud the public that way. Not via contaminating the public opinion about the climate calamities.

Regards.

Pat Verma

Huh? The word goggledygook comes to mind.

Cargo ships are notorious for their noxious fumes. Toyota is testing Solar Power Cargo Ship which is deemed seaworthy.  Any problems with that plan?

Pat Verma

And this relevant, why?

You know, Pat, I have been giving this some serious thought. Somewhere in one of your dissertations you expressed concern for the people of Africa. Clearly, you have lots of time available. If you are an actual doctor, you might be able to help them with some of their real life problems, such as malaria, AIDS, and malnutrition. You could actually save lives. You might even EARN a Nobel Peace Prize, rather than be given one for a slick Power Point presentation supporting a pet political agenda of the awards committee. Wouldn't that be a welcome change? If you could make these Africans healthy, happy, and comfortable, you might even be able to propagandize them on 350 ppm (CO2 in the atmosphere), and they might actually give a damn.

What activities are you involved in to better the lives of the poor in Africa, by the way?  It's obviously a big interest; so perhaps you know of some really effective ways readers of this blog could contribute their time or money.

Please show some consideration for those cross-cultural differences you often mention in regards to Africans, by the way, in how you talk with Mr. Verma.

Well, Emily, I have given both time and money to Feed My Starving Children. We packed nutritious meals to be shipped to malnourished children in the Third World, including Haiti and Africa. You should see the before and after photos of some of these kids, many of whom would have died agonizing deaths without this help. This is truly heartwarming, and it actually accomplishes something, even if it doesn't include any "global warming" propaganda. Seriously, Pat Verma has the potential to accomplish so much if he will apply his energy to real issues.

Here is the link to Feed My Starving Children: www.fmsc.org

The concerned people posting on this blog could do so much to hel. Please do.

Emily, thanks for opening a forum for me regarding charitable contributions to relief organizations. I am moving my posting to the bottom, where it might get more exposure.

And no one has any obligation to answer any of your or anyone else's questions. It is all voluntary. No one can be compelled to speak.

Pat Verma

Turk, this is a blog, nothing more or less. I am its editor [[or czar, if you prefer, although I like 'tsar' better]], and I make the rules. At least you grasp that much!

It's clearly bothersome to many that they can't post bad and poorly researched information with impunity around here, or be trolls, or start flame wars, and instead have to use their words.  

[[As a tsar might have said, "ochen' zhalka."  ("Such a shame!")]]

There are many other places on the internets where all those things can be done, however, so please, stop with the delusions of grandeur, that I can somehow wipe all this ideology masquerading as science off the face of the printed page or the pixelated screen!

And at last (whew!), there is indeed little intellectual merit in your position that the prevailing science of climate change is simplistic.  It took a good long while for human actions to emerge as the likely drivers of global warming precisely *because* most researchers did not accept simplistic answers to their questions about how and why the climate is changing -- such as, say, that moldy oldie that "it's all the sun's fault."

Sigh.  Royalty's work is never done.

Turk, hang in there bro'. I know the feeling.

And I think that if you ever traversed the Valley of Fear, it would be in an airconditioned Popemobile.

Please stop posting insults, Mr. Geologist.  And Ishe, I know it's hard, but please try not to feed the troll.    

Ishe, you'd probably find this recent study on the "Cognitive and Behavioral Challenges in Responding to Climate Change" very interesting.  It's longish but illuminating (and published by The World Bank).

The same author wrote a more news-and-views style piece a few years ago for the BBC.  As I understand her findings, fear of the severe consequences of global warming, and the potential that our societies and governments cannot rise to the challenge, bring out various forms of willful denial in a lot of people.

This is distinct from organized campaigns to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about global warming's reality, (or, the harms of smoking, or health care reform...) though -- those simply exploit the socio-economic dynamics that Kari Marie Norgaard investigates.  

Thanks for those links Emily.  Perhaps it requires more concerted effort in building a sense of "we own this problem jointly".  After all, bullet proofed, climate contolled, carbon emitting Pope-mobiles don't come up much on Ebay.

I make no apologies for working to facilitate the oil and gas industry. We do our best to keep them honest. It is one of the most important industries in the country. As the great "hater" (that is BS) Rush says, "Oil is the fuel that drives the engine of freedom." This country needs to produce more of our own. That is what will free us from dependence on foreign sources, not jousting at windmills.

