Biorhythms 2.0-Reality and pipelines

Thank you, and they will continue to be made. It is more important than any troll or denier and their alterego. And I agree with what you said below. This is nothing but a game and competition to them. Whose "side" is scoring the most points. They are totally out of the loop regarding the reality of the situation we now face.

"Obama needs to say NO to this pipeline to protect American citizens, our croplands, water and climate."

This is a perfect example of the could, should, might way of thinking, yes Obama SHOULD say no to this pipeline to protect American citizens etc. but will he?

Well, there are a hell of a lot of things that Obama SHOULD do, such as putting past and current polluters in prison, and actually giving the EPA actual legal teeth to catch the psychopathic bastards and put them in jail before the damage is done to the environment, he SHOULD also not even remotely consider fucking with Social Security, and tell Boehner and Mitch McConnell to go fuck themselves, but does historical reality of his actions (there is a hilarious syndicated political cartoon called Tom tomorrow, where Tom has created a character for Obama called middleman, I highly recommend it) demonstrate that what he SHOULD do he will do? the answer is no, or if something is/was done at all, it is in a very weakened down form, dare he offend his corporate masters.

Obama is first and foremost a plutocrat, just as the vast majority of politicians in Washington are, and as long as plutocrats are in charge, if you're waiting for desperately needed significant progressive social change, you'll be waiting for a very very very long time, oh you might get a crumb here or there for appeasement or when the election is near, but that's it, and that is the reality.

"What is more important to this government? It's people, or foreign corporations?"

Hem....let's see....from a historical point of view, particularly in the last 30 years, the people? BA..........! wrong! "the people" and their welfare -again particularly in the last 30 years- are the LAST concern of a plutocracy, corporate interest, always supersedes the interest of Society (in the current inside and out upside down world) and is only concerned with profit, so to post such a "question" is silly, corporate interest (which is quite sociopathic in nature) will do anything and everything in its never ending quest for profits, and if that means harming or killing you, your family, every living creature, and the planet itself, so be it, because they are.... well.... sociopathic, and sociopaths aren't really known as future planners, more like instant gratification beings, and as long as our government is controlled by such "people", the future looks pretty dim.

Have you had your water tested bailey?

Well they sent out cups to all the people that live in this area to send in samples but I never heard back from them. I really need to send a sample in to a independent laboratory for testing. we quit drinking the water years ago I just don't feel that it is safe. I know if I had to drink it I would But still with all the fracing going on it just doesn't make sense to risk it

It isn't right that you do not feel you can drink your own water. This strangling of the rights of people and their right to clean water has to end. And I would definitely have it tested by an independent laboratory.

Yep I plan on doing so in the near future. I just don't have the funds for it right now.

The argument against gas fracking is simple:
The billions of gallons of water required to push up the gas brings with it countless toxins and radioactive minerals that poison the watertable.
What is more valuable, clean water or a decade of natural gas?
Because millions of gallons of water have to be hauled to each fracking site it is the most expensive, carbon intensive, water polluting means of extracting fossil fuel.

Yes the argument against it is simple, unfortunately the money behind it has been speaking louder than us. I think that is turning around now. Communities are key in addressing this attack on our water.

Here in fracking central (western Pennsylvania) most people seem to think that fracking gas is fighting terrorism and saving the economy.
My next door neighbor is an organic gardener with a PhD in environmental science and was recently hired by Shell to oversee Marsallus shale fracking. She told me that she took the job to make sure it was done right (yeah, right!).
My own brother sold the gas rights to our family farm to the frackers!
It's big money and I have seen several friends become millionaires overnight.
The only community action I have witnessed involves keeping it 500 feet from private property and 1,000 feet away from streams, as if that will somehow save the watertable on which all life depends.
Sorry to be such a downer but this is what's happening, at least here.

Actually, this is old news(and teabagger MO bs) from years ago that was played on FOX. Didn't think you were a fan of theirs. And his working to sustainably invest is what we need. I wish I had money to invest in renewable energy and reward vision to make the world a better place. It's better than making money off destroying the planet, which is the point. And FYI, scientists across the globe are stating that unless we do move to a clean energy economy and put a price on carbon things will only get worse. I guess that's why they are being threatened. This is more about a moral decision that needs to be made to hold those who pollute the planet accountable. A carbon tax does this while spurring investment in renewable energy sources and easing the burden on consumers and checking the emissions that are now contributing to these amplified events that are threatening our ability to sustain ourselves. We are woefully unprepared for the consequences our actions are wrecking. But you go ahead and support the very status quo you claim to abhor with all of your poetic writings. It is then clear you obviously don't understand what this is really all about.

