Politics of Global Warming

[Tyger]

I see people have told me about the science should not be debated on this thread and this is fair enough. I will need to stop posting links to this.

Thank you. As stated, there are numerous threads for debate. Feel free to access them. There are people who would like to debate the science, or at least discuss it, as you can see from Burnt States's response to you. In fact it is always a pleasure to read a reasoned debate/conversation. The problem will always arise when posters insist on ascribing to someone a 'spokesperson' role for a particular 'side'. One knows one is on a slippery slope when that starts up.

Regarding the politics, what is this phrase "Climate Change Denier" actually used for?

I can only speak for myself - I lapsed into it as I saw it being used, referencing a particular activity taking place with the Fossil Fuel Industry, et al. We now have documentation reaching back to the early 1980's showing that oil executives knew about the damaging impacts of emissions. We also know that there were scientists and PR firms that ran with the Tobacco Industry (for the money) denying the carcinogenic aspects of cigarette smoking when they had the scientific evidence to the contrary. The very same individuals in the 1990's then went onto the payroll of big oil and began the disinformation campaign with the science of CO2. (An aside: what is interesting is to hear people say that they began to question the science of AGW in the 1990's, when the disinformation campaign was underway).

The 'deniers' (so-called) tend to have tell-tale earmarks: foremost is an ad hominem attack mode. (Take a look at all the old Climate Change 'debate' threads here on this chat site for a dose of the animus - the end-game seems to have been to shut down the conversation, actually, which was achieved on thread-after-thread). Al Gore remains the arch-enemy as do various other persons. (Who quotes Al Gore these days? Only 'deniers' - though Al Gore is perfectly acceptable to quote imo. Just pointing out the 'old news' the 'denier mode' is riddled with - old talking points endlessly repeated). All the old rationales of the disinformation campaign, plus the tired ad hominems, forever repeated, with no cutting-edge science of any calibre presented. Mainly 'deniers' just re-spin and re-hash the science of researchers in the field.

It is not scientific, its actually a very mean spirited phrase meant to link people like me to deniers of the holocaust.

I agree that if one is trying to have a sensible conversation, being labelled in that way is counter-productive. I for one know the insanity of that kind of discourse since when I first came on this chat site the fact that I talked about, or from, a 'spiritual perspective' had me painted with a 'demonic-religious-nut' brush. Seriously unpleasant. (One poster continues to jibe at me, in fact, with shout-outs. Pretty poor - so I know the problem). Just recently (on another site) I saw someone try to engage a conversation about some minor - but contentious - point and they got dumped on royally, painted as part a conspiracy theory cabal. So, yes, I see your point completely.

Where I would question your reasoning is that it is being used to connect with the Holocaust. Certainly not in my case. The general connotation of 'denier' these days (9/11, vaccines, contrails/chemtrails) is the suggestion that said person/people are denying 'the facts', and that can fall many ways. They - whoever 'they' are, whatever 'side' - are denying the facts, but with more of an edge - they are creating another baseline. It can be used by any 'side' to dismiss.

There is little use for the phrase at any level

As you can see it does have a use when confronting those who are parroting the disinformation, especially when the tired old ad hominems keep coming up again-and-again-and-again. When that starts to happen, dismissal is in order - yes. However, otherwise, it is a pointless accusation on a chat site where posters are anonymous. We really don't know each other's backgrounds. No reason to dismiss, so I take your point.

and for me what it does reveal is ignorance, ignorance of the methods, reasons and perspectives behind people like me, and what drives us.

Point taken, as long as you understand the frustration underlying the need to dismiss when the old canards start being hauled out and the ad hominems paraded for the gazillionth time.

I see no reason whatever why reasonable, honest & friendly debate can not take place between people. I find it atrocious that on an issue where so much is at stake people cant simply shelve the anger and listen.

Agree 100%.

Climate Denier is what the Scientist Michael E Mann calls anyone who disagrees with him. Even people on his side of the debate are called this by Mann on a regular basis.

Ah, so here we go. You make it about the man, not the science. Have you any inkling the level of abuse being directed at Climate Change researchers - some on a daily basis? Mann will not be silenced. Good for him. After what he's been put through maybe he's a bit touchy - maybe. Either way, not my concern, unless he is being injured in some way.

I am one of over 230,000 people who he has blocked on twitter.

Should we care? Since when is serious scientific debate going to occur on Twitter? Twitter?

