Radical Environmentalism: Now Global Warming Causes Prostitution?

[kimmielittle]

If we could get more good people into the environmental movement who are actually willing to do the right things and effectively reduce GHGs and other pollutants, without harming others in the process, that would be wonderful.

Care to join?

When YOU and YOUR environmentalist groups demand Normal Science… instead of post-normal science to promote public policy and socialist economic agendas.

Or do you think YOUR “feelings”… YOUR “beliefs”…should be sold / demanded of all…without evidence? THAT is the definition of Socialism - YOU do know that - don’t you?

 

[kimmielittle]

As for the birds and bats harmed by wind turbines – that actually leads to a conflict within the environmentalist community.

NONSENSE! It was NOT the environmentalists that brought these bat and bird kills by those “raptor choppers” to light. THEY never said a word against their beloved Turbines - UNTIL the "skeptics " of Wind Turbine claims produced the evidence.

I’ve read they they are trying to overcome the problem in various ways, such as better locations for the turbines (out of bird paths), and also some detector system that would detect birds coming and shut down the turbines.

Hmmm…What do Wind Turbines and birds / bats have in common Hint birds soar high on wind uplifts ]? Do you know how long it takes to shut down a Wind Turbine? How fast a raptor flies?

If you did shut the Wind Turbines down - The cost of restart makes them even more economically / efficiency disastrous.

We’ve also had birds fly into our window and die.

Old argument…without merit.
Why ADD to the problem with “Bird Slicers” that kill thousands more a year?

Burning coal and causing pollution that destroys forests, lakes, soil, lungs, and contributes to climate change

Normal Science evidence for your claims , please.

I’m not putting pressures on anyone. The science is telling us there are serious problems.

What Science? You mean the post-normal science based upon “belief systems” or the Science that demands the truth? Because we HAVE NO observational empirical scientific evidence of AGW CAGW OR it’s claims.

 

[kimmielittle]

Like I said I’ve ALWAYS been against biofuels (at least those made from food products, or that take up arable land that could be used for growing food crops), and I think most genuine environmentalists are too. It was the awareness back in the late 80s that global warming was harming food crops in Africa

Then you know nothing of the history of places like Zimbabwe or of Climate Change activism.

No knowledge of Climate.

Ignorance then 1980 -1990’s ] can be forgiven, as the agendas where well hidden. The corruption of science by such as Mr, Jim ( Let’s politicize climate science ) Hansen - Mr Micheal ( upside down and contaminated but hey let my paperwork stand - let’s mix linear with non-linear ) Mann …Mr Phil ( “Hide the Decline” get rid of the MWP ) Jones …Mr ( “It’s a Travesty” ) Kenberth…Mr Chris ( pervert the course of justice ) Huhne …Mr Al ( make any claim as long as it scares the kids ) Gore and IPCC - UNEP, UNDP, WWF-International etc was hidden from FOIA… truth seeking scientists and the public.

They are no longer hidden, as they once were.

What they didn’t tell you about the African Climate:

Researchers believe the drought that struck parts of Northern Africa in the 1970s and 1980s, killing hundreds of thousands and displacing millions more, may have been the result of a natural climate cycle.

In the past, many scientists thought the drought in the Sahel zone – a band that runs just below the Sahara – was caused by humans overusing natural resources in the region.

But a new study in the journal Science shows that they are a natural part of weather pattern of the area for the last 3,000 years.

The study shows regular periods of dryness, particularly droughts in the 30-40 year range. Some have even lasted centuries.

The team, which reported its findings in Science, believe the arid periods correspond with fluctuations in sea surface temperatures, a pattern called the** Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO)**.

What’s disconcerting about this record is that it suggests the most recent drought was relatively minor in the context of the West African drought history," said co-author Timothy Shanahan, of the University of Texas,

Bolding mine
telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/5165168/Catastrophic-droughts-in-Africa-are-the-norm-claim-scientists.html

Climategate 1 and 2 shows that up until about 2009 - any normal science / scientist risked funding / publishing / investigations / persecutions from the above named cadre.

