Todd Topolski wrote: '...Co2 based global warming scam... My guess is the green companies in the US and China'...
Are you qualified to have that opinion or guess Todd Topolski?
Can you prove the international consensus of working climate and earth scientist is not real?
1 ( +1 / -0 )
'China is the biggest source of greenhouse gas pollution, pumping out about a quarter of the worlds emissions' The key indicator of per capita range in China is still far lower than the USA.
This agreement targets the CO2 in metric tonnes per capita rate^, a figure far more useful for an integral worldview.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Interesting. So a newborn humans need a moisturizer ... right! Hmmm ... sounds like the basis for a revenue channel targeted at gullible first time mothers.
And results are from such a large study - '28 in the control group'. Ok ... something to think about...
A newborn's microbiota does this job already when a natural equilibrium is encouraged and maintained.
Mothers give viable healthy symbiotic organisms to children during natural childbirth and reinforce this during breastfeeding. This acts to prevent allergic reaction internally and externally.
Natural breastfeeding strengthens the immune system by feeding a child's natural internal external microbiota.
These outcomes are in endocrine and other studies that have found a causal link and this emerging information is growing exponentially.
Keywords for searching our natural flora just use google scholar are; microbiota, microbiome, gut flora, 'microbial metabolites' intestinal immune homeostasis'
0 ( +1 / -1 )
Star-viking wrote: "... And yet naturally-occuring polonium 210 is deadlier..." Yes it occurs naturally in uranium ores. You do know where that is found and what it is used for don't you?
So why would anyone what to build around uranium tailings from uranium mining?
Or live like a troll sixty meters underground the shallowest depth uranium is found.
Radon is more dangerous! More is subjective, just like your polonium 210/ uranium story. So it is also out of context and a flawed line of logic, this is just disinformation.
It reads like something based on a Dr. Oz sell more stuff we don't need infomercial.
Why would anyone build a home over a radon deposit exposing themselves to radon gas?
That would be just as stupid as building in a tornado corridor, or on the banks of a river that floods every three to five years.
What is interesting though, is no nuclear energy plant on the planet can get underwritten by an insurer for public liability.
Why is that?
2 ( +2 / -0 )
hkitagawa wrote: "I am sure majority of people approve it and nuclear energy is clean. The radiation exists naturally anywhere in the planet and high attitude place"
You may very well be right about the political centre of gravity or 'approval' in Japan.
But the questions are:
Which people approve of nuclear energy and why?
Is this approval out of a depth of understanding or out of compliance with reactionary* values?
These questions need analysis, as the 1950s Disney Generation weasel words were used - 'radiation exists naturally'.
Right there this is a false premise.
Is this what you are framing the Japanese future on?
Because the highly concentrated hot radioactive particles contaminating Japan are man made.
So the exposure at Fukushima was not from natural radiation in equilibrium with the planet's ecosystem.
The order of magnitude of difference in aggregating this man made radiation you and others fail to grasp is just naive.
That fact alone should make you question those you are deferring too on this issue.
The 16,000 who people rallied in Tokyo have done their due diligence by critically looking at both sides of the debate.
The interior question is; "have I critically looked at both sides of nuclear energy?"http://goo.gl/Q0RMEc
1 ( +3 / -2 )
A classic opening strategy for selling dirty nuclear energy: 'After the Fukushima accident, the cost of fossil fuel imports jumped by 3.6 trillion yen, or 10 billion yen per day' ~ Yuko Obuchi ~
Yuko Obuchi's pitch selling the 'climate of fear' to her gender, the most vulnerable to feelings of insecurity.
It will be interesting to see just how naive reactionary female voters will prove to be.
Particularly as they are the mothers and grandmothers of future generations. Who are custodians of the Japanese fertility and most responsible for the cultures DNA at risk from insidious man made radioactive material and toxic unspent fuel.
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
cleo wrote: "Ever notice how some folk make up all kinds of stuff about Sea Shepherd?
Yes, it's all they have.
The science of marine biology contradicts the 'propagana' these industrial fishing factory lobbyists infest conservative media with. Wilfully blind 'team reactionaries' in support just oppose current science out of fear of change.
Even dire warnings from climate and earth scientists of global warming with subsequent climate change requiring risk mitigation are an anathema to their values.
They are ideologues incapable of taking responsibility for the listed extinction events of whole species of fish caused by corporate factory fishing.
Blind to the damage resulting from taking out large breeding members of fish species.
All the because of unevolved, under developed value systems.