The number tells me that there is a serious campaign against the man. Bad business.

He like many of his followers and supporters does not wish to hear any dissenting voices, indeed Mann won't even speak on a radio show unless everyone in attendance is on his side and no one dare ask a question of him. Lets look at the politics of this.

Interesting. Since this is not anything I am following, could you supply support for your contention?

Off the top of my head - having watched Climate Science researchers get ambushed on interview shows by all manner of non-science so that the show becomes an unravelling of the non-sense rather than the point on the table, I could see Mann being sensible about how he spends his time in an interview. JMO. But I still want verification that Mann is not willing to engage intelligent debate on-air. I think he is and has done. Would not blame him for being selective, however.

Where is the political support for this, is it on the side of alarm or the sceptical side?

For Mann calling the shots when he agrees to an interview? I'd say neither. You're phrasing the question in a curious fashion. No politics. Rather personal choice (if it is happening). It's Mann calling the shots when someone wants to interview him. It's his personal choice.

Considering the Paris deal at the end of the year the power is clearly on the side of alarm.

Alarm? You equate alarm with the science? Most of the world is having to deal with serious problems because of a rising global (average) temperature, rising sea levels (talk to the Dutch, for just one), earth's changing eco-systems, desertification - drought, acidification, it goes on. We need to deal with it. We have clear evidence - weighted heavily - that one action that will help is containing CO2 production (the West can do it's fair share in this area). Another is waste management and another is population control. Much of this is out of the West's control. China and Asia in general will have to ride the whirlwind on much of this. But whatever it is, it is effecting us all. Unrest in one region will impact everyone - as is very clear in the world-wide refugee problem.

how about financially, does the money come to sceptics or does it go in favour of alarm?

Again, 'unpacking' what you write: Alarm=Climate Science facts, and Skeptics=Status Quo

Well, we know that in the past and in the present, money is flowing from corporations to keep 'the skeptic' view alive (the status quo: business-as-usual). Massive amounts of money in the US is being funneled in bribery, pay-offs, and what have you, to keep the status quo in the US. Until we get a government that will face down the corporate money flow, most of the money is going towards 'the skeptic', or status quo.

If governments decide that the weight of the argument favors being proactive (please note that it is not about correctness) then the money flows to correcting the CO2 emissions, etc. This is happening in various states in the US - like California. Less so by the federal government, though this can change. Powerful monied interests are working to keep the status quo, what in your dialectic you are calling 'the skeptic'.

The rough estimate is that $4billion a day is spent on climate change alarm.

A very obtuse sentence. How can you spend money on 'alarm'? Do you mean the science? If you mean the economic shift, with another paradigm, it's called a re-invigoration of the economy with new home-grown industries.

However, what I should address first is what exactly constitutes 'climate change alarm'? The science facts? And where does the $4billion figure come from? Here we have the endless problem with these kinds of conversations: nothing is fact, nothing is supported. You are potentially repeating a figure you read - but where? I don't know. I'm sure $4billion is not spent on newspaper ads - so what is being bought and sold with that $4billion? Do you know?

What about propaganda on TV? Is this on the side of alarm or skepticism?

Here in the US the denier camp is pretty well entrenched, so I would say the skepticism camp 'propaganda' is ascendent. It is why so many people really do believe that Climate Change is bogus - the news media is plugging away in the denier camp.

Consider all the movies in cinemas the overall left wing environmentalism of nearly all Hollywood finds it way on TV, almost all mainstream newspapers have bought and endorsed alarm from the very start, the London Guardian being the most left wing and most ardent environmental newspaper. So considering all of this, why is the public not convinced?

The public is not convinced because the disinformation campaign is very comprehensive. FOX News alone has done more damage to the clear presentation of the science than any other entity, but it has company.

Here it is all in one fell swoop: there is no 'nearly all Hollywood' finding it's way on TV. Isn't happening, at least not in the US. Fact is 'Hollywood' is a surprising place - more Right Wingers than you are apparently aware - but it may be a generational divide. There are certainly Left Wingers who put their money into their politics, but I'm not sure one side or the other is dominant in 'Hollywood'.

Mainstream newspapers have not endorsed 'alarm' from the very start - what was the 'very start'? In fact, I am aware of positive reporting in major newspapers like The New York Times in just the last handful of years.

Answer to be continued.....

 

[Tyger]

[...] why is the public not convinced?Well the reason I think is obvious.