Places like Zimbabwe used to feed and export: Corruption and land grabs after apartheid stopped that.

It think the human and non-human species harms and deaths would be much higher from coal burning plants than from wind generators, not to mention the coal-mining harms to people and nature, like mountaintop removal, and the coal ash spills, like the one in Tennessee (see nytimes.com/2008/12/27/us/27sludge.html.

Cognitive displacement. Unfortunate that it was, it killed no one - poisoned no water. AND most important was an accident.

Where is your environmental rage about this?:

toryaardvark.com/2011/11/17/14000-abandoned-wind-turbines-in-the-usa/

Which environmental group is jumping to demand clean up?

Answer: NONE

What about this?:

There are nearly 6 million households in energy poverty due to the Green agenda and the ludicrous amount of tax payer subsidies that wind power receives, the wind farm operators are paid a huge subsidy to generate a electricity, and then they are paid to not generate electricity, a win win situation for anyone involved in the Green renewables scam and of course, a lose lose for the tax payers.

toryaardvark.com/2011/12/27/wind-farms-paid-10-million-to-turn-off/

Which environmentalists groups support this?:

Seven oil companies charged in 28 bird kills who accidentally landed in a waste pool.

theblaze.com/stories/bird-brained-hypocrisy-oil-companies-prosecuted-for-28-dead-waterfowl-while-wind-companies-get-away-with-offing-400000-every-year/

YET, KNOWINGLY allow Wind farms the thousands of bird kills to go without penalty.

THESE are NOT Accidents.

To ignore these facts now and still cling to such scams, equals Cognitive distortion IMO

 

[kimmielittle]

You have yet to address the fact that people developing alternatives to oil and coal (like bio fuels) and the government’s sponsor of said fuel are actually causing people in Africa and South America to die of starvation, because we are taking food out of production and causing food prices to rise. Where there is no known case of people in Africa dying due to global warming, but there are cases of people dying because of people trying to find solutions to global warming.

No it’s the OTHER environmental groups supporting these

Another few quotes for you

“Within a capitalist world order, climate change is actually a convenient phenomenon to come along.”

“Climate change also teaches us to rethink what we really want for ourselves…**mythical ways **of thinking about climate change.”

“They need, in fact, something that does look a lot like religion…Should that happen, the denialists, who claim that it is all a religion, will for once be telling the truth”

“We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but to ask what climate change can do for us”

“The danger of a “normal” reading of science is that it assumes science can first find truth, then speak truth to power, and that truth-based policy will then follow”

Mike Hulme

---

“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

What he didn’t say…the poor don’t get the redistributed wealth…it was NEVER planned to make it so. It’s to go to unelected - unregulated hmmm “Officals”. Why don’t AW’ers demand these “officials” be elected and regulated / audited?

UN official Ottmar Edenhofer a leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

---

Jones
…the data

"has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

“1860-1880, 1910-40 and 1975-2009 is statistically insignificant.”

“there has been no statistically-significant global warming since 1995”

<4443> Jones:

Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds."

Email 4195

“Tim, Chris, I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020.
…
I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying where’s the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.”

Question: If warming really threatens to destroy human civilization, why was Jones hoping for warming?

And if the world was still warming in 2009, why did Jones refer to “lack of warming”?

Phil Jones

---

Email 4924:“I am as guilty as the rest–I made up something from a corner of my brain on p.33 of my paleoclimatology book!”

“the biggest “miss” was an apparently very warm year in the late 19th century that we did not get right at all. This makes criticisms of the “antis” difficult to respond to (they have not yet risen to this level of sophistication, but they are “on the scent”). Furthermore, it may be that Mann et al simply don’t have the long-term trend right”

<3373> Bradley:" I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year “reconstruction”."

Ray Bradley co-author of The Hockey stick

---

<2884> Wigley: Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive …] there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC …]

<1939> Thorne/MetO: Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary …]"

<3066> Thorne:

I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run."

<4693> Crowley:

"I am not convinced that the “truth” is always worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships.

<4369> Cook:

I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly cannot be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the science move ahead."

