Checkk out these controversial claims, I found these in Brian Tracy's blog

"There is no evidence whatsoever, anywhere, in any scientific study, that carbon dioxide emissions are harmful to the globe, or to any living creature."


Catastrophe Exaggerated | Brian Tracy International


For those not familiar with Brian Tracy, his considered the number 1 personal development guru, apart from Anthony Robbins, in America who has many best selling books on personal development. Anyone familiar with his work?

Here's a couple of videos of him:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iDbs3vh6KM]YouTube - Brian Tracy: If You Could Achieve One Goal in 24 Hours[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MD-zeJ7N8A]YouTube - Brian Tracy - Science of Focus DVD Training for Success[/ame]

In the UK, broadcaster Channel 4 has been censured for a documentary which misrepresented the scientists it featured, and was against the notion of climate change.

By a similar feat of distortion, I will suggest that both Brian Tracy and the British programme makers are both influenced by a neocon agenda to question climate change since it threatens the interests and lifestyles of many businesses and individuals within them who benefit from things staying the way they are.

probably an unpopular view and have upset a few of my friends with this..

but I find it absurd that carbon and oxygen (carbon dioxide) has almost unanimously become a measure of environmental damage considering it is the basis of life itself. I suspect it is just because it is easy to measure (hence easy to poliiticise) as opposed to the thousands of really toxic chemicals which in my humble opinion would be a more effective measure.

According to this logic you may want to start genocide and mass extinctions to reduce carbon emissions by those horrible CO2 producing mammals. On the other hand what would those pesky carbon dioxide loving plants use for nourishment??

You may enjoy this spoof site about the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide (sounds nasty but is plain old H2O)..

Dihydrogen Monoxide Research Division - dihydrogen monoxide info

Some politicians around the world actually fell for it and tried to ban water!
Something in the dihydrogen monoxide | World news | guardian.co.uk

Scoop: Greens Support Ban On Water!

Hi All,

This is something that I've devoted a fair amount of time and thought to over the last few years and have talked to meteorologists and climatologists about to try to get a handle on the issues involved.

First of all, I don't think pumping millions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere without knowing what that will do to the ecosystem is a good idea.

Having said that, I think we need to do the research based on the real numbers and not only are we not doing that, we're being pushed into taking action or not taking action by two very powerful political and economic positions.

The Right wants business as usual and hang the longer-term consequences and the Left want the adoption of many of their long-held and otherwise wildly-unpopular pet positions as cure, which they also say won't do nearly enough to make any change, but at least it's a step in the right direction(?!).

And neither side wants the research because it might upset the apple cart and prove either the other sides's point or, worse yet, that something else needs doing that doesn't fit either side's agenda.

So the Left touts wildly speculative models and collections of rigged statistics on one side and the Right complains about the models and quotes rigged statics that fit their position.

And still the real research begs to be done.

'We won't fund you! Look at the models, apostates!', cries the left.

'We won't fund you! There's no climate change at all, idiots!', cries the right.

This is, at the moment, a lot more about politics than it is about science and that needs to change pretty damn quick, I think.

Let's hope that by the time we do get funding to do the real observational science that needs to be done, it won't be too late to do anything about the real data, assuming that something can or needs to be done.

At least that's my take on the matter, for what it's worth.

Be Well,

Michael Perez

Michael,

I *so* agree with you on this. Many people don't even want to try because they think it's too late for that, but what other option do we have? We have to try and I think if each of us does our own little part at home and at work it CAN make a difference. And the idea has to go even more viral that it is so everyone who CAN make a difference WILL!

Take care,

Venus

map002 wrote:

Hi All,

The Right wants business as usual and hang the longer-term consequences and the Left want the adoption of many of their long-held and otherwise wildly-unpopular pet positions as cure, which they also say won't do nearly enough to make any change, but at least it's a step in the right direction(?!).

And neither side wants the research because it might upset the apple cart and prove either the other sides's point or, worse yet, that something else needs doing that doesn't fit either side's agenda.

So the Left touts wildly speculative models and collections of rigged statistics on one side and the Right complains about the models and quotes rigged statics that fit their position.

And still the real research begs to be done.

'We won't fund you! Look at the models, apostates!', cries the left.

'We won't fund you! There's no climate change at all, idiots!', cries the right.