As stated, I think it is evidence that the disinformation being reported in a good portion of the mass media is effective.

But, you believe....

They are tired, tired of all the dire predictions that never seem to come true.

But the predictions are coming true. Right in front of us.

They remember as I do that in the past a warm summer was, just that, a summer that was warm. If the winter was cold, like during the first years after my own birth, then that was what winter sometimes did, it was a slow climate change.

No it was not. Here you betray that you don't understand the science. In what you have just said, you are talking about weather, not climate change.

Now we live in a world where predictions from whale migration patterns to any increase is stolen cars can now be attributed to man made climate chance.

You are talking nonsense.

John Kerry claims that ISIS coming to power had something to do with Global warming & not the fact that this group had been trained in Jordan by US, French and UK commanders using money from Qatar?

Please supply a quote for this. I am aware only that John Kerry has stated that global warming poses as great a threat to the world as does ISIS. He has said that climate change should be treated with the same immediacy as the threat from ISIS. Kerry equated Climate Change with ISIS - he did not posit a cause-and-effect.

Money these days is spent on more and more science that is bought an paid for by government.

Puzzling. Could you explain?

One of the major dangers I see in this political belief system that has grown out of all proportion is the funding of science by government sources.

What is 'this political belief system'? You're losing me. In the US, anyway, science is losing government funding. The US Space Program is a whisper of what it once was, for one example.

Few scientists will put up with being muzzled. The last time that happened at the federal level was under President George Bush in the early 00's. Scientists were actually forbidden to use the terms 'climate change' and 'global warming'. There was an uproar over it. Currently in the US we have the governor of Florida banning any environmentalist in the pay of Florida of talking about global warming or climate change under threat of losing their job. (This in a state that is experiencing flooding of it's streets under clear skies because of rising sea level).

Dwight Eisenhower's much famed address to the nation is quoted often by people talking about the military industrial complex. But people should listen to the whole speech because he addresses this issue very well indeed.

The dilemma is not science per se, but militarism and armaments conjoined with capitalism. That 'complex' is in place - hence the war-mongering. Hence why we are dealing with battle cries to invade far-flung locales. Profit.

When you have a scientific elite that become totally dependant on government funding, bad things can and will happen.

There is not a 'scientific elite' particularly dependent on (federal) government funding. Most research takes place at universities and research institutes that get funding and grants from a wide range of sources, some federal, some state, some private. Of course there are government owned research laboratories - like Livermore and Los Alamos. Those institutions may have proprietary rights over intellectual property, but they are very far from being places that stifle free inquiry. Quite the reverse.

Now this is in 1961 but he had already understood the dangers of this system and the corruption to science itself.

Science has not been corrupted by any US government. Science in the US - or anywhere, really - is usually it's own worst enemy when it comes to 'orthodoxy' in it's ranks. It's an on-going problem as old as the hills. No nefarious government needs to be involved. The US remains one of the most exciting places to do research, though other places are gaining a reputation, too.

People tow the line and the scientists will ensure they get more funding by providing the answers the feed the system. If people here think this is how science in any country should be ran then fine,

I have to disagree. What is usually at work are reputations and life times spent on one theory. For example, a serious adjustment in Cosmological science is taking place because of new information from space probes. No scientist is going to be credible who does not start grappling with the new information in an honest way.

but currently in western nations only (2nd and 3rd world countries have bigger problems on their plate than trying to solve a non problem by stopping a trace gas) science itself guarantees renewal of funding each year by claiming the problem is "worst than we thought" and by doing Michael Mann levels of data manipulation and splicing to come up with more and more crazy stories using more and more outdated computer models.

The 2nd and 3rd world countries have bigger problems precisely because of what the 1st world countries have been up to. That's a fact. Erratic weather, rising tides due to rising sea level producing flooding, changing monsoons, changing ecosystems changing farming regions, migration of animals/birds/insects - and it goes on.

The problem is 'worse than we thought' because the real-time planetary system is changing faster than the computer models predicted. Trust me on this: no one gets funding with a scare tactic. Funding comes with the demonstration of sound science. Only then does the grant come.

More and more outdated computer models? How does this work? If the climate scientists are absorbing so much money, how is it that their computer models are outdated? There is a disjunct in your reasoning on this point. Can't have it both ways.

30 years ago you couldn't get funding to study the affects of global warming on drug trafficking or weather redheads will die out. Today you can and that is scary.