-1 ( +1 / -2 )
fxgai wrote; "it's rather presumptuous to suggest that anyone who thinks there might be something to Japan's research aims must be naive.
Interesting comment. Either my reply was written poorly or comprehension wanting for the comment: "What culture would admit to scientifically redundant methods of 'research' without a vested interest and a very subjective agenda?"
The long term establishment of scientific whaling is just 'commercial whaling' in the Southern Ocean with a geo-political subtext. The long game is making claim on the resources in Antarctica after establishing a history of resource use [whaling] culturally.
With estimates of over 200 billion barrels of oil under the ice, this puts the subtext as an attempt at establishing a territorial claim for a future time. Why else stockpile tonnes of whale meat for a diminishing need year in year out? Surely not for some long term trend in consumption just around the corner.
Just how naive anyone is about geo-political posturing after the ongoing grab for oil in the Middle East since Jimmy Carter is always surprising.
Japan was one of the original signatories to the Antarctic Treaty System, they are no longer, why? ^
1 ( +3 / -2 )
tinawatanabe wrote; "Japan is seriously doing scientific research, but you people don't believe and threaten Japan all the time." Threaten what?
Do you mean; changing culturally redundant ideology out of sync with current biological scientific methodology?
Then yes, Japan's old world ideology is under threat. However this runs deeper.
What culture would admit to scientifically redundant methods of 'research' without a vested interest and a very subjective agenda? That is an agenda carried as geo-political subtext far greater than made apparent.
Just how naive is anyone who accepts this 'scientific research' is not just a smokescreen of credibility?
The political centre of gravity in Japan, that is the Disney Generation and older might be ignorant of 21st Century scientific methods.
However the highly educated and intelligent generations following just could not be so wilfully blind.
So have no excuse for not standing up to what is nothing more than posturing with righteous indignation by those with reactionist ideology.
4 ( +5 / -1 )
tinawatanabe wrote; "... Japan is not hunting endangered species. I trust J government more in legitmacy and objectivity than you people who have strange special attachement to whales."
'Attachment' That is an interesting term dismissing mammalian sentience.
How is 'attachment' remotely adequate to describe our respect for human integration with life on earth?
We can only hope you and others with these unevolved values grow through this stage of human development.
2 ( +4 / -2 )
roughneck wrote; "Well...It is the hunting season in the sea!"
As a culture Japan fails to understand what higher mammalian life forms are.
Tribal African's are still hunting primates calling it 'bushfood', they have an excuse as their culture is not as evolved as Japan.
There is no excuse for this behaviour as Japanese are highly educated. However unfortunately wilfully blind to the slaughter of sentient mammals.
This unevolved slaughter started in the belief Dolphins reduced the local fish stock.
Today biologist understand it is humans removal of the large fish who were breeding stock that has brought fish species to the brink of extinction or worse.
Dolphins do not predate large fish breeders.^
The Taiji belief is just mythology. The projection of blame onto the sentient Dolphins living in harmony and integrating with their ecosystem as we should.
That by any measure is far more uninvolved behaviour than tribal Africans killing primates to eat.
0 ( +4 / -4 )
mitokomonalex wrote; "Our ancestors had a logical solution for elders who had lived beyond their use...led to the exodus of second, third sons and so on and not to mention the daughters, Pity them..."
The prime misconception is this exodus from the rural economy is unique to Japan. Because all cities in the developed world are experiencing the same problem. Automation leverages power and wealth, this fact is why rural areas are empty.
The cities are now the hub of automation and it has touched everything aspect of our life conditions, except in areas where only the elderly live. There resentment of this control and manipulation is understandable.
Scapegoating a generation for this era of machine code is a diversion away from the problem.
As the leadership has leveraged control of many and this is a far larger issue. The question is one of who is in control. Do they have a broad worldview and evolved values?
Will a younger leaderships values create equilibrium or just be a continuation of control from the apex of Japanese economic system?
Will there be weighting of balance toward conservation of unevolved values or not?
Your suggestion of taking rights away from elderly fails to address this issue of values.^
Focus needs to be on those in power with narcissistic worldview old or young.
Because this focus on the elderly has not changed for millennia and the result is always same.
^ Simon Sinek | Why Leaders Eat Last : http://youtu.be/ReRcHdeUG9Y
-1 ( +1 / -2 )
Nothing will take away Miyazaki's legacy and central message around the best of human values
What is sad is the message about the environment and integration with life on earth has largely gone unnoticed by Japan's political centre of gravity.