The video post from VFORVENDETTA that is anti-Al Gore is not from FOX. It was from the Showtime series Penn & Teller: B.S.! (I've obviously abbreviated the title so my comment isn't blocked). Showtime is owned by CBS, not FOX.

Ironic Gore uses more resources than infamous W. Wish that wasn't the case, but it is and I can't say I am surprised. All about a buck no matter what you say or do to make it.

Thank you ahonnet, I was going to tell her that but thank you for doing it, it is nice to see someone with courage not afraid to confront a group concision. };-)

Absolutely true, notice how the daggers come out if you dare to challenge a cult of personality belief system, the sad fact is that by and large, the so-called "Green movement" is a moneymaking scam (just like the marketing of organic products) ignorance is bliss when one has ideology-and fairly solid finances-to indulge that ideology, as Penn and Teller said "it's pretty easy to talk about the moral implications of food production, or GM fruits and veggies, when you're not the one starving to death" if you tried to feed the world's current population using only organic products and farming techniques, billions of people that's with a fucking B! billions would starve to death! it's easy to be self-righteous when you're not the one that's hungry.

My responses will be in parentheses:

Actually, this is old news from years ago that was played on FOX. Didn't think you were a fan of theirs.

(No.....actually, it's from the show Bullshit! from Penn and Teller-a show that you could really use to watch, especially the first and second season, the videos are available at your local video store- and no I am not a fan of Fox, as I tend to avoid all forms of hypocrisy and vicarious identification, which includes MSNBC)

And his working to sustainably invest is what we need.

(That totally sidetracked and avoided the original observation, which was that Al Gore by definition was being a hypocrite, and you want to invest your money with someone who has verifiability been hypocritical? do you not understand, that although your intentions are probably good, that the road to hell was paved with good intentions, and that your emotions and intentions are being manipulated for someone else's profit? you think that's the answer?)

I wish I had money to invest in renewable energy and reward vision to make the world a better place.

(All the money in the world will not make the world a better place, people make the world a better place, through love sharing and caring, and accepting personal responsibility by doing everything that they can-such as recycling-or through some of the products you buy, not by sending money to Al fucking Gore, to buy "carbon credits" shit if you are that gullible, I bet there's a whole lot of people that would love to sell you some oceanfront property in Arizona!)

It's better than making money off destroying the planet, which is the point.

(No, no it's not, being a capitalist, and extorting resources-whether human or otherwise-regardless of the gaze it is under, is wrong, and exploitation is exploitation, regardless of what form it takes, stop rationalizing)

And FYI, scientists across the globe are stating that unless we do move to a clean energy economy and put a price on carbon things will only get worse. I guess that's why they are being threatened.

(Scientist here and there can say anything, that doesn't make it so, what matters in science is consensus, and currently the scientific consensus, is that although it is generally agreed that climate change is taking place, the CAUSE of that change is unknown, and that is where things actually stand today, just look up climate change and causality from the National Academy of Sciences, and read the report, this is not just the collective consensus of US sciences, but from data collected from around the world, again, how "convenient" to tell others that not only is doom imminent, but that THEY are the cause, but there is a chance it can be saved if you will just buy my "carbon credits" Jesus fucking Christ, Ponzi would've been proud!)

This is more about a moral decision that needs to be made to hold those who pollute the planet accountable. A carbon tax does this while spurring investment in renewable energy sources and easing the burden on consumers and checking the emissions that are now contributing to these amplified events that are threatening our ability to sustain ourselves. We are woefully unprepared for the consequences our actions are wrecking.

(This is a carefully worded come on, pure and simple)

But you go ahead and support the very status quo you claim to abhor with all of your poetic writings.

(I was not aware that my writings were anything like poetic, but thanks, no I am a realist, and in my personal life I try to do everything that I can do not support the status quo, but also, I do not support hypocrisy or out and out bullshit, which unfortunately, is what much of the so-called Green "movement" is really about, it's about money-Greenpeace being one of the biggest hypocritical "green" organizations to date, and that's not just my opinion, but stated from the founder of Greenpeace, with plenty of practical examples of why he left the very organization which he founded, an excellent episode about Greenpeace again is shown in the pen and Teller Bullshit series, truly jaw-dropping information)

It is then clear you obviously don't understand what this is really all about.