Absurd statement. You expect to be taken seriously with a statement like that? I've taken a lot of time to answer one of your posts. You have made some good points but overall you have become incoherent.

 

[Tyger]

"You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic."
~ Robert A. Heinlein

 

[mike_thoth]

Hi everyone, I am sorry if I am losing you, but ill try and pickup on a couple of my points.
Firstly if you do not know of or understand what I am saying about Ike farewell address then please listen to the WHOLE speech, an not just the part that deals with military industrial complex. Ike knew what he was talking about and it concerned him that one day we could arrive at a very vicious circle of government funding research that justifies large government. Consider, we are talking here about massive amounts of money are being offered to science to research this problem of global warming. Scientists are human beings, like us they must put bread on the table. They conclude in their papers that more money is needed to look into the problem. This is a fact & one of the reasons there has been so much crazy research being done in the name of this problem. It leads to whole departments in universities that become reliant on government funding, this is what Ike was concerned at because it is a self fulfilling loop.

 

[mike_thoth]

In relation to predictions, what predictions have come true, which dire predictions are we being forced to live with?

 

[mike_thoth]

For those out there with an open mind on this issue can I suggest you read this very informative piece;

The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science

Considering this is not a science forum this news story explains many aspects of my previous posts but in a much more clear way. It explains the so called consensus, it asks some very interesting questions of peer review relating especially to Michael Mann and his hockey stick (there was no peer review done by either the IPCC or Nature upon publication of his 1998/99 graphs and totally wrong way he spliced data sets and for large periods of his reconstructions he relied on only 1 or 2 trees because they had the right shape and then gave them a 390% increase in weighting to ensure he got the shape he needed on the published version). I would ask people give this article the time and read through it. It doesn't matter if you don't agree with the authors conclusion, it does not matter if you think a persons perspective is wrong. The point is you cannot cherry pick which articles you read because you disagree with the author, you must and should always open yourself to both sides and then make up your own mind. Please read the article.

 

[Tyger]

@mike_thoth It is clear you want to debate the science. I don't see why you don't find a debate thread for that. Puzzling.

You posted a fairly thick post that I spent time responding to, with questions asked. As has happened before with other 'denier' posters, you have ignored my response, ignored my questions, and proceeded with your 'side', with your own questions which you will pillory me for not answering (if you run true to form). It's a tired old routine - I've seen it in play too many times. (In this black-and-white world I would be called a 'warmist' ). That tells me that this is not about a real dialog. Okay. Nothing new and I move on. Not interested.

For the discerning, your linked article is a demonstration of the problem in the conversation. Do I have the time to parse the article for you? No. Again, I am not here to convince anyone. I am posting what interests me. Full stop.

P.S. I do want to thank you for posting, however. The article is a good example of the 'politics' in the conversation. I leave it for the discerning reader to suss out the old canards, the discrete ad hominem attacks against the same scientists, and the relentless assertions rather than factual reporting. It's a good exercise, if a tad time-consuming. Do one of these analysis and one will be pretty much able to identify the earmarks of the chatter being set in motion. My advice is to spend one's valuable time reading the actual science, and the dialog amongst scientists, rather than opinion pieces that posit contentions, and confabulate set-ups, that do not exist.

 

[mike_thoth]

Well that is at least an honest post and I appreciate honesty. I have personally come from the pro global warming opinion & only changed my opinions after being confronted with articles by what seemed to me vested interests. I still took the plunge & still read that article. Whether a person is bias is often mute, it what is being posted is of importance and whether that is right or wrong. I learned a long while ago that re-examining your opinions and perspectives on many issues is helpful, as often as you can do it.

 

[Tyger]

Well that is at least an honest post and I appreciate honesty.

An honest post? I basically told you that you had not engaged the dialog. If you appreciate honesty, why not engage the dialog? We both know why - it's not really a dialog you're after.

I have personally come from the pro global warming opinion & only changed my opinions after being confronted with articles by what seemed to me vested interests.

Too nebulous. What article? What vested interests?

I still took the plunge & still read that article.

It was hardly a plunge but I did read the article. My summation of my impressions I gave.

Whether a person is biased is often mute, it what is being posted is of importance and whether that is right or wrong.

What are you referring to here - or who? Your sentence structure is difficult, making your meaning obscure (I did make one edit for clarity). I have to make a leap - are you saying my bias is mute? I am posting what interests me. Whether what I post is 'right' or 'wrong' is really not the issue - I am not dictating a pov, nor am I much interested in convincing anyone of anything. I am looking - on this thread, anyway - at the politics of Global Warming.

