Yep…

As the holocaust showed us how messed up we can be as humans, hopefully, the environmental holocaust will wake us up once again.

Hmmm… maybe it’s time to make that vasectomy appointment after all. 🙂

Thanks for the blog!

Cheers, Josh

According to Essam El-Hinnawi definition form 1985 environmental refugees as those people who have been forced to leave their traditional habitat, temporarily or permanently, because of a marked environmental disruption (natural or triggered by people) that jeopardised their existence and/or seriously affected the quality of their life. The fundamental distinction between `environmental migrants` and `environmental refugees` is a standpoint of contemporsry studies in EDPs.

According to Bogumil Terminski it seems reasonable to distinguish the general category of environmental migrants from the more specific (subordinate to it) category of environmentally displaced people.

According to Norman Myers environmental refugees are “people who can no longer gain a secure livelihood in their homelands because of drought, soil erosion, desertification, deforestation and other environmental problems, together with associated problems of population pressures and profound poverty”.

For example:

– it is not true that “They’ve [Heartland] already had a huge hand at Carleton University in Canada.” They have had no “hand” at all. The course was designed by Professor Tim Patterson and taught by me before I ever was an unpaid environmental policy advisor with Heartland.

– it is not true that it was a course for “non science majors”. There were hundreds of science and engineering students in my classes. Only Earth Science majors could not get a credit for the course (although some attended out of interest).

– it is misleading to say “an independent audit by real scientists says that the lectures made 142 false, biased and misleading claims to students”. The “scientists” who “audited” the course were biologists, completely unqualified to comment with any expertise on an Earth Sciences course. Many of their claims against the course are therefore (not surprisingly) nonsense. Regardless, while they list 142 items, they do not actually criticize the course in many of these, simply adding new information that they think should have been included.

– it is not true to say that there is a “scientific consensus concerning the anthropogenic (human-triggered) causes of dangerous climate change” that the course supposedly violates. There has been no comprehensive survey of the thousands of scientists who study the causes of climate change to conclude that there is a consensus on one side or the other. All we know is that there is a broad diversity of opinion on this complex issue (which is not surprising considering how immature and rapidly advancing the field is).

– it is not true to say that “the lack of peer-reviewed literature cited”. The course was intensely referenced but those references were generally in the notes part of the slides (as explained to the student and they had access to this as legitimate students in the course – the spies who assessed the course would not have had access to this part if they assessed the course based solely on the videos of the lectures, which is, I gather, all they did).

– it is not true that I did “press relations for the electrical and gas industries”.

– I never said that “that there is only one weather station in the Canadian Arctic”

– I never said that “the Amazon jungle is a relatively new formation, in geological g[t]erms”. Course originator Professor Tim Patterson said that and he stands by that.

– I never said that “urban weather stations do not show consistent warming”

– The Guardian’s report, is wrong in saying that I “ventured into hyperbole, saying the weather-caster and prominent climate doubter blogger Anthony Watts ‘deserves a Nobel prize or a prize of some sort.’” One of my guest lecturers apparently said that.

John Stone has been formally requested to retract his unpleasant and incorrect statements about the motivations of the course instructor and originator.

https://www.fcpp.org/media.php/1996 .

Clearly, ignorant maniacs of all faiths saw Wicca as derogatory term that reflected their hysterical anti-female point of view. It hardly reflects the POV of more rational characters, which is why that explanation is made by Jessie to Ananda — and, by extension, to the reader. I would hope you would consider the source of the usage in the book. And no, it will not change in any subsequent printing because the use of Wicca reflects a key theme of the novel: that abuse of nature and of women were linked and led to a horrible apocalypse.

Here’s the report: https://www.stumbleupon.com/su/2yMZOX/news.discovery.com/earth/dryden-ny-fracking-122402.html/

Um, I’m a geologist, I do not depend on big oil and I am a climate denier. Actually every geologist I know, and none are dependent on big oil, are climate deniers. SO what gives?

I’ll tell you what gives; geologists have a different understanding of what a long term trend is, they don’t consider 30 years of satellite temperature measurement a long term trend. They MIGHT consider 50 million years a trend, but still not consider it long term. They don’t consider proxy temperature measurements like tree rings and lake sediments reliable evidence. They don’t consider computer based climate modelling valid science, they consider it a tool or guide, nothing more. And they have grave doubts about the validity of climate studies, which are primarily speculative and unrepeatable. They don’t consider melting glaciers as indicative of a global climate trend, they know that glaciers retreat and grow in millennial long cycles, and that glaciers don’t actually melt much they primarily sublimate. Claiming that Antarctica is melting demonstrates that people don’t understand how glaciers work. Geologists know that the oceans rise and fall over millenia, they also know that the land also rises and falls. They also understand that these things are evidence that the earths climate changes only, none of them are evidence that CO2 is the cause. That’s just the beginning.

Attempting to pin geologist skepticism on the influence of oil shows how little they understand geologists.

And it gets worse – not only do we see no benefits to balance the environmental harm of Tar Sands operations, we also pay a price.

The “rare bladder cancers” of the communities downstream of the Tar Sands operations is an example of “little people paying the price while the 1% reaps the rewards” [“little people” is the term used by a BP oil executive during the Gulf of Mexico catastrophe].

When considering environmental impacts Vs. economic benefits, there should be an accounting of what GREEN ENERGY would provide economically for Canadians. Experts have shown that there would be an even greater benefit derived by taking the green alternative for energy, especially the long-term view that Mr. Nykanen mentioned here in comments. One of the best ways to ensure energy security for any nation is to have renewable energy where the sun and wind and tides is the [free] source of energy to be harvested, whereas pushing ahead with oil is a dead end eventually.

Finally, this report failed to mention how the Tar Sands is depleting our natural gas supplies – a much cleaner fuel than bitumen!! Fully one-third of Alberta’s annual natural gas production goes to steaming bitumen from sand at Ft. Mac, truly a travesty. Oil industry minions only reply that “any time a you can exchange a short-chain hydrocarbon for a long-chain hydrocarbon it is a good thing”, a totally myopic view.

PS – it is possible my computer was crashed by people who didn’t like what I write about the oil industry…