(That may or may not be true, but one thing is certainly clear, I know hypocrisy when I see it and am not afraid to call it, do you?)

No doubt, getting there fast with my family of 6

Good points...I think though that the properties in AZ were bought cheap by the people that know they will soon be oceanfront.

two thumbs up and any support that i can muster for you in speaking out

http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/

Responses in parentheses:

We can definitely feed the world on organic and farmers in developing countries want that.

(Really? how much large-scale organic farming have you done? Having done so myself, and being associated with both companies and cooperatives, such a claim is patently false. As any management of a large-scale organic farm or co-op-which are not nearly as large-scale as commercial producers-would tell you, there is a inevitable efficiency curve of production which peaks much sooner with organically grown products than their conventional counterparts, simply because-amongst other factors-producing organic fruits and vegetables-and just about anything else for that matter-is much much more labor-intensive, hence one of the obvious factors why the cost of organic in supermarkets-or even co-ops or Saturday markets-is typically 2 to 3 times the cost of conventional fruits or vegetables, or have you never noticed that, I know I do, and so does the parent dragging around two or three Rug-rats with her, something that you're upwardly mobile types who shop at whole paycheck (whole foods) rarely think about, as they make out their carbon footprint checks to Al Gore's company)

Matter of fact we have an overabundance of food.

(I don't know who the "we" is you're referring to, if you mean here in the US, yes that is certainly true, just want to clarify that)

It is access to it that is the biggest part of this problem.

(Yes that is true, but again a problem for who? In the US, there's tons of food on the shelves, but it doesn't really matter if you don't have enough money to fucking buy any of it does it? and it especially means you won't be able to buy as much of it, if well to do self righteous "sustainers" are endlessly proselytizing how we are supporting the status quo "the man" when we don't purchase our products sustainably,

Penn and Teller (magicians/entertainers aren't they?) don't have the credentials to be deciding that for these people either and as we have already seen with monoculture in other countries it actually CAUSES more poverty and hunger.

(Yes you're right, Penn and Teller are entertainers, that is why the spokespeople that they have on their program, present their cases, and allow you to decide for yourself, on one of there programs, they talk about one man who had literally saved billions of lives and prevented massive human suffering over the course of his lifetime, yet I'd bet you probably never heard of him, Nobel Peace Prize winner Dr. Norman Burlaug, Dr. Burlaug was a lifelong plant geneticist, and he is featured on one of their shows, this brilliant, caring and dedicated man, explains quite convincingly, (which is backed up with sound scientific models that are current) how if you attempted to feed the world's population organically, that it wouldn't even come close to two thirds of the Earths human population, (this does not even factor in the feeding of organic to our pets or any livestock that we wish to intern consume ourselves) but you of course can believe whatever you want, hell you can believe that Al Gore loves you, me and mother Earth, so much in fact, that he was willing to start a ER,...carbon footprint sales company....er....which he owns....er... to help us....er.... by helping him....er.... make lots of money from us....er.... to save the.... oh fuck me sideways Jesus fucking Christ! give me a fucking break! I'll stick with Dr.Burlaug!)

Perhaps you should research what the people who live in these areas affected want and are already experiencing at the hands of these companies.. And it isn't corporations shoving untested monoculture Gm seeds down their throats that make them indebted to those companies and even poorer. It is food sovereignty, biodiversity, seed saving and the sustainable methods that do indeed increase yield, cut down on GHG emissions and maintain soil health and give the people true freedom and self sufficiency.

It is also hypocrisy to rail against capitalism and then support the very essence of it by pushing corporate owned food.

(Excuse me, but I don't remember pushing corporate owned food, hell if it were possible, I think everyone should have a small garden of their own, and be able to grow enough food to sustain themselves and or immediate family, but for many reasons this simply is not possible for the vast majority of people, and to imply that I am being hypocritical is a low blow, especially since I do in fact not only grow my own food, but give all of my surplus away, for free, got another low blow you want to try?)

You trash Al Gore for making money but not Monsanto?
(First of all you are incorrect, I'm not trashing Al Gore for making money, he is a hypocrite, and a plutocrat, that's what they do, I was merely pointing out the fact, that YOU cannot or will not see or admit to HIS hypocrisy, and other than you, who the hell brought up Monsanto? of course Monsanto is evil, I never said they weren't)

And yes, look how the daggers come out when someone dares to express support for someone who has given back much of what he has gotten.