So is is not surprising the global corporations and their partners running our media seek to dilute Miyazaki's central theme and under guise of the studios handcraft animation technique.
As the message of integration with the natural world after all is an anathema to the current elitist worldview at the apex of our developed and developing economies.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
kaimycahl wrote; "The reason why most readers here have not mentioned the word bullying is we or I haven't heard or read about the contents of the note..."
Why do you need a note to analyze the scenario? It is outrageous two prepubescent girls have suicided, this is a community responsibility and there is no excuses.
Scapegoating the school, teachers, parents or students is just diverting attention and avoiding the overarching reason for a generation with rising feelings of despair. Yes there would have been contributing factors, but the government is elected with a duty of care toward future generations.
So ultimately the political leadership is responsible for shaping these students future. Instead of creating hope and purpose for the Japanese community, they have been ready to latch onto any diversion from their lack of future vision. Choosing instead to create through media a climate of fear to keep their respective voters in a state of compliance.
It is a political tool used by the elite for thousands of years, in this case the atmosphere created has been tragic.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
A real tragedy, of consequences and life conditions beyond the two elementary school girls control.
One issue no one on this thread has mentioned is the culture of bullying modelled by the political leadership. It exists, is adversarial and quietly accepted.
So why is anyone surprised this is acted out in their school?
Really that school community is just a reflection of the values held within the wider culture.
Which is shocking when we see such innocence and vulnerability affected unfairly.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
Antarctic Whaling resumption is just a political smokescreen to divert the world's media away from the release of the transcripts of the secret testimony of Masao Yoshida, the chief of the Fukushima No 1 nuclear plant.
**Because the release of the documents*** due out yesterday would expose the truth about the Fukushima catastrophe and its continuing influence on Japanese politics.
The resumption of whaling is certainly important. However the damage to the International perception of Japan over whaling is a secondary concern. Because the orders of magnitude of damage in this environmental disaster are obvious given the discharge into the planets marine environment.
Whales will be affected during their long life by radioactive contamination along with all marine life.
The keyword to remember is Sea Shepherd.
While Sea Shepherd has a focus on this unevolved Japanese behaviour the National Brand will continue to suffer.
Sea Shepherd have my support. As do the rural people of Japan's provinces who are the most opposed to the NRA and their backing of Nuclear Power Plants.http://goo.gl/PDU2xV
-2 ( +4 / -6 )
It"S ME wrote;
"No double standard, genitalia are forbidden to be shown/drawn/etc mammaries/boobs are fine and also often seen on tv. Yes, very true.
Yet demonstrating a very subjective comment.
Kanamara Matsuri ^ is a classic example proving only sexist values argue the opposite.
A culture accepting one genders area taboo and the other not is distorting how females view of their bodies.
Why is there any difference?
The double standard is self evident if we are not willfully blind.
^ Kanamara Matsuri : http://goo.gl/RlR4Ut
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
Appreciate the article.
Why are so many allowing TEPCO do so little all affected?
Where are the contributions from TEPCOs board, elite executive, shareholders and financiers who were responsible for Fukushima Daiichi catastrophe with continuing contamination infinitum?
Where is the long term planning from those now overseeing the integration displaced people?
Because projecting blame for the tension onto the displaced in either region is just evidence of poor leadership and responsibility by the government / TEPCO. No one could possibly surprised at the issues raised, they would happen in any community of humans.
But that is the keypoint of this well written piece...
5 ( +7 / -2 )
It is no coincidence the three pedestrians are still alive. Because this once again proves how dynamic the current fleet of vehicles actually is. Blaming the driver or victims in accidents does nothing constructive. We have adopted this method of travel and as it integrates it will get better for all.
We all need to be mindful just how the death rate in Japan has fallen steadily since the 1980s and how dangerous it once was. But at the same time how important re humanising of roads and streets needs to be, even in rural areas.
When the fully automated vehicles become normal the death rate will fall further and incident like this will become very rare. But just as galvanizing in opinion.
-1 ( +1 / -2 )
What a contrast to the incarceration of Megumi Igarashi for 3D printing her vagina. Megumi raised awareness of the double standard in the culture damaging self esteem in women. Megumi Igarashi's artistic expression was a big step forward in the culture of suppression of women's rights.
This publicity stunt for the porn industry just took the culture two steps back. The emerging generation of young men totally unaware of what women face over body image and self esteem.
This line is one of the most sexist in mainstream media this year.
"Women were occasionally spotted... prompting one of the girls to say in rapture: "Wow I am happy I want her to touch my breasts!"
