Dispicable facts behind the rise of climate change skepticism.
Hallmarks of scavengers, lies, harassments, politicization and no science.
Oil, gas and animal agriculture industries, startled by UN scientists pointing out animal agriculture as the main driver of global warming, are behind.

PBS seemingly hesitated to start a fight with beef industries.
But still the documentary is a great contribution to the international society.

Watch full program
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/climate-of-doubt/

Preview
[youtube]5wSLe8ZXdlc[/youtube]


Edited by Viper 0: 18/2/2013 11:12:01 午後

Agriculture is the highest carbon polluting industry. Why are you here?

Better watch full program.
Animal agriculture is a main culprit of global warming, according to UN.
PBS didn't stepped into, but I suspect huge funding is coming from that industry.
It's quite sad to see 'Green' means money, vote and no science these days.

One's ideology mediates acceptance of the scientific facts.
Study after study points to right wing voters as being the roadblock to action

Japan produced 1,390.3 megatonnes of greenouse gas emissions (almost triple that of Australia) but it's our agricultural industry that's responsible for Global Warming.

Sure. I call trolling.

I cannot believe I'm the only one who reads Viper's posts in Mr Miyagi's voice.
[youtube]O-qesAt92Jw[/youtube]

Edited by afromanGT: 19/2/2013 02:16:41 AM

You should come up with reference.
Per capita counts anyway.

Fact is less beef, chcken and pork, more we are green.
That is why sustainable hunting of wild life is green alternative to toxic animal agriculture indutry.
I don't care Australia culling Kangaroos.

I suppose below doesn't reflect impact of animal agriculture.




Edited by Viper 0: 19/2/2013 10:00:57 午後

That is the WORST defence of whaling I've ever heard :lol:

Kill those whales! Kill them all!!

List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita.

Qatar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> daylight >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rest of world.

"Green world cup" :lol:

Per capita is a stupid way of comparing it. Of course we're going to be higher up in contribution, look at the size and population density of our country.

Size, density, population....
These are exactly why per capita counts, unfortunately.

Anyway, watch the video.
It's really good stuff and PBS is exposing money mongers proliferating lies in public, in sober face.
This always happens, especially over 'green' stuff.

Edited by Viper 0: 20/2/2013 10:51:36 午後

This. Countries with large percentages of the population living below the poverty line are going to have lower emissions per capita.

It should be as a ratio of GDP.

If you calculate Greenhouse gas emissions (megatons)/GDP (Billions USD)
USA: 0.4429 megatons/billion $
Japan: 0.2322 megatons/billion $
Australia: 0.3703 megatons/billion $
India: 0.9635 megatons/billion $
China: 0.8757 megatons/billion $
Germany: 0.2985 megatons/billion $
Sweden: 0.1432 megatons/billion $

Anything to fob off responsibility and propagate the profits of the coal and oil industry.......

All that oil and gas... I guess that's why Luxembourg is ranked 4th.

"Per capita" is a nonsensical value. What I do makes little impact, what my country does may indeed make an impact.

We may emit more per capita than the Chinese, but the atmosphere isn't being polluted by us anywhere near to the degree than it is by the Chinese (...Yanks, Indians, Russians, Brazilians, etc).

What Ozboy is effectively saying is that Luxembourg is a bigger environmental problem than China.

Hmmm...

And hopefully the Luxembourgers are working to reduce their CO2 emissions.

And when they do, it'll still make no difference.

If China were to reduce theirs by half a percent the difference would be significant.

And if China was to reduce their's and the rest of the world do nothing, it would also 'make no difference'.
Your point?

Wrong. China reducing its emissions would make a massive difference. Luxembourg or indeed Australia - not a jot.

Wrong. China reducing its emissions only would do sweet fuck all to long term climate change. It's all relative, when you choose to cherry pick.

lolwut? China belch out almost a third of the world's global greenhouse emissions. Anything they do is going to make a significant difference.

Even if they reduce the huge amount they spew out to zero, it means 'nothing' if the rest of the world does nothing.
You can always justify any inaction by referring to the inactions of others.

Wut? Are you trolling? If China cuts their pollution by a third, you're taking away over 10% of the world's pollution straight off the bat. How can you say that means nothing?

Climate change is not true.
Minke whales are endangered.
There is 'Australian water' off Antarctica.

How long do we have to encounter these stupid understanding of the reality.
Sad to see all Australian media ended up in the Third world media status.

Edited by Viper 0: 24/2/2013 02:41:46 午前

You need to read up on the delayed effects of CO2 and the way it accumulates in the atmosphere.

As for beef production, Viper is accurate. Methane is around 30 times a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, although it dissipates within days, IIRC. This is why scientists are so concerned about permafrost in Greenland, with its enormous methane stores.

What is right wing Japanese media's stance on climate change?

That's not the point #-o The point is if China cut their pollution by a third you're reducing more than 10% of the world's pollution overnight. Stopping greenhouse gas emissions is like eating an elephant - one bite at a time. And taking such a massive bite will have a significant difference in the long run. Especially in a country that is LITERALLY suffocating its people with its pollution.

And vice versa for Australia. It's all relative. And per capita is a great way of capturing personal responsibility.
Looking to what China does (and they are doing something) is just a way of people justifying inaction/selfishness.

Edited by ozboy: 24/2/2013 11:00:46 AM

Japanese media are damb.

Climate change has almost disappeared since Megaquake and Fukushima.
They are busy working on next Megaquake supposed to come in probably next 2~4 decades around central/south pacific coast of Japan. As Nuculear power station stopped, we are burning oil massively.(environmental regulation for surrounding area is quite strict though...)

Edited by Viper 0: 24/2/2013 02:11:28 午後

How does per capita capture personal responsibility? People can't be held responsible for a company they have nothing to do with's environmental policy.

Like I said before, It should be calculated around GDP - how much you pollute in comparison to how productive a society you are. There's going to be a strong correlation between countries with a high population, low GDP and lower pollution (relative to other countries).

How much a person polluting is a absolute gauge.
It may have problem with giving more room for developing countries to go on without environmental restrictions.
But, still, it is fair and absolute comparison.

No it isn't. Your average person has bugger all carbon emisisons. It's all down to the companies and their choice to use less green, more fiscally efficient production methods. The onus is on them. Hence as a ratio of GDP is a more significant figure.

Can we go back to calling it "Global Warming"? "Climate change" means little and is just political double speak.

In the words of Wil Anderson: "Global warming - "GRRRRR!" Climate change - "ehhhhh."