(Oh yes I'm sorry, poor Al Gore, ranks right up there with Mother Teresa and Gandhi, shit why not throw in Muhammad while you're at it!

Do I wish the green movement on the whole had a different approach to all of this? Sure I do. Do I get angry at the absolute snails pace we are seeing these renewable sources being offered ? Hell yes. Do I think that for the most part the system has been hijacked by greedy self interests? Of course, it's part of why I'm here doing this. However, perhaps I have a different perspective on how to achieve what needs to now be done to wean us off what is killing us because for the most part the people who rail about this system the most never seem to do much beyond anything else but talk!

(This is why I choose to feed people, for free-sorry Al, no carbon credits being sold here!-)

Cont,

So for now, it's all we have to work with at a time when a paradigm shift in not only our thinking but how we treat this planet is crucial to our continued survival. So if investing in solar energy, ways to make agriculture more sustainable and ventures that seek to find better ways for us to hopefully reach a place where we can begin to work to reverse some of the damage we've done so our children can have a planet left is the quickest way, then so be it. When you're really ready to do something about it let me know.

http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/

Until then, perhaps you can take a look at this from Earth Policy Institute. Lester Brown is a man ahead of his time as well in warning us of the consequences of inaction and the need to look to renewable energy to save this planet for our future, just as Al Gore did in his book Our Choice. Rail on about him all you wish based on bias in a Penn And Teller video

(I don't have to rail on Al Gore based on anything from Penn and Teller, I've known much about Mr. Gore long before the Penn and Teller video, and came to the same conclusion at that time as I'm telling you now, he was and still is a hypocrite and he was and still is a plutocrat, who is an acting member of our current form of government, which is a plutocracy, this is not a gee, I hate Al Gore thing, my simple position, is that I hate all forms of hypocrisy, plutocracy and plutocrats-whether currently or those who where running things 200 years ago-passing themselves off as Democrats, you want to talk about change? Real change? well guess what, nothing of any real significance for the better in the United States is going to happen until we get read of plutocracy, just about everything that's wrong in this country (in the world for that matter) is directly or indirectly related to plutocracy (and religion but obviously that's another subject) but many well intentioned people keep assailing the many heads of the plutocracy beast, not understanding that even if you cut off one of them it simply grows back, the goal should be to kill the beast!)

(BTW, what are they doing regarding the drought/ famine in Somalia now?),

(I have no idea, but I think it's a pretty good bet that they're not selling carbon credits)

but he has done more than walk the walk with the work he has been doing for over thirty years on this problem.

(I know I know, you've already told me, he practically walks on water)

And the information in the video you posted was also shown on FOX in part (Sean Hannity I believe) regardless of where else you say it was shown.

(I don't know why you keep telling me about Fox, I have never, and will never watch them)

I hope that you understand that I am a realist, and precisely what that means, in the shortest explanation, it means someone who processes and interacts with the world around them not as it might be, could be or should be, but as it actually is, something you may wish to consider. Peace be with you.

If you interacted with the world as it really is you wouldn't be playing a movie character and would actually have more of substance to say in response instead of the usual repeat responses about hating the plutocracy. YOU ARE PART of it just by being here. We all are as long as we continue to consume the byproducts of the resources of this planet that are destroying it. So don't sit there pontificating to me as if the rest of us are just crap stuck on the bottom of your shoe. It doesn't impress me one bit.

If you interacted with the world as it really is you wouldn't be playing a movie character and would actually have more of substance to say in response instead of the usual repeat responses about hating the plutocracy.

(Playing a movie character? Oh you mean my avatar, I don't really think that constitutes playing a movie character, I believe that the substance of my statements, speak for themselves, and besides, why worry? I mean shit, it's not like I'm charging...say... I don't know.... carbon credits for it or something.)

YOU ARE PART of it just by being here. We all are as long as we continue to consume the byproducts of the resources of this planet that are destroying it.

(that is analogous to saying, hey! most of your family are mobsters! you were born into a mob family! so therefore YOU are a mobster, any more bullshit analogies?)

So don't sit there pontificating to me as if the rest of us are just crap stuck on the bottom of your shoe.

(No ones trying to pontificate to anyone, I'm simply pointing out hypocrisy that you cannot or will not admit yourself, you can be angry at the message, but don't blame the messenger.)

It doesn't impress me one bit.

(believe it or not, I had absolutely no interest in trying to impress anyone, that includes you.)