Only in the First World do we have the luxury of fretting about non-issues like "global warming." Most of the world struggles just to survive, largely because of repressive dictators. Underdeveloped nations couldn't care less about the latest fad of the environmental movement, and why should they? Africa is plagued with unsanitary water, malnutrition/starvation, malaria (using DDT is a must), AIDS, and a host of other problems. The prescriptions for fighting a non-existent problem merely get in the way of solving their real problems and keep them in poverty. How many millions do want to die so you can feel good about saving the "environment?" I suggest that you go to Africa, Emily, and ask real Africans what they think the problems are and what should be done about them. Then get back to me on it. If you find a groundswell for fighting "global warming," I will publically apologize on this site. But, I'm not worried.

Oil is a limited resource.  Google Peak Oil.   If oil is the fuel that drives our freedom, I suggest you're setting your limits to freedom too low.  Producing more local oil to "free" you from foreign oil simply perpetuates oil dependancy.  Freedom might just be found in installing windmills rather than jousting them.  Don Quixote is suggesed reading here.

Africa might also be better served by being given a choice in a dire and desperate circumstance.  The situation they are in is reminiscent of colonial invasion of first nation resource grab.

Ishe, I am trying to take you seriously, so work with me here. Please start by trying to clarify what you are saying about Africa. I'm having a really hard time following your logic.

As far as windmills are concerned, I am not opposed to them. They can help, but it is totally unrealistic to suggest they can replace fossil fuels. And, does anyone really want them dotting the whole landscape? The Kennedys and Walter Cronkite certainly didn't want them in their Hyannis Port and Martha's Vineyard backyards. But, isn't that just the way with hypocrites?

Here is a link to global peak oil status

http://drmills.wiki-site.com/index.php?title=Peak_Oil_Preparation

I'll be perfectly candid.  I don't take you at all seriously, I haven't quite propagated you out of the set of Monty Python yet.

OK, thanks for the candor. I think we have been talking past each other. I will remind you, in case you don't remember, we were supposed to run out of oil by 1970. It didn't happen.

The PDF article "Cognitive and Behavioral Challenges in Responding to Climate Change" so kindly cited by Emily is bit tricky to read for the group so I have taken the liberty to cite the bottom half of the abstract for the information of the group which would emphasize the need to scare (which in my vocabulary includes humiliation) and the abstract says the following:

Climate scientists have identified global warming as the most important environmental issue of our time, but it has taken over 20 years for the problem to penetrate the public discourse in even the most superficial manner. While some nations have done better than others, no nation has adequately reduced emissions and no nation has a base of public citizens that are sufficiently socially and politically engaged in response to climate change. This paper summarizes international and national differences in levels of knowledge and concern regarding climate change, and the existing explanations for the worldwide failure of public response to climate change, drawing from psychology, social psychology and sociology. On the whole, the widely presumed links between public access to information on climate change and levels of concern and action are not supported. The paper's key findings emphasize the presence of negative emotions in conjunction with global warming (fear, guilt, and helplessness), and the process of emotion management and cultural norms in the construction of a social reality in which climate change is held at arms length. Barriers in responding to climate change are placed into three broad categories: 1) psychological/ conceptual, 2) social and cultural, and 3) structural (political economy). The author provides policy considerations and summarizes the policy implications of both psychological and conceptual barriers, and social and cultural barriers. An annotated bibliography is included.

Pat Verma

If there's a chance that someone's interested in conversation on real science about global warming, I'm more than happy to take them up on it.

Deny the reality of global warming all you want.  But try to grasp that your position is a belief, an act of faith in essence, and not an opinion based on the overwhelming evidence that's been gathered and analyzed over the past several decades.

With the possible exception of Australia, no other industrialized nation is still having a serious conversation about whether or not global warming is man-made.  

I feel pretty firmly as a journalist that these arguments have had their day.  For most of the people in my profession, it's past time to cover the situation as it exists, not as an extreme minority wishes it to be.

"The debate is over" tactic just doesn't fly. Obviously, the debate is not over. (And we skeptics are far from an "extreme minority"). Debate is the very essence of science. Stifling debate is the antithesis of science. Otherwise, the sun would still be orbiting the earth.

As a geologist, I assure you that the debate is very much alive and well. Just a little comment here about journalists who venture outside reporting the news to work as activists and promote their own agendas. Journalists now have a level of trust with the American people that is somewhere below used car salesmen and about on par with lawyers. Any lingering doubts that journalists are biased were dispelled by last year's election. Does anybody have any doubts about whom the "mainstream" press supported for president?

Emily, you need some help here. I think more people are interested in debating the merits of the "global warming" argument than they are in how to stop global warming. Good luck.

PS The alarmists are getting really nervous. That's why the big push is on.

Although copious gratitude from everyone would be due to  Ely were the fact that she has "stopped" global warming true. But for all the hype emitting fools out there. Global warming is not SUV. You cannot start or stop it by turning a key. Just like a fit lifestyle is a way of living climate control by keeping the CO2 levels and surface temperature of earth comfortable for all residents of the planet would have to be an ongoing practice and a matter of habit. That change if habits is the what is needed and is the biggest hurdle. Check my website for details.