The misogynistic hypocrisy in Japan is certainly a challenge for all the feminists fighting for equality.
0 ( +3 / -2 )
Sad to read this article as the Pacific Ocean Bluefin Tuna are on the brink of extinction. This response is an utterly pathetic solution being proffered by the Japanese Fishing Industry. Not only that it's too little, way too late.
" ... still not enough because bluefin tuna could make the list of endangered species any time." Greenpeace Japan - Wakao Hanaoka - an expert in marine ecology
The context of the Hanaoka comment is how fish breed and he would have elaborated how this needs urgent discussion.
Because it is the large tuna that are the breeding stock for the species. Fish sexually mature at 8 to 10 years old, weighing over 100 kg. As an example the wild Southern Blue Tuna grow up to 260 kg and can be 20–40 yrs of age.
There is no mention of saving the mature fish in this statement, so the line of logic is flawed and just a public relations exercise for the unaware Japanese public.
Because taking the small tuna out of the ecosystem is not the problem. Saving the large mature tuna will never happen as the older large mature fish are prized for their size.
These mature breeders are the very fish that need to be be protected as the 50% of smaller fish will soon be gone.
With less breeders there are less young fish and the cycle of depletion will continue until extinction.
Make no mistake, it will be the Japanese fishing industry that depletes the last breeding stock of wild tuna due to antiquated management and pure greed.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
Appreciate the article and perspective.
Any lines of logic used for production and storage of plutonium are flawed in the 21st century.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Are Japanese growing less heat-resistant?
This question is an obvious no.
Unless anyone is silly enough to believe hundreds of thousands of years evolution is reversing rapidly.
The fact that many here are dismissing the Iong term trend in global warming is interesting. From this perspective there is still understandable denial as Japanese conservatives still cling to redundant science in face of ovewehming evidence. Allowing public policy to remain unresponsive to the long term trend going forward.
Heat waves are going to become more routine as the oceans temperature steadily rises ^. Re-greening of the landscapes in urban areas is an obvious strategy, but there are many. A focus on green technology and innovation could easily be diverted onto this serious issue addressing localised issues allowing stress to be minimised.
However while the political centre of gravity is still going though what could only be described as a grieving stage ^^ around global warming and subsequent climate change, little will done.
4 ( +4 / -0 )
sangetsu03 wrote; Again (ad naseum) consensus is not science. A consensus of scientists used to believe the world was flat."
Actually that flat earth belief was not a scientific position. It was theocratic stance by the Roman Catholic Church who ruled the civilised world for over eighteen hundred years. Much like those righteously indignant Christian Republicans in your culture influencing the centre of gravity on science within conservative values. Yet another example of the flaws in your line of logic.
However the projection of values is understandable. Many in North American culture are affected by Abrahamic values^, even when 'the pixies in the sky' belief is not followed.
sangetsu03 wrote; "A consensus of scientists believed in the "science" of eugenics, and supported Hitler's eradication of "inferior" people." Interesting digression. Another use of flawed logic.
That reference is to a very small subset of eugenics scientists under Josef Mengele's thumb. If this is your understanding of scientific consensus, with respect your comprehension is questionable. More importantly, irrelevant within the context of scientific consensus of global warming. [Seriously, tactics like this are just emotive.]
sangetsu03 wrote; Fact contradicts dogma. That is correct.
So far the weight of fact is climate and earth scientists have accepted global warming, with subsequent local and nonlocal climate change.
Which is commonly called in this era "scientific consensus on global warming".
No amount of weasel words or semantics in their use will alter this fact.
Yes, "Fact contradicts dogma." That is totally agreed and pleased you see the point.
sangetsu03 wrote; " Fear is the key word. Fear is the tool used by the 1% to control the masses ..." Interesting. Yes, 'the fear' of exponential change brought on by automation
Could not agree more.
Outside the nuclear / gov / military bloc fronted by the IAEA there is no greater influence geopolitically than the carbon energy transnationals and the global banking cartel. The financiers are amoral, supporting both government and the carbon energy corporations. Profit is profit to financiers, a group who carry the private mantra of "You make money, I make money and .... the customer."
Which begs the question.
Why are you personally backing the transnational carbon energy corporations and their friends with benefits? A group at the apex of the global economic pyramid or as you put it the "...1% to control the masses..."
sangetsu03 wrote; "... keep singing "four legs good, two legs bad."