Now Australia is the poster child for global warming? You just make stuff up, and you're not even very good at it.

_______________________________________
Sunday 24 July 2011

Australians shiver through coldest winter morning in 30 years
Sydney was blanketed in frost on Wednesday as the city shivered through the coldest June morning in nearly 30 years, with temperatures at just 4C (39F). -The Telegraph
_______________________________________
Canberra's freezing morning leads to cold day
Robert Wood, Sunday July 24, 2011 - 11:31 EST

The nation's capital saw a very cold morning with -4.4 degrees, not a record but as clouds moved over early morning, it will struggle to warm past the single digits. - WeatherZone
_______________________________________

But let's take a look at Australia's Bureau of Meteorology and what it said about this year's Autumn:

"In Brief

Autumn 2011 was the coldest on record for mean temperatures (average of maximum and minimum temperatures, records began in 1950) and the fourth wettest on record nationally. Daytime temperatures were particularly cool across most of Australia and ranked as the second coldest on record. The western half of Western Australia was drier and warmer than normal for both daytime and overnight temperatures. "

The report then goes on to state:

"Maximum temperatures averaged over Australia were 1.40°C below normal for autumn, resulting in the second coldest autumn on record (record is -1.46°C in 2000). Most of Australia recorded temperatures cooler than 1°C below the autumn average."

June's temperatures are also available and show that temperatures were 0.27 °C below normal.

Hardly a picture of Global Warming, eh?

Actually it was National Geographic Magazine that coined the phrase "Australia is the poster child for global warming" in a story last year about record drought and fires over the past decade in Austrailia.

What you deniers fail to grasp is that the greenhouse effect from C02 and methane triggers weather extremes from dry to wet and hot to cold. The unusual cold in the temperate northern hemisphere last winter was caused by a never-before-seen high pressure system moving up from Hawaii into the Arctic, forcing the cold air southward and producing the warmest January and February in the Arctic ever recorded. The same thing is happening in the Antarctic right now

Heat index? Come on, give us real temperatures... although they don't look quite so scary do they?
It's seemingly okay to use a heatwave as proof of global warming, climate change or whatever the name for it is today, but how do you explain the record cold temperatures being set daily in the entire southern hemisphere.
Don't forget, the USA is only a very small portion of the planet - there is a world outside your country.

The NOAA database of all-time Max Temperature for the entire US from over 6000 weather stations shows that there were no records broken on July 17, July 18, July 19, or July 20th. A total of 4 stations broke records on July 21, 20 on July 22, and 10 on July 23, 2011, for a grand total of less than 0.4% of stations breaking a temperature record sometime during the past week. More than 99.6% of stations failed to break records sometime over the past week.

Why does the temperature chart use 1951 - 1980 as the baseline? Any ideas?
And can you explain the relevance of Rossby waves, mentioned here, and also in respect to the apparent rise on temperatures seen in a certain part of the Arctic last year?

Like it or not, this is just a re-hash of Steig's earlier paper that was sensationally debunked. Steig used data from a single site, ignoring others that showed a cooling, or stable trend. The site Steig used to his advantage was actually buried in snow for years before being re-sited. That single station showed a positive jump in temperature, enough to give Steig the information he needed to produce his paper.

Heat index and wind chill were created for the media to sensationalize the weather. Twenty degrees in the winter is just cold. Throw in a wind chill of -5 and we have a news story and a more exciting weather report.

On Friday it was 100 in Maine. It was the first 100 degree day in Maine in thirty-five years. I guess climate change was a bitch in 1975. I spent most of the day outdoors. Even the breeze boating and waterskiing was a hot breeze. I didn't think about the heat index. It was hot. So what! It's been hot before. It will be hot again.

When the term global warming was too easy to criticize (no global warming) the term was changed to climate change. Once the term climate change doesn't work, what will the new faux crisis term be?

"...what will the new faux crisis term be?"

Biodistress, apparently! It's hard to keep up with the terms, the goal-posts keep moving to suit the situation.

June 6, 2011: Sydney Morning Herald columnist Richard Glover suggested in his most recent column that “Surely it’s time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies.“

A lesson from history?

Wouldn't it be interesting if you actually came up with an intelligent comment?

Your all over this thread. Again. Attacking her mental state and her support for Al Gore. You got nothing on intelligence.