Pat Verma .

Things are held at a certain level in nature for very good reasons. You ask - Why not 250 ppm of CO? Do you hate vegetation? Trees need some level of CO2 to make food for you me and the starving children in the third world. Your recommendations would aggravate their starvation. Get it? And no matter how many SUVs you drive or how much you fart you cannot raise CO2 levels to 1200-1500 ppm. Calm down and know your limits. That would help build some credibility. Have you not yet figured out that we all deem you as a total idiot?

Pat Verma

Well Pat, I guess I am getting noticed. Somebody has to take the slings and arrows, so why not me? On whose authority is 350 ppm the optimum level of CO2 in the atmosphere? James Hansen? He is a discredited buffoon. I love vegetation, and I want it to have more of a good thing. There is no set level of CO2 in nature. It has fluctuated through earth history, as has the climate. If we can't get CO2 levels to 1200 ppm, then what is all the fuss? We aren't going to burn up after all.

You know, Pat, if you are a doctor, you could do a lot of good for humanity, especially in the disadvantaged parts of the world. You should aspire to be another Albert Schweitzer, not another Albert Gore. There was a time long ago when the Nobel Peace Prize had real meaning. Now it is merely another leftist political award.

Your getting noticed is an illusion my friend. Being noticed carries a meaning when the person noticing you agrees to accept your values and propagates them something that I am seeking. What sense does it make if the only manner in which you are getting a notice is that of a garbage heap in need of urgent removal? You can sure serve a purpose by taking the slings and arrows, as I mentioned so why not you. "James Hansen the discredited buffoon" is not the only one who says CO2 of 350 ppm is optimal. Trouble with truth is that even if said by a crook, a thief or even a politicians, it still remains truth. So if N2 is about 80% and O2 is 20% of the air would be correct even if stated by any of the above and even by you!

Good to know of your love vegetation, but why would I trust that you are telling the truth? You might have gobbled up a whole cow this morning alone! How to I know, Trust is not what your emit, only CO2.  There is a touch of insanity with having the intent to "want it to have more of a good thing" that is what is killing us. The desire to have more, GREED. Had we taken the industrialization slowly and allowed humanity to evolve in tandem we would have avoided the fiasco. What Cuddle~n~Dance is proposes is to rectify that simple error. We need a touch of humanity. Read the link ABC on my website. We need to be brotherly to each other not try to cut each others throat which is the legacy of the industrial revolution.

It is a fundamentally flawed assertion to say that there is no set level of CO2 in nature. It is like saying that there is no set body temperature for you. Just as your own core temperature fluctuates so does the temperature of the planet. Remember that Earth is very much like an incubator where we keep infants or grown bacteria in labs. Earth has to keep the levels of O2, N2, CO2, pH, temperatures, humidity and things of that sort within limits compatible with life. If that does not happen life would vanish from the planet. If you are unable to grasp this simple rule you are unfit to understand any of the posts here and should stop reading and writing them. When I conceded that we can't get CO2 levels to 1200 ppm, I did not concede that in an absolute sense. Things with physics, chemistry and biology are true within limits and when those limits are exceeded the scenario is no longer a real feasibility. The reason that CO2 levels of 1200 would be technically unattainable in real life situation on the planet is because other things would happen that would limit it, first of which would be no one would be alive to take the measurement of the 1200ppm. Take some of the examples of how physics operates. You cannot keep ice at 40C. Water evaporates at 100C. You cannot heat steam over 500C. We are CERTAINLY going to burn up by then. In fact that only way to generate 1200ppm will be through burring up all of us.

I am a doctor, but I am unable to practice any longer as someone injured my brain to render me unfit to speak and hear properly.

I can do a lot of good for humanity merely though sending out the right messages at this stage. One less doctor is the least of the worries of the humanity. The onus of helping themselves out of their state is more on the disadvantaged parts of the world than it is on the West. Suggestions to the effect of raising funds to feed the starving African and Asian children is not something I find myself too thrilled about. That poses a real dilemma for me. My views on cash based charitable works are radical and collide with the mainstream thinking. I do not express them but I am daring here now. I think by not allowing elements do the natural selection and by keeping a starving child alive to make him a starving adult who would produce half a dozen starving children thus perpetuating the problem. I am glad to learn of some people proposing that as is true of the SPCA policies on dealing with abandoned pets,  it is more humane to euthanize sick human orphans suffering from AIDS than to keep them alive for a few years to make them suffer and be a burden on the economy of those poor nations. I am also not a big fan of Heart and Stroke Foundation, Cancer Foundation and similar health issues related charities either.  My arguments is when we do have at least in Canada, government responsible for healthcare of all Canadians, what justification there is for the second layer of corrupt and inept bureaucracy of at least some of these charitable organizations? We should be able to do it all with one layer of  bureaucracy that operates with efficiency. I am also not a supporter or advocate of any of the other causes on change.org because I find the climate+health agenda as the key agenda. If there is not going to be enough food, shelter and transportation resources left for humans what meaning would a universal healthcare system, women's rights, gay rights etc carry.