Please do not start with reds under the bed, vaccinations, contrails geoengineering the atmosphere, and lizards running the planet. At least spare this thread from that.
sangetsu03 as for the heckle about my understanding of this script in the comment:
"Ah, Mr Bold, much like the right-wing, high school dropouts who love to write ..."
Please note; use of text script online is not breaking long standing online etiquette shouting using CAPS.
However using a pseudonym is commonly seen as ;http://goo.gl/WAFd0G
Something to think about: http://goo.gl/3YiLeC
^ Abrahamic values: http://goo.gl/Vzwwxr
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
sangetsu03 thank you for your very long comment and insight into your set of values.
sangetsu03 wrote using Dr Phil Jones interview^ as proof there is no consensus on global warming and subsequent local and nonlocal climate change in an interview he quoted from an article.
From my perspective there has not been a better example of cherry picking information using cognitive bias on this thread. The context of the text from the interview cut and dropped into comment is clear. As Dr Phil Jones^ answers these later questions in the same interview:
BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods. [putting all comments quoted in context]
BBC: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
Phil Jones: I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity._
From this perspective: Students from K6 - K12 who are taught the foundations of critical thinking could see the flaws in your line of logic and identify the bias in comment. Thankfully these generations are replacing the disappearing Disney Generation of consumers of carbon energy causing the slow death of life on earth.
sangetsu03 wrote: "I have read the IPCC reports, I have compared their predictions to actual results, and found them different...I am not a believer in consensus, or religion.
There is no explanation why working climate and earth scientist are in consensus. What credible selfish motive could they have for coming to the conclusions they have many years ago and very importantly with their position strengthening?
Anyone who is in denial of working climate and earth scientist consensus who have repeatedly addressed all questions raised are clearly in a circle of dogma of belief. By any definition that is a faith based value set.
Putting the phrase "I am not a believer in consensus... " into context of the comments.
As all critical thinkers are open to the body of science layering over the old. Where there is no constant circle of dogma of disbelief, just examination and consensus of the science.
In this case the scientist who accept global warming as a long term trend is overwhelming. Will this change?
The probabilities are zero.
sangetsu03 wrote; "I simply prefer to look at the facts and make my own choice."
As for looking at the facts; cherry picking information to suit a personal premise does not develop a line of logic. Let alone bare examination for credibility.
sangetsu03 wrote; "... climate change as an issue is dying. Australia's scrapping of it's carbon schemes is only the start..." In your opinion.
However human history always demonstrated chaos before change. This is the greatest challenge our species has ever faced, denial is understandable and following the psychological 'stages of grief' very closely.
The fact that the centre of gravity in denial of the changes needed does not concern scientific consensus. Or the unusual step climate and earth scientist have made in warning clearly how the course and direction of political leadership is flawed.
After all the campaign waged by lobbyist is still being bought by the generation born in the middle of last century. As a group they will never face the consequences of their consumption putting the planet out of equilibrium. Questioning their freedom to burn the planet is unthinkable and central to denial. It is expectable they will die in this circle of dogma, unable to handle the fear of change in this era.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
sangetsu03 wrote; "Even the IPCC admits that there has been no statistical increase in temperatures in 16 years."
Interesting comment. So you actually believe this line of logic do you?
Disrespecting working climate and earth scientific consensus by saying there is no long term trend and say even the IPCC admits it.
Yet you provide no reference to where the IPCC says this in documents pages or paragraphs.
A keyword search of your phrases on google comes up with links to known lobbyists for the carbon energy industry.
Just how stupid do you think the Japanese and English speakers here are?
This is not a North American audience who did not finish a secondary education.^
Japanese are highly educated people who are taught critical thinking and can recognise cognitive biases.
^ At least show some respect to the Japanese english speaking readers and reference your allegations about the IPCC. Otherwise it just looks like you are copy and pasting memes from carbon energy groups with a vested interest in protecting their profit.
sangetsu03 An introduction to the latest IPCC report, the speaker at IGBP is one of the worlds leading statisticians explaining the IPCC statistics you commented on. But I don't recommend you watch it because it contradicts your comment:http://youtu.be/grZSxoLPqXI?t=2m26s
0 ( +2 / -2 )
turbotsat wrote; "The big money is in pushing the global warming idea, not denying it."
Seriously, you are actually framing this as a projection of corporate profit making. Get real.
There are orders of magnitude of difference between the trillions of dollars at stake in the carbon energy industry and working scientist. Do you actually know what scientists are paid?
Or that the alternative energy industry is less that 2% of the size carbon energy in North America.