I do but when I post it here no-one understands it because it's pure science.
People here need only to listen to their follower, incapable of independent thought, they hang onto her every word.
And it's "You're all over this thread" not "Your all over this thread" however I understand that English may not be your strong point.

Try me with your pure science, please. My mind isn't closed and my thoughts aren't limited to comfortable boxes.

If you really had been interested in pure science you wouldn't be needing to ask me for it, you would have already researched it yourself.

Just curious for some of your so called facts...don't ever get anything from you that actually makes sense other than your self righteous attitude. icekat is a perfect discription of what you've offered so far....cold hearted BS meant to anger and divide. Good luck with your efforts, you are all too transparent.

I've posted many scientific facts based purely on data from recognised agencies. All receive either no attention or just negative votes. This proves that people have absolutely no understanding of scientific data, JanforGore even openly admitted that much last year.
But this forum has never been interested in scientific data; blind-faith and extremist propaganda is the way forward for people like you who have nothing more to offer than abuse and badly-written ranting.

You should change your avatar to HotDog.

I just had to say quoting Rush Limbaugh hardly stands as an intelligent comment, so whats your excuse?

Jan only hits my funnybone.

Whenever I've posted any occurances of extreme weather Jan cites also occurred anywhere from fifty to five hundred years ago, it's voted down. What Jan has done for me is pushed me to do the research to see how wrong is the climate change crowd.

Regardless of the political persuasion of a pundit, an intellient person with intellectual curiosity will do some research on their own. The pundit only initiates the curiosity.

This is what Jan does, and that, in some ways, is a good thing. The more people who go away and look into the reality of what is going on, the more people wake up to the real facts rather than seeing the one-sided political viewpoint.
I told her some months ago that if she were to become less radical and inject some sense of balance into her comments more people might take notice. Instead she presents herself as an out-and out radical, an extremist. People just don't take her seriously, well, maybe four or five people do some of the time.

It comes from the same mindset as those who use their money to exert revenge on the poor and indigenous people of this world and all those who see themselves as being above it all. Pretty disgusting.

And of course the green-extremists are funded only by love?
Extremists are heavily funded, it's one big money-making machine that relies heavily upon having people believe they or their ideology is in danger. Stupid people fall for it and re-broadcast the scare stories daily here on Current.

"[Mar 30, 2008] Former Vice President Al Gore (the first Carbon Billionaire) is launching a $300 million, bipartisan campaign to try to push climate change higher on the nation’s political agenda."
Didn't work, did it? That was 2008 and after all his hot air, less people believe humans are causing climate change than they did at the start of his expensive campaign.

One USDA farm grant of $20 million to study how farm odours contributed to global warming exceeded all the money ExxonMobil has ever been accused of giving to sceptics.

Couldn't all that money have been better spent elsewhere?
Could it be true that you care more about Al Gore's bank-balance than you do about the real people of this world? How much is your self-proclaimed love of Al Gore preventing you from seeing reality?

The bottom line is you can never be seen as rational or impartial, and therefore your thoughts should be seen for exactly what they are - thoughts from an irrational love-stricken woman who should have grown up years (or decades) ago.

I agree Gore has benefited greatly by pushing global warming and it is a concern that with his backing and personal funds he has created more fear than community. We all continue to argue rather than have any affect or change on how we approach interacting with and living on Earth and with each other. People may deny that we are creating the climate issues, that the Earth would be going through these changes with or without us and maybe that is just the case; however, there can be no denying that we do treat our planet with no respect. We must address the nature of our connections to all and our planet. People and planet deserve consideration and right action, not endless circular arguments meant to keep us inactive and fearful. The back and forth BS is keeping us on the path to our own demise and that you can't refute if you are human. Stats can lie...but the Earth isn't a stat and will shed us without discussion or afterthoughts if values don't change.

I agree with the majority of what you wrote, humans have still to curb their polluting ways, and have more respect for others and other inhabitants of this planet.
However, I have lived long enough to see visible, positive changes that have taken place with respect to pollution, clean air, clean water etc. and it isn't a downward spiral of doom and gloom, far from it, although with cherrypicked articles it can be made to look as though things are getting worse. No-one denies there is more to be done.

Our air and water are far from cleaner...there is no way you can believe that. As for what should be done, it's simple stop treating each other and the planet as a dump. Change of values is in order...I like living here and want to stay.