I learned a long while ago that re-examining your opinions and perspectives on many issues is helpful, as often as you can do it.

Sounds like a good policy. I trust you follow it. However, I will repeat what I said in my previous post: My advice is to spend one's valuable time reading the actual science, and the dialog amongst scientists, rather than opinion pieces that posit contentions, and confabulate set-ups, that do not exist. In short - draw your own conclusions from the scientists themselves rather than depend on the spin and secondary and tertiary interpretations of others of the scientific reports. You would be better served, and will be better able to spot the problems in the article you linked to.

 

[Tyger]

Exxon Scientist Warned them 40 Years Ago they were Causing Global Warming: They Silenced Him
LINK: Exxon Scientist Warned them 40 Years Ago they were Causing Global Warming: They Silenced Him

 

[Tyger]

Scientist Richard Werthamer on Exxon and climate change | FRONTLINE

TEXT: "Published on Sep 15, 2015: Former Exxon scientist Richard Werthamer discusses the company's early research on climate change in this interview conducted in collaboration with InsideClimate News."

 

[mike]

In the past four decades, the world has lost 50% of its vertebrate wildlife. But across the latter half of this period, there has been a steep decline in media coverage. In 2014, according to a study at Cardiff University, there were as many news stories broadcast by the BBC and ITV about Madeleine McCann (who went missing in 2007) as there were about the entire range of environmental issues.

Let the market decide: this is the way in which governments seek to resolve planetary destruction. Leave it to the conscience of consumers, while that conscience is muted and confused by advertising and corporate lies. In a near-vacuum of information, we are each left to decide what we should take from other species and other people, what we should allocate to ourselves or leave to succeeding generations.


Comment: There may be flowing water on Mars. But is there intelligent life on Earth?


A new report suggests fish numbers have halved since 1970. Pacific bluefin tuna, which once roamed the seas in untold millions, have been reduced to an estimated 40,000, yet still they are pursued. Coral reefs are under such pressure that most could be gone by 2050. And in our own deep space, our desire for exotic fish rips through a world scarcely better known to us than the red planet’s surface. Trawlers are now working at depths of 2,000 metres. We can only guess at what they could be destroying.

Only 3% of the water on this planet is fresh; and of that, two-thirds is frozen. Yet we lay waste to the accessible portion. Sixty per cent of the water used in farming is needlessly piddled away by careless irrigation. Rivers, lakes and aquifers are sucked dry, while what remains is often so contaminated that it threatens the lives of those who drink it. In the UK, domestic demand is such that the upper reaches of many rivers disappear during the summer.


Every year, clever new ways of wasting stuff are devised, and every year we become more inured to the pointless consumption of the world’s precious resources. With each subtle intensification, the baseline of normality shifts. It should not be surprising to discover that the richer a country becomes, the less its people care about their impacts on the living planet.
Our alienation from the world of wonders, with which we evolved, has only intensified since David Bowie described a girl stumbling through a “sunken dream”, on her way to be “hooked to the silver screen”, where a long series of distractions diverts her from life’s great questions. The song, of course, was Life on Mars.

 

[Tyger]

In the past four decades, the world has lost 50% of its vertebrate wildlife. But across the latter half of this period, there has been a steep decline in media coverage. In 2014, according to a study at Cardiff University, there were as many news stories broadcast by the BBC and ITV about Madeleine McCann (who went missing in 2007) as there were about the entire range of environmental issues.

Interesting study. Thanks for pointing it out.

Let the market decide

: this is the way in which governments seek to resolve planetary destruction. Leave it to the conscience of consumers, while that conscience is muted and confused by advertising and corporate lies. In a near-vacuum of information, we are each left to decide what we should take from other species and other people, what we should allocate to ourselves or leave to succeeding generations.

It's a paucity of philosophical thinking - or even (and you'll like this one, Mike) really understanding religious messages. As Pope Francis is demonstrating. Jesus was a radical not a conservative. As was Buddha. JMO.

A new report suggests fish numbers have halved since 1970. Pacific bluefin tuna, which once roamed the seas in untold millions, have been reduced to an estimated 40,000, yet still they are pursued. Coral reefs are under such pressure that most could be gone by 2050. And in our own deep space, our desire for exotic fish rips through a world scarcely better known to us than the red planet’s surface. Trawlers are now working at depths of 2,000 metres. We can only guess at what they could be destroying.