My aspirations are low now given that I am fairly crippled man at this time not able to do several things that I had set out to do. But I think I am still contributing in a very meaningful way by talking sense into heads of people. I crave no Nobel Peace Prize and would not pretend to have the faintest clue what righteous or  leftist political wings mean. The best I can make out is that they are like the right and left winds of a plane and I feel that a plane should have both of them to be able to fly.  Even if the offer were to help out with the health issues of the Asian and African children I would focus on the more important agenda of Equitable Wealth Distribution  (EWD). We cannot just pump money into poor nations. It is not possible to make someone rich by giving them money. As the saying about fishing thing goes the only way to make someone truly rich is to educate the person the marketable skills that would sustain the wealth. You probably know that most lottery winners lose the suddenly begotten wealth and in many situation meet serious misfortune and ruin from that sudden wealth. The African nations have the additional problem of the wealth being abused for political agenda or stashed away in Swiss banks of the politicians. So when you donate to UNICEF or save the child kind of organization in all likelihood you are helping someone somewhere buy guns and ammunition. Not a smart move I think. When the infrastructure in Canada and USA is rotting and is about to fall prey to climate calamities, what hope can we realistically have of developing that in the third world nations. We need a radical change in the manner of wealth distribution globally and prepare to tighten the belt because the climate calamities are going to cost big time. The wealth on the planet is about to shrink but at least 20% immediately and up to 50% eventually. That level of global poverty is going to produce unheard of disasters on its own through unrest and rioting alone. There are going to be modern days plagues which have already been in set in place by the gasoline driven fleet of cars. We are already paying huge sums as hidden costs of autos through the heart diseases, lung disease, cancers etc. The key message I wish to send out is that NCD pandemic is profoundly connected to the climate calamity that is already here and is going to get worse in next few years, may be six may be sixty. But that is soon. I guess I would still be alive by then if I can manage to keep fit.

Pat Verma

Pat, first of all, I am genuinely sorry about your physical disability. But that doesn't mean you can't accomplish a lot, even in the medical profession. Again, history remembers Albert Schweitzer as a great humanitarian. Al Gore will go down in history as a great huckster.

I do not share your idea that any climate calamity is about to befall us in 6 years, 60 years, or even 600 years. The earth takes care of itself. We couldn't destroy it if we tried. In almost every environmental category the earth is in better condition than it was 100 years ago. I suggest "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg.

I don't know what the solutions are for Africa's problems. But, aid in the form of food is a big help. FMSC has a very good success rate in getting it where it needs to go in spite of despots. I agree that a big part of Africa's problems are related to despotic rulers. Thugs like Robert Mugabe have got to go. I cannot possibly agree with you about euthanizing people. Birth control, yes. Euthanasia, no.

I think you must have a good heart and want to help humanity, and so do I. But, it appears we have very different ideas as to what is the best way to go about it.

There is not enough wealth to provide everyone with even shelter, let alone SUV and fund its fuel. I think if you keep up the agenda of deliberate pollution of environment by wilful and malicious promoting CO2 accumulation criminal prosecution against you and your allies would become inevitable answer to the situation. Such legislation which is clearly akin to hate crimes is in the works. It is time that you put an end to this climate contamination propaganda. It is no longer humor it is bordering on hate crime and public mischief akin to poisoning the water supply of the city. People have faced criminal charges in Canada for such acts of even negligence, let alone malice. Be careful you WILL face criminal charge in near future, that would not be good humor when it would be at your cost. Understood?

Pat Verma

Very Nice! LMAO!

Sounds like a great organization! I may even "volunteer" to bring supplies if I "get" to go to a Caribbean island of beautiful beaches and perpetual sun...only because I'm a "giver"....willing to endure tropical travel for the sake of the children...

Seriously though, sounds like a great organization. Well done, my friend!

Can't do even one thing right eh ??

Slandering the messenger if you can't fight off the overwhelming message and don't like the message is below the belt and pretty shoddy. Grow up a bit. Fight like a man. Innuendo of irrelevant matters is too cowardly a way to declare victory when you have been utterly defeated in your pseudo-scientific crusade.  These trickes are just too chilidish and beneath me. Okay?

Pat Verma