Good, stay, travel the world and see reality for yourself. Don't just rely upon scaremongering videos and articles for your information. It's so easy to receive a biased view if you don't want to believe there is another perspective.
As someone who has travelled around this world of ours, and who has seen real changes, believe me, things are a lot better now than they have bee in the past. As I stated earlier, more needs to be done, but if you really think the world is getting worse you really need to open your eyes.
If things really are getting worse, why are people living longer - vitamin pills?

You are ASS-U-MING I haven't seen the world for myself. I have seen the clear cut forests across the nation, leaving most of our old growth forests(air cleaners and air creators) decimated and connected rivers suffocated with silt from rampant erosion, I have seen the destruction of the Kenai river ecosystem and the RV trains throughout Alaska as well as in other pristine areas. I have seen a dead Mediterranean as a result of pollution and overfishing. I have seen the rivers and waterways in FL so polluted with phosphoric algae growth that they can't be used. I have seen the red algae blooms in the Gulf that kill anything coming in contact. I have seen two-thirds of the life in our oceans be harvested or killed by pollution. I have watched the death of the Chesapeake from farming drainage throughout the East. I have seen mountains leveled for mining in West Va as well as numerous other locations. I have seen the affects of limestone mining on the Shenandoah. What of never ending oil spills, pesticide run off, continued burning of fossil fuels that were meant to remain deep in the Earth, rivers damned for "progress", etc...etc...etc. I need not go on if you've been around the world and seen none of this you had your eyes closed as you seem to now. Maybe you wereonly visiting Club Med I don't presume to know the cause of your blinders. The lifespan argument is only partially relevant to any of this as there is more to consider than simply the environment in our aging. We have made advances through our separatist medical approach up to now...I imagine oxygen tanks, mechanical hearts, organ transplants and many other advances have had something to do with your perception of longer life....the body doesn't even process the minerals taken in through vitamins so probably not part of the answer.

you make more noise than the kids on the Norway island and they have a reason shout no
you may have voted, you may not voted , you voted for the right and voted wrong persons
'stay in your own exile prison and keep your head in the sand and complain about second hand smoke
there is no law that say when you elect somebody to do your bidding in spending your money they will do it right on your opinion . well I am sad to inform you that all of your screwing are in one place your pocket book

"...I imagine oxygen tanks, mechanical hearts, organ transplants and many other advances have had something to do with your perception of longer life..."

Yes, you're probably right, most people over the past century have owned mechanical hearts and had organ transplants...
And thanks for your list of excursions through the United States, or parts of it anyway, but I was talking world travel, not an eco-depressive's tour of the USA's pollution hot-spots.

Re: your reference to the Norway shootings. As someone who is directly involved with this incident I think it's a pretty cheap comment which should be revoked in the name of decency.

I did speak of the world. I am trying to discuss your points but instead you insist on degradation of character and point fingers in all the wrong directions. You must be in the top 1% or paid by them to be so self assured of your statements to ignore the perceptions of others. I still have gotten no concrete info from you on anything and it is clear to everyone. I hope the paycheck is worth your subterfuge and contempt, may God have mercy on your soul. The time is nigh for reality and you won't stop it. Perhaps you need to go somewhere else to offer your discourse on how nothing is wrong with the planet, maybe mars...it is certainly not well received here. I don't anger easily and you've done well to bring me there. Continue on in your nitpicking of details while you don't want to talk about facts. Sounds all to much like a politician and I don't believe in a need for them either, but I am just blindingly stupid. Your just jealous cause obviously you are paid to be here and to be just that, job well done. You make me look like a genius.

Seems like you get voted down regardless of fact or opinion, the intent was clear to all but you. A terrible incident much like your facts and opinions that can't be justified for any reason.

"...but I am just blindingly stupid"

Thank you for reiterating that. When I wrote it I was censored.

Much of the climate change propaganda is based on models. Here's the problem with models ...

Garbage In -> Perfect Model -> Garbage Out
Perfect Data -> Garbage Model -> Garbage Out

Agreed. Models have been proved to be seriously flawed, there are just too many variables to contend with.

If you live to be tens of thousands of years old you will still never see Greenland like this.
Even in the unlikely event that all Greenland's ice were to melt, this would raise sea levels by almost seven metres. To swamp Greenland to an extent seen in the image you would need sea level rises of hundreds of metres.
The image is nothing more than an attempt at scaremongering - a pretty poor attempt.

Google Maps agree's with Icekat....

I still try to be but greed, ignorance, ideology and politics don't make that easy. And the image was a representation of the reality of the human folly and where it can lead, for those who are intent on continuing to miss the big picture.