<0850> Barnett:

[IPCC AR5 models] clearly, some tuning or very good luck involved. I doubt the modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer

 

[kimmielittle]

Most that have actually investigated the Greenhouse Gas GH ] hypothesis, know that there are physical inconsistencies within the hypothesis. A new paper attempts to rectify those physical inconsistencies in the current GH concept.

It is an example of true science in action.

Defining a problem - seeking an understanding.

These physical inconsistencies in the current GH concept, have been known for decades…but until now…no one attempted to rectify them - in order to keep a status-quo.

GH theory at present, has no unity.

wcrp-climate.org/conference2011/posters/C7/C7_Nikolov_M15A.pdf

It will be interesting to watch this come along through normal science.

An overview is here:

wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/29/unified-theory-of-climate/#comment-846521

 

[lynnvinc]

You have defended the IPCC …

No, I have always considered the IPCC to be super conservative and reticent in its claims. Science itself is reticent, usually only making claims when it reaches .05 or less on the null (95% or more confidence). So if individual scientific studies are reticent, imagine how much more reticent a huge report composed to finding from 100s of studies would be. I’ve always been disappointed in the IPCC for not taking on a more policy-oriented approach that would focus on avoiding false negatives.

Scientists strive to avoid the FALSE POSITIVE of making untrue claims. They cannot afford to be the boy who called wolf, bec then people wouldn’t believe them again. And that is perfectly understandable – they have to protect their reputations.

People concerned about life on earth and policy-makers worker for the people (and not the fossil fuel industries) should be striving to avoid the FALSE NEGATIVE of failing to mitigate true and serious problems that pose great threats. They cannot afford to be the villagers who get eaten up by that wolf. They don’t need 95% confidence to start mitigating serious threats or remove cancerous lumps.

Think of another field, engineering. Do they build the bridge so it can only withstand light traffic as at 3 am Monday morning? Or even average traffic flow? No, they (hopefully) build it strong enough to withstand heavy rush hour traffic, plus extra stronger to account for less than perfect building conditions and materials. Does one buy home insurance only when they reach 95% confidence a fire is going to burn it to a crisp? Well, I guess some don’t even buy insurance. But you’d think they’d be doing all the money-saving things that would mitigate global warming, if not thinks that are not cost-effective.

Alas alack, they are not even doing that. There is no such thing as an economically rational man, or a pro-lifer.

 

[lynnvinc]

Quote: Burning coal and causing pollution that destroys forests, lakes, soil, lungs, and contributes to climate change

Normal Science evidence for your claims , please.

This is all general knowledge. I’ve been studying pollution issues for decades, including acid rain-related problems. I suggest you get a good textbook on environmental science.

I may have articles stored up somewhere about the effects of acid rain on forests, lakes, soil, lung, property, etc, but I’m not going to waste my time looking for them now (I just had cataract surgery today). You can take a course or do some library work yourself.

As for your interest in learning about climate change, I would suggest taking you questions to RealClimate.org. They are pretty gracious in answering legitimate questions about the particulars of climate change. Also there are good books out on it.

So, you don’t have to believe me. Just start reading science journals. As mentioned, they are pretty reticent in their claims, so as a person concerned about life on earth, you have to understand where they’re coming from, and increase whatever claims they make to get more at what’s probably really going on.

If you are a person who works for a fossil fuel company, or are being paid to attack environmentalists, or are ideologically opposed to accepting the reality of any problem that arises out of our modern industrialist lifestyle, then I suppose I’m just wasting my efforts on writing these posts.

If you sincerely want to learn, then there are vast resources to help, including articles in leading science journals.

 

[kimmielittle]

This is all general knowledge. I’ve been studying pollution issues for decades, including acid rain-related problems.

Then you understand CO2 is NOT a pollutant??

That CO2 is not the cause of acid rain?

That plants are / have been starving, according to history and observational evidence, for this basic nutrient of life?

If you can’t / won’t separate the elements - you fail basic chemistry.

I suggest you get a good textbook on environmental science.

Which one of your environmental science books taught you that CO2 was a pollutant? Which Chemistry course?