The naivety in regards to the leveraging of power and wealth of carbon energy group is truly staggering. That is the weakest line of logic on this thread.
Very sad strategy turbotsa. It looks desperate parroting Koch Bros memes without thinking from this worldview.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
Burning Bush wrote; "... assuming all this carbon footprint nonsense is true, Australia's significance is 1/1000th of China and India."
It proves conclusively North Americans and all developed economies fail to grasp their type energy use is the problem. China is proportionately per capita outperforming North America and developing cheap locally available energy. Allowing it to compete effectively right across their country using cheap energy. With the automation replacing humans it is allowing very small operations to have high localised output.
By contrast North America is locked into large grids, dirty energy production and all the high infrastructure costs of transmission.
It is no coincidence the once great economy is winding down under the weight of old expensive technology.
Burning Bush wrote ; "My advice to Australians, forget all the carbon crap."
Yes, the Koch Bros meme.
Another interesting comment. Yet there is no examination of just who is the source of the information denying carbon emission damage and why.
Amazing, legally it is called willful blindness.
Yes older Australians want the status quo pushed by the very right wing conservatives. Buying into the same Koch Bros, Heartland vested interest logic as your flawed advice.
The end result in Australia is an emerging electricity glut due to the peoples uptake of home solar power providing cheap localised energy and grid feed in.
The irony is this is in response to the risk mitigation warnings from working climate and earth scientists. While politicians in Australia opt to back coal production, dirty energy.
Given the developing battery technology, emerging economies will not even need power corporations and their inefficient infrastructure. People will be able to live in cities and towns without even being on the grid, producing power in the home and small businesses with self sufficiency. That is true economic freedom that is empowering and all from 21st century good clean technology.
Africa and South America will soon be the greatest economic threat to North America. The primary reason US elite military back a risk mitigation response to global warming.
The irony is the righteous indignation of those who fail to see change is good and the clear economic decline following adherence to redundant technology.
Thankfully the delusional Disney Generation is becoming less relevant by the day.
I personally will take a working climate and earth scientist opinion over global warming and risk mitigation any day over the generation that lead us into this mess. So thanks for your opinion. But like many here I am aware your advice could only be motivated by self interest Burning Bush .
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
turbotsat wrote; Canada's Al Gore? " Why are you threatened by either a former politician or an environmental communicator and scientist? Is it disrupting your version of reality?
Why do you feel the need to quote to use questionable memes found on blog funded Heartland and Koch Bros. Both well known lobbyist for the status quo and against risk mitigation.
Where are the credible links proving allegations of impropriety of David Suzuki?
Why do you need to use spurious data provided by those Suzuki opposes in the carbon energy industry?
Because carbon energy as a group have been using a strategy of false claims he has successfully addressed many times. A disinformation strategy developed by the Heartland Institute in support of the tobacco industry since the 1950s.
Why is David Suzuki's stance on global warming so threatening to carbon energy corporations?
Is it because this 19th century carbon energy technology is threatened by the disruption of clean 21st century alternatives sources of energy?
Why fight risk mitigation on global warming? Is it because is a hoax? How can it be a hoax if the scientific consensus is this real?
From this worldview failure to grasp clearly outlined warnings from climate and earth scientist is delusional. Are you delusional. surely not? ...
1 ( +2 / -1 )
sangetsu03 wrote; "Funny, the BAS ... power outage at their antarctic labs, which coincided with -62 degree weather ... coldest temperature ever recorded there. I suppose this record cold was caused by global warming?"
Interesting comment. So what is your point?
That you fail to understand the scientific consensus is that there is a long term trend in global warming. Which subsequently causes local and non local climate change.
Even evident in Antarctica where salt water sea ice is freezing and temperature plummets in certain regions. While the continents fresh water glaciers melt from warming along with every glacier on the planet.
Antarctic extremes further proof of climate projections done as early as the 1970s and 80s of the effects of global warming.
This decade an era when glaciers on every continent or island have now passed the tipping point and will soon disappear never to refreeze for thousands of years. ^
Perhaps you fail to grasp the North American economic system supports carbon energy corporations who are the primary cause of greenhouse gases causing global warming.
If the consensus of working climate and earth scientists are beyond your comprehension, thats ok. Your opinion really does not matter, as only those of working climate and earth scientist do.
^ EIS Extreme Ice Survey ; http://www.ted.com/talks/james_balog_time_lapse_proof_of_extreme_ice_loss
1 ( +3 / -2 )