Appreciate that, thanks. Hope the story you posted maybe gets a little more attention.

Me too , but Amy Winehouse died and it dropped off the radar in a flash .....

Sorry, but you forgot to mention that Monckton's response to John Abraham's attack received much support from scientists worldwide, Abraham's debunking attempt was shown to be fallacious and anti-science, though to the absolute novice, such as yourself, it would appear to be an impressive presentation.
You really have to keep up to date with these things.

You're a liar.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton-tries-to-censor-John-Abraham.html

A few months ago, John Abraham from St Thomas University produced an excellent rebuttal of Christopher Monckton's arguments. Monckton's initial response was extraordinary - as well as likening John's presentation to Nazi propaganda, he accused Abraham of ad hominem attacks while mocking his accent and personal appearance (comparing him to an overcooked prawn). Abraham's response to this personal attack was professional and commendably stuck to the science. Now Monckton is trying to censor Abraham - urging Watts Up With That readers to pressure St. Thomas University to take down Abraham's presentation.

John Abraham's presentation is vital and important as it explains in clear and accessible language the many falsehoods and misrepresentations in Monkton's arguments. St. Thomas University needs to understand the importance of Abraham's work. Hopefully they already do but if there is a flood of WUWT readers sending them angry emails, a reminder wouldn't hurt. Rather than flood the University with even more emails, the New Zealand website Hot Topic has created a Support John Abraham page.

Here, they propose that anyone who supports John Abraham's efforts to leave a comment with their name, location and academic affiliation (if any). Comments from academics are especially welcome. Gareth at Hot Topic has been in touch with John Abraham and the St Thomas University and knows they are watching the comments thread. So I urge anyone who wishes John Abraham's presentation to not be removed from the University website to go to Support John Abraham and post a comment.

http://climate.uu-uno.org/articles/view/147446/

http://www.carbonbrief.org/profiles/christopher-monckton

"Monckton spoke at the International Conference on Climate Change in New York in March 2009, organised by the conservative thinktank the Heartland Institute.

In 2006, he authored a letter from the Center for Science and Public Policy to two US senators. The senators had written to ExxonMobil asking it to stop funding climate change sceptics. Monckton wrote: "That great corporation has exercised its right of free speech - and with good reason - in openly providing support for scientists and groups that dare to question how much the increased concentration of CO2 in the air may warm the world. You must honour the Constitution, withdraw your letter and apologize to ExxonMobil, or resign as Senators." He stated in the Sunday Telegraph essays that he had not received " a red cent from Exxon".

Monckton is an advisor to the conservative Washington-based thinktank Science and Policy Institute. His sister Rosa is the daughter-in-law of Lord Lawson, the former Conservative chancellor and founder of the Global Warming Policy Foundation."

Done.

Skepticalscience.com? Come on - get real!

Sheer desperation on your behalf, but then what else would I expect from you seeing as all you are is an internet trawler - only good for searching for content applicable to your extremist cause.
You have proved time and time again that when it comes to facts, data and real science you have absolutely no idea. That is one reason why you stay well clear of debate and find it impossible to reply to anyone with a scientific counter-argument.

It's time you stopped copying text from websites and pasting them here, and instead came up with something new and preferably with a hint of reality behind it.

All I see from you, HotDog, is relentless insults about our lack of data and scientific understanding while all you post are the same old unsourced graphs and accusations.
I have yet to see any "real science" from you.
Jan, on the other hand, constantly provides breaking, peer-reviewed, inspirational news.
You are voted down because you are rude and incredibly pompous.

Calling me HotDog doesn't do your cause any good.

"You are voted down because you are rude and incredibly pompous."

I agree. But whenever I have tried to be polite and engage people in discussion in the past, all I ever received were floods of propaganda videos and links to already-falsified scaremongering articles written by hacks.
This forum is not about debate, it is about agreeing with a single viewpoint that cannot be veered from, as you well know when you have written about your support for nuclear energy.

Hey ColdFat, don't concern yourself with posts in the past.
The lesson of science is grasping what the fuck is going on here and now.
This is not sports.
It's not about your team winning.
I realize how hard this concept is for "you people" to grasp.
I actually empathize with your mindset. I am an optimist myself.
But LORD when the glass is empty why can't you just admit it?
We nonetheless still love you in a strange sort of way.

HotDog, ColdFat ... Name calling ... The tactics of the vanquished.