Exactly so.

Only 3% of the water on this planet is fresh; and of that, two-thirds is frozen. Yet we lay waste to the accessible portion. Sixty per cent of the water used in farming is needlessly piddled away by careless irrigation. Rivers, lakes and aquifers are sucked dry, while what remains is often so contaminated that it threatens the lives of those who drink it. In the UK, domestic demand is such that the upper reaches of many rivers disappear during the summer.

Great points.

Every year, clever new ways of wasting stuff are devised, and every year we become more inured to the pointless consumption of the world’s precious resources. With each subtle intensification, the baseline of normality shifts. It should not be surprising to discover that the richer a country becomes, the less its people care about their impacts on the living planet.

True enough. In fact are any of us aware of what it 'costs' to save our countless e-mails, twitter posts and instagram pictures? The reality of that alone is sobering to the point of mental numbness.

Our alienation from the world of wonders, with which we evolved, has only intensified since David Bowie described a girl stumbling through a “sunken dream”, on her way to be “hooked to the silver screen”, where a long series of distractions diverts her from life’s great questions. The song, of course, was Life on Mars.

Great post, Mike. Took me a while to get to it. Well worth the re-reading. Thank you several times! Lots of food for thought.

 

[Tyger]

New Hampshire State Supreme Court Upholds $236 Million Verdict Against Exxon-Mobil Over Pollution ~ October 3, 2015
LINK: NH State Supreme Court Upholds $236 Million Verdict Against Exxon-Mobil Over Pollution

 

[Tyger]

AP News Caves to Right-Wing: Will No Longer Use Term ‘Climate Change Denier’: Will Use ‘Climate Change Doubter’ ~ September 29, 2015
LINK: AP News Caves to Right-Wing: Will No Longer Use Term 'Climate Change Denier': Will Use 'Climate Change Doubter'

 

[Tyger]

Marsha Blackburn invents new way to deny global warming: Humans are not ‘the cause for carbon emissions’ ~ September 24, 2015
LINK: Marsha Blackburn invents new way to deny global warming: Humans are not ‘the cause for carbon emissions’

 

[Tyger]

Elon Musk says humanity is currently running 'the dumbest experiment in history' ~ Sep. 1, 2015
LINK: Elon Musk says humanity is currently running 'the dumbest experiment in history'

 

[Tyger]

The reality of climate change | David Puttnam | TEDxDublin

TEXT: "Published on Dec 1, 2014: This talk was given at a local TEDx event, produced independently of the TED Conferences. David Puttnam looks at Climate Change through different lenses, all of which reveal the unsustainable ways in which we are living. Climate Change is real, but throughout history humans have failed to set political and economic concerns aside for our greater good. Will we ignore this latest warning? Lord David Puttnam produced award-winning films including Chariots of Fire, Bugsy Malone, and The Mission. He now works at the intersection between education, media, and policy. In 2007 he was appointed Chairman of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Draft Climate Change Bill."

 

[Tyger]

"When 9 million people lose their livelihood, a nation starts to break down."

Soil Not Oil Conference ~ Dr. Vandana Shiva Keynote Speaker

TEXT: "Published on Sep 13, 2015: Keynote Speech by Dr. Vandana Shiva at the Soil Not Oil International Conference Practicing Sustainable Agriculture to Restore Ecosystems and Mitigate Climate Change was held on September 4th & 5th, 2015 at the Memorial Civic Center Complex of Richmond California.

"Inspired by Dr. Vandana Shiva’s book, Soil Not Oil, the 2015 Soil Not Oil Conference examined the crisis on food security while highlighting the implications of oil-based agro-chemicals and fossil fuels in soil depletion and climate change. The first edition of this conference focused on educating, through national and international experiences, about the multiple problems and possible practical solutions that surround the profound consequences resulting from synthetic enhanced agriculture in industrialized nations.

"The conference organizer, Soil Not Oil Coalition, is a cross-sector, multi-level and inter-ethnic alliance of over 50 organizations, scientists, farmers, businesses and individuals coordinated by the Biosafety Alliance."

 

[Tyger]

Congressmen want probe of Exxon Mobil 'failing to disclose' climate change data
LINK: Congressmen want probe of Exxon Mobil 'failing to disclose' climate change data