This is, at the moment, a lot more about politics than it is about science and that needs to change pretty damn quick, I think.

Michael,

what convinces you that the current 'evidence' is so skewed? And is it the case that the science itself is faulty or that different aspects of it have been hijacked by different camps? The brightest scientific minds I'm acquainted with are neither of Left nor Right, and are compelled by the case that our environmental situation is rapidly worsening.

Your default perspective seems to be the one that you adopt in your role as community mentor here that neither one side nor the other is right and that there is merit in both/all analyses. That kind of studied neutrality/meta position is one thing in an online community, but is it the most useful outlook where considering real world issues is concerned and action is required?

Yes, I recognise that action is only required when the situation warrants it, but still...remember Tolkien's ents, hoom hoom, pondering the fate of Middle Earth and deciding whether to intervene while armies destroyed the forests...And recall Rosa Parks: was there enough evidence to warrant her stance on racial segregation at the point she refused to budge from the bus?

Hi Adrian,

adrian r wrote:

what convinces you that the current 'evidence' is so skewed?

I thought I'd been clear on that. From my original post...

This is something that I've devoted a fair amount of time and thought to over the last few years and have talked to meteorologists and climatologists about to try to get a handle on the issues involved.

adrian r wrote:

And is it the case that the science itself is faulty or that different aspects of it have been hijacked by different camps?

In my considered opinion, that's an 'and', not 'or'.

adrian r wrote:

The brightest scientific minds I'm acquainted with are neither of Left nor Right, and are compelled by the case that our environmental situation is rapidly worsening.

I can appreciate that. And after an extensive examination of the data and methodologies involved, I respectfully disagree.

adrian r wrote:

Your default perspective seems to be the one that you adopt in your role as community mentor here that neither one side nor the other is right and that there is merit in both/all analyses.

Apparently, I was insufficiently clear. I find no merit in either position on the whole.

Again, quoting from my original post...

The Right wants business as usual and hang the longer-term consequences and the Left want the adoption of many of their long-held and otherwise wildly-unpopular pet positions as cure, which they also say won't do nearly enough to make any change, but at least it's a step in the right direction(?!).

And neither side wants the research because it might upset the apple cart and prove either the other sides's point or, worse yet, that something else needs doing that doesn't fit either side's agenda.

So the Left touts wildly speculative models and collections of rigged statistics on one side and the Right complains about the models and quotes rigged statics that fit their position.

And still the real research begs to be done.

adrian r wrote:

That kind of studied neutrality/meta position is one thing in an online community, but is it the most useful outlook where considering real world issues is concerned and action is required?

I hope I've amply demonstrated that the position you constructed here for me is not my position.

And I don't take action without sufficient calibration as to what specifically I'm taking action on. Because, otherwise, how am I supposed to know what action specifically I'm supposed to be taking and what the consequences of said actions might be?

adrian r wrote:

Yes, I recognise that action is only required when the situation warrants it, but still...remember Tolkien's ents, hoom hoom, pondering the fate of Middle Earth and deciding whether to intervene while armies destroyed the forests...

Yes, they should, perhaps, have gone with Treebeard's original thought that the two Hobbits he found were Orcs and crushed them. Decisive action was required because the agents of the dark tower were everywhere, there was clearly an Orc presence nearby and, damnit, too much is at stake!

And this also presupposes that taking massive action on properly and uniformly gathering compiling and processing data, which I advocate, is not taking action.

adrian r wrote:

And recall Rosa Parks: was there enough evidence to warrant her stance on racial segregation at the point she refused to budge from the bus?

What?! Did you even read my post?

Never mind. I've made an effort and clarifed my meaning for those reading and that's good enough for me. Pretend I agree with you and we'll go from there.

Be Well,

Michael Perez

Well, I'm still no clearer. You've told us that you've been speaking to experts, which is fine, and implies you have a higher standard for evidence than many. That's fine too: admirable in fact. But I don't see any specifics that make your stance different from some on what you characterise as the Right, many of whom are saying the jury is still out. And much of what you then go on to say amounts to 'I haven't made my mind up yet'. Is it possible that you're suffering indecision paralysis I wonder ;-) And what benefits would such a condition present for you? Hoom...hoom...