I suggest you read what you write before hitting the “submit” button.

I may have articles stored up somewhere about the effects of acid rain on forests, lakes, soil, lung, property, etc,

Then you should know acid rain is not caused by CO2? It is this link that you tried to make - that I questioned…AND as usual…receive a slippery sidestep in your answer.

As for your interest in learning about climate change, I would suggest taking you questions to RealClimate.org. They are pretty gracious in answering legitimate questions about the particulars of climate change.

Ha ha ha ha here… once again…you send me to “Environmental Media Services…Fenton Communications …Tides Foundation”.

And the authors of “Hide the decline” - "Get Rid of history the Little Ice Age LIA ] Medieval Warm Period MWP ] - “Upside down Tinjander and contaminated samples”.
Mann and a long list of coauthors Ammann, Bradley, Hughes, Rutherford, Jones, Briffa, Osborn, Crowley, Oppenheimer, Overpeck, Trenberth and Wigley. Mann confounded RealClimate ]

americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html

tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/for-michael-mann-oh-what-tangled-web-in.html

climateaudit.org/2011/12/01/hide-the-decline-plus/

I challenge you to defend the above actions and authors.

So, you don’t have to believe me.

Why should I? You make statements riddled with unsupportable claims. When asked for evidence about your claims - you won’t defend them. The recent “Life cycle claim that CO2 exists in the Atmosphere for 100’s maybe even 100,000 years” paraphrased ]. The claim that Atmospheric Water Vapor is a “feedback” in response to a question by a poster - yet, you don’t know if it’s a '“positive” or “negative” feedback.

so as a person concerned about life on earth, you have to understand where they’re coming from, and increase whatever claims they make to get more at what’s probably really going on.

So if I care about life on earth - I’m allowed to use propaganda - distorted, maybe even fraudulent science? look at the above links and tell me these were accidental ].

If you are a person who works for a fossil fuel company, or are being paid to attack environmentalists,

Same old - Same old. I suggest a new tune - One with facts to support your claims.

How about you start to defend your unsupported claims?

or are ideologically opposed to accepting the reality of any problem that arises out of our modern industrialist lifestyle,

I’m ideologically opposed in using Post-normal and tainted science - in order to redistribute wealth…displace / kill people …create energy poverty…collapse economic growth…subsidize nonsense. THAT IS THE REALITY…and you seem to be O’kay with it.

 

[kimmielittle]

No, I have always considered the IPCC to be super conservative and reticent in its claims.

Then you can defend these IPCC grafts? By these IPCC leads Mann, Ammann, Bradley, Hughes, Rutherford, Jones, Briffa, Osborn, Crowley, Oppenheimer, Overpeck, Trenberth and Wigley. ?

climateaudit.org/2011/12/01/hide-the-decline-plus/

tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/for-michael-mann-oh-what-tangled-web-in.html

americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html

THESE ARE the VERY grafts used to sell the AGW hypothesis. IT AGW ] is dependent on these grafts. Without …there goes the AGW hype.

Defend them please.

 

[kimmielittle]

Scientists strive to avoid the FALSE POSITIVE of making untrue claims. They cannot afford to be the boy who called wolf, bec then people wouldn’t believe them again. And that is perfectly understandable – they have to protect their reputations.

IN NORMAL SCIENCE…but It’s proven, by their own words that AGW is post-normal science.

People concerned about life on earth and policy-makers worker for the people (and not the fossil fuel industries)

I see you have a great fondness for Mr George Soros. You keep repeating his claims.

There is no such thing as an economically rational man, or a pro-lifer.

WHAT!!!

 

[kimmielittle]

Then you can defend these IPCC grafts? By these IPCC leads Mann, Ammann, Bradley, Hughes, Rutherford, Jones, Briffa, Osborn, Crowley, Oppenheimer, Overpeck, Trenberth and Wigley. ?

climateaudit.org/2011/12/01/hide-the-decline-plus/

tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/for-michael-mann-oh-what-tangled-web-in.html

americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html

THESE ARE the VERY grafts used to sell the AGW hypothesis. IT AGW ] is dependent on these grafts. Without …there goes the AGW hype.

