Not exact matches
Greenpeace Executive Director Phil Radford warned that «letting corporations get rich off
of environmental devastation will make Obama's
climate rhetoric look like the
worst kind of greenwashing.»
But unfortunately that technical, rational approach simply hasn't worked: while many logistic problems
of one
kind or another on the nation's campuses have been solved, both faculty and students continue to operate in that spiritual
climate where, as Yeats prophetically put it, «The best lack all conviction, while the
worst / Are full
of passionate intensity.»
Worst - case warming scenario may bring totally new
kinds of tropical
climate and cause others to disappear
(Personally, I don't see this
kind of effort going anywhere unless and until
climate impacts trend toward
worst - case outcomes.)
The IPCC can't really do this
kind of thing, because it has been optimized to carry out a far more narrow technical task — answer whether
climate change is occurring and whether humans are the blame, and if so how
bad it might get in the future.
a) they don't believe the premise
of man - made
climate change: they don't think scientific data collected to date is adequate to prove conclusively that any type
of man - made event can result in either the recent fluxuations in
climate or the anticipated
kinds of drastic
climate change, therefore CO2 control would be ineffective at solving the problem b) they don't believe CO2 alone is responsible: they think other variables are as or more likely to be the catalysts or causes for the scientific data collected to date on
climate change therefore CO2 control would be ineffective at solving the problem c) they believe government efforts to curb CO2 emissions will fail resulting in an unprecedented waste
of money and
worse economic conditions.
There's a question about what would we do if things start getting
worse, if
climate change leads to some
kind of crisis situation,» Ken Caldeira, one
of the report's authors and a researcher at the Carnegie Institute for Science, said.
It's a term
climate change deniers seem to bandy about often, these days, as if «alarm» were some
kind of bad word.
It is by
climate scientists, and most skeptics think they themselves are better expert on
climate science than
climate scientists, so they find all
kinds of ways to denigrate and convince themselves it is a
bad site, etc..
I have a history with Andy Revkin's DotEarth, which is prone to provide fuel for sloppy thinking about weather and
climate, as well as a hangout for the
worst kind of clever - looking phony skeptic arguments.
«Denying
climate change is
worse than spreading the usual
kind of conspiracy theory: it costs lives ``, wrote former Political Editor, Mehdi Hasan, whose lefty - liberal street - credentials enjoyed a short lived boost last month when he layed into Daily Mail Editor Paul Dacre on BBC TV.
I suspect this inspired their, and their like's, vigorous promotion
of climate models once they discovered they brought
bad news
of a suitable
kind.
It would be very interesting to follow closely contract attributions both off and on campuses and how much a discount may be offered to Universities new buildings in relation with the number
of municipal contracts linked to «
climate change» mitigation... Local newspapers that are surviving mostly on real estates ads are very much willing propagandists
of the
worst kind: http://www.nsnews.com/north-vancouver-city-plans-for-
climate-change-floods-1.668838 «Although the city approved an ongoing strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in 2005, the focus is now on dealing with existing
climate change, said Caroline Jackson, section manager
of environmental sustainability at the City
of North Vancouver.»
Questioning
of this
kind does touch the heart
of the issue, i.e. that the * certainty *
of near - term calamity (decades) is a cultural truth not based in science, in a way the public can grasp, and whether or not the the physical
climate is actually responding to ACO2 in a good,
bad, or indifferent manner.
Letting corporations get rich off
of environmental devastation will make Obama's
climate rhetoric look like the
worst kind of greenwashing.
In other words, Pachauri — who likes to talk about social justice and the moral obligations associated with
climate change — is the
worst kind of hypocrite.
If it does not warm then there will be more and more people like me realizing either that «
climate catastrophe» was either GROSSLY overstated, (to be
kind), or,
worse, it was a politically motivated and funded agenda
of deception.