Hi Adrian,

Look, if you'd actually like to read my posts and react to my position rather than the one you've created for me, please feel free to do so. And if you'd rather imagine me as condoning the forcing of Negroes to the back of the bus, that (action you don't like=inaction) or whatever else helps you to enjoy your life, please feel free to do that as well.

And if anyone wants to discuss my actual position, I'd be happy to do so.

Be Well,

Michael Perez

Well, that was...interesting.

And reminds me of this piece you wrote earlier in the thread:

map002 wrote:

Never mind. I've made an effort and clarifed my meaning for those reading and that's good enough for me. Pretend I agree with you and we'll go from there.

...which makes the assumption that what I'm after is your agreement. And also presupposes that you're interested in something higher than mere consensus. Which would be your 'objective truth' or whatever you think some yet-to-be-implemented science will reveal when experiments designed and conducted to your satisfaction are conducted. Assuming we still have a planet left by then, that is.

Hi Adrian,

To be clear, I often do something, see what happens when I do it and then calibrate from there. It's a way of operating under a TOTE structure. And that's what I was doing in the sentence you quoted.

But, again, as you're doing quite a good job of hallucinating an entire belief structure for me in this context, if you want to pretend I was doing something else there as well, please feel free to do so.

Be Well,

Michael Perez

Anyone seen Al Gore, an inconvieneint truth? And/or watched his talk on TED? I haven't watched his talks on TED yet here they are:

Al Gore on averting climate crisis | Video on TED.com
Al Gore's new thinking on the climate crisis | Video on TED.com

Hi Sam,

Since you've not yet watched these videos yourself, you're posting the links here... why exactly? And why not a thousand other links on the topic you've no experience of instead?

I don't mind you posting links to information, but would you consider only posting material that you have some experience with and that you'd be willing to share your thoughts about here?

Otherwise topics can get crowded with material of dubious relevancy.

If you choose something you have an experience of, then you can provide us with an opinion of the material or some points you find worth discussion.

Thanks, Sam!

Be Well,

Michael Perez

Hi Michael,

Thanks for the reply. I hear you! I do agree, I have seen a lot of links on here for all sorts of dubious youtube videos.

I was actually at one stage thinking of lecturing about climate change. But as you can probably relate, I couldn't fit it into my busy schedule at that stage!

I posted these because many people turn to Al Gore's opinions and insights. Arguably, his done more to bring awareness of climate change than anyone else around the globe. Generally TED gives the impression that they only like to deal with the world's best. I thought that something that pertains to saving the future of all the generations that follow us on this planet might be useful!

After seeing the discussion above I thought we could turn it to a more scientific nature and he quotes a lot of facts and figures in an inconvienent truth. What I should have said, if someone's looking for lots of facts and figures that attempt to give an impression that they're grounded in science, have a look at Al Gore, his done some research in this area.

Anyway, noted, I won't post anything like this in future. If you don't feel comfortable with anything I post, or the amount I post feel free to private message me.

Cheers,

Sam

PS. I actually went through about 11 you tube videos before posting the two 90 second Brian Tracy videos to give people the best introduction to his ideas on business success, personal success and focusing in life.

Hi Sam,

I seem to have communicated badly. Please allow me to clarify my meaning here. I don't mind you posting links to any information you think is relevant. The only thing that I would ask is that you consider only posting links that you think are of high quality based on your own experience.

I hope that's clearer!

Be Well,

Michael Perez

Hi Sam,

I decided to post this reply to something else I thought was of interest in your reply separately from my earlier clarification for, well, the sake of clarity!

anony67 wrote:

I posted these because many people turn to Al Gore's opinions and insights. Arguably, his done more to bring awareness of climate change than anyone else around the globe. Generally TED gives the impression that they only like to deal with the world's best. I thought that something that pertains to saving the future of all the generations that follow us on this planet might be useful!

After seeing the discussion above I thought we could turn it to a more scientific nature and he quotes a lot of facts and figures in an inconvienent truth. What I should have said, if someone's looking for lots of facts and figures that attempt to give an impression that they're grounded in science, have a look at Al Gore, his done some research in this area.

I would indeed agree that Al Gore has set himself up as a champion of the current mainstream policy efforts to address climate change.

And, I'd agree that, in doing so, he purports to use many facts and figures that, as you rightly say, 'attempt to give an impression that they're grounded in science'.

And, unfortunately, even advocates of the mainstream position on Global Warming are sometimes embarrassed