Defend them please.

EDIT: Sorry, I was incensed about the "pro-life " statement - I misspelled graphs. Then again, seeing all the corruption surrounding AGW - IPCC…Maybe, it was a Freudian?

 

[kimmielittle]

If you are a person who works for a fossil fuel company, or are being paid to attack environmentalists

Actually you need not fear the fossil fuel companies.

You need to place any “blame”, you “feel”, on the right source. When our “beliefs” or “wants” are hindered we need a “scapegoat”, But it’s called “Displacement” to kick the dog because grandma wouldn’t let you have what you want.

You have only two places, other than the “yourselves”, to put the blame:

BUT first we must talk about “the yourselves” in radical environmentalism.

“Yourselves”: Expropriate the moral high ground of environmentalism. If you don’t agree with their position you are accused of not caring about the planet, the children, the future. How do certain people claim the title of environmentalist? We are all environmentalists. If you are not a member of Friends of the Earth, does that mean you are not a friend of the Earth?

“Yourselves”: Claim that funding from some sources is tainted. Why is money from a private source considered more controlling and directing than money from government? Is funding from an environmental group less directing than money from anywhere else? Last year Exxon announced they would not fund anymore climate research. Why? A company involved in energy use should know what the climate experts are saying for proper management decisions. Companies that don’t do diligent research do not impress shareholders. Actually, it doesn’t matter who funds research because the real test is scientific credibility.

“Yourselves”: Question the credentials of those who speak out against the hypothesis, but never mentioning it for those in support. Few ever ask about Gore’s credentials.

“Yourselves”: Belittle opponents by calling them skeptics, or deniers. Referring to them as “flat-earthers,” or comparing them to supporters of the tobacco industry.

“Yourselves”: Quit seeking science truth as it unfolds and sit on unsupportable claims as if the truth and demand others do as well - simply because it feeds their “beliefs - wants”.

“Yourselves”: Are - in fact bullies. Bullies tend to hang in “packs” because no one likes a bully and someone, usually a quiet person, usually brings the bully down a notch AND bullies know it’s coming eventually.

1: The actual Dragon that bit you - poor science - outrageous claims - politicians on the train.

OR

2: The watchers of **Scooby- Doo and Mystery Inc **.

Scooby-Doo: Mystery Inc., such a great show. Not only does it embrace the idea of the gang seeking out the truth behind the crooks who prey on superstition, it does so to the extreme where they’re pit against an entire town of adults who lie to them. It’s particularly telling that Velma, who has always been the show’s most iconic thinker, is seen in direct conflict with her parents, who have a vested interest in keeping up the lie of Crystal Cove being a haunted town in order to sell their souvenirs. She ends up valuing the truth more than her own self-interest, and in the end, so does Fred, on a much more personal level.

“The very first rule of Scooby-Doo, the single premise that sits at the heart of their adventures, is that the world is full of grown-ups who lie to kids, and that it’s up to those kids to figure out what those lies are and call them on it, even if there are other adults who believe those lies with every fiber of their being. And the way that you win isn’t through supernatural powers, or even through fighting. The way that you win is by doing the most dangerous thing that any person being lied to by someone in power can do: You think.”

“The bad guys in Scooby-Doo prey on superstition, because that’s the one thing that an otherwise rational person doesn’t really think through. It’s based on belief, not evidence, which is a crucial element for the show. If, for example, someone knocks on your door and claims to be a police officer, you’re going to want to see a badge because that’s the tangible evidence that you’ve come to expect to prove their claim. If, however, you hold the belief that the old run-down theater has a phantom in the basement, then the existence of that phantom himself — or at least a reasonably convincing costume — is all the evidence that you need to believe that you were right all along. The bad guys are just reinforcing a belief that the other characters already have, and that they don’t need any evidence before because it’s based in superstition, not reason.”

comicsalliance.com/2011/11/25/ask-chris-81-scooby-doo-and-secular-humanism/#ixzz1fUHsSkj8

Think about the claims made in building the “AGW Monster”. It causes acne…it causes prostitution…snow…no snow …numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm and on ad nauseam. And still we wait for emperical observational evidence for one of these claims

There is an unwritten law in fiction …NEVER EVER crate a Monster with more than 5 Five dangers AND ALWAYS have a believable hero…

“The baby has known the dragon intimately ever since he had an imagination. What the fairy tale provides for him is a St. George to kill the dragon”.G.K.Chesterton

A believable Monster:
Dragons breath fire…have talons…fly…have a tail…mystical properties.

AGW Monster has too many teeth to be able to open his mouth -let alone bite you.

 

[lynnvinc]

My prayers are with you all.

 

[seekerz]

I really don’t see what’s radical about blaming prostitution on changes in sea levels/climate that have forced people out of their former livelihoods.

Regardless of the cause or extent of global warming, if sea encroaches onto land that was once used for, say farming or cattle rearing, it stands to reason that there are going to be people left with no way to make a living - particularly if these people had been solely dependent on the land affected. Same with drought.

As far as I can tell, changes in ocean levels have been documented over the centuries and intermittent severe drought has always been a hazard in some parts of the world - one doesn’t have to believe in climate change to accept that. Economic downturn due to any combination of causes has always had the potential to leave people desperate enough to turn to prostitution, as unpalatable as that may sound. Nothing radical or new in any of this - it’s world history at its most desperate.

 

[kimmielittle]

I really don’t see what’s radical about blaming prostitution on changes in sea levels/climate that have forced people out of their former livelihoods.

Actually, changes in sea levels is not the claim. Nor is it Actually attributed to “climate change” other than the necessary cravat.

Based on the UNFPA report, there are 92 million Filipinos in the country as of 2009 and that number is expected to balloon to more than 146 million in the next 40 years. EDIT but that figure of 146 has been proven wrong - see lifeissues.net/writers/vale/vale_06rpdemographics.html ]

Of the 92 million Filipinos, about 60 percent are living in coastal areas and depend on the seas for livelihood, said former Environment secretary Dr. Angel Alcala.[EDIT I don’t doubt the 60% - It’s called The Philippine Islands ]

Alcala said that “we have already exceeded the carrying capacity of our marine environment."

But as the sea’s resources are depleted due to overpopulation and overfishing, fishermen start losing their livelihood and women are forced to share the traditional role of the man in providing for the family.

gmanetwork.com/news/story/177346/news/nation/climate-change-pushes-poor-women-to-prostitution-dangerous-work

UNFPA History:

Population Control - sterilizations forced in China - Vietnam ] & abortions - A June report from the United Nations Economic, Social and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) suggests children of all countries and cultures are entitled to sexual and reproductive education beginning at age five.

The report, called International Guidelines on Sexual Education, was released in June in conjunction with the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA), an organization which works for universal access to “reproductive health care…backed that claim by pointing to a 2008 report from the International Planned Parenthood Federation. Marie Stopes International is another partner.

europeanlifenetwork.blogspot.com/2009/03/unfpa-exposed-episode-iv-vietnam.html

worldlifeleague.org/news.htm

stopthewaronchildren.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/the-“deviant-psuedo-scientist”-who-gave-us-sex-education/

europeanlifenetwork.blogspot.com/2009/03/chinas-one-child-policy.html

UNFPA dearly wants into Philippines’ because they have a strong Pro-Life Option

lifeissues.net/writers/vale/vale_06rpdemographics.html

veritas899.weebly.com/notes–links-on-rh-bill.html

Notice the Prostitute claim by Suneeta Mukherjee of UNFPA had nothing backing the claim. The same credibility that you would give me if I stated Climate Change will turn all dogs into ducks.

 

[seekerz]

Notice the Prostitute claim by Suneeta Mukherjee of UNFPA had nothing backing the claim. The same credibility that you would give me if I stated Climate Change will turn all dogs into ducks.

All I’m saying is that it is not unusual for people to turn to prostitution in times of economic decline so there’s hardly anything radical in attributing increased prostitution to decreased livelihood prospects due to environmental changes - whether or not you believe that climate change is real or is causing these changes.

As for the UNFPA, it’s activities and its philosophy are well in line with most large non-religious international organizations which purport to ‘help’ developing countries. This includes major financial institutions, international health organisations and development agencies backed by western governments or private foundations. Again, nothing new or radical about their ‘population’ agenda.

 

[kimmielittle]

All I’m saying is that it is not unusual for people to turn to prostitution in times of economic decline so there’s hardly anything radical in attributing increased prostitution to decreased livelihood prospects due to environmental changes - whether or not you believe that climate change is real or is causing these changes.

As for the UNFPA, it’s activities and its philosophy are well in line with most large non-religious international organizations which purport to ‘help’ developing countries. This includes major financial institutions, international health organisations and development agencies backed by western governments or private foundations. Again, nothing new or radical about their ‘population’ agenda.

Yeppers!

 

[lynnvinc]

All I’m saying is that it is not unusual for people to turn to prostitution in times of economic decline so there’s hardly anything radical in attributing increased prostitution to decreased livelihood prospects due to environmental changes - whether or not you believe that climate change is real or is causing these changes.

You’ve hit on the main point here – that climate change is and will cause even more so in the future severe decline in food productivity, including seafood productivity (and concomitant economic decline). That is it’s main harm, I think. I just wrote a paper on “Food Rights and Climate Change,” covering all the various ways climate change and associated harms (such as ocean acidification) are and will be harming food productivity for people around the world, especially in poor countries. Our own crop productivity in the Northern latitudes is expected to increase (due to the carbon fertilization and longer growing seasons) up to around 2050, then sharply decline thereafter due to the warming & its other effects. In other places global warming is right now reducing food productivity.

Some others have written about how climate change effects – such as increased floods, droughts, hurricanes, etc – will be increasing male violence against females. One of my students did a study on how warmer weather increases violent crime (and that doesn’t include economic motivations from having livelihoods harmed, to which this thread alludes).

You’d think that with all the negative harms beginning to happen now and expected to rise dramatically in the future, especially if we fail to mitigate, that more Christians would be out trying to reduce their own GHGs and get others to do likewise. Instead we have “Christians” and “Catholics” refusing to mitigate and on a vehemently angry and nasty campaign to dissuade everyone else from mitigating…even if it might save them money and help the economy. It’s a crusade to promote evil, no matter what the personal or societal cost.

Nearly one-third (32%) of Catholics in America are climate change skeptics/denialists, who either say global warming is not happening, or that it is, but is caused only by natural factors, not human activities. While that is slightly less than non-Catholic skeptics at 38%, it is still a terrible shame and disgrace to Catholicism – like covering a dazzling white wedding gown with excrement.

 

[kimmielittle]

Nearly one-third (32%) of Catholics in America are climate change skeptics/denialists, who either say global warming is not happening, or that it is, but is caused only by natural factors, not human activities. While that is slightly less than non-Catholic skeptics at 38%, it is still a terrible shame and disgrace to Catholicism – like covering a dazzling white wedding gown with excrement.

I notice you haven’t bothered to defend those graphs .

Surely, a believer in AGW post-normal science ? ] such as yourself, would want to?

Oh, an academic paper one with references and academic diligence ]? I’d love to read it - care to post it on a web page?

Happy New Year

 

[kimmielittle]

Nov. 24, 2009 :

“We’ve not deleted any emails or data here at CRU”

guardian.co.uk/

A year earlier he spent a good part of a day deleting e-mails in response to an FOI request

From: Phil Jones
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 1:31 PM
To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)
Subject: Re: FW: FOI_08-50 ; EIR_08-01

Dave,
Do I understand it correctly – if he doesn’t pay the 10 we don’t have to respond?

With the earlier FOI requests re David Holland, I wasted a part of a day deleting numerous emails and exchanges with almost all the skeptics. So I have virtually nothing. I even deleted the email that I inadvertently sent. There might be some bits of pieces of paper, but I’m not wasting my time going through these.

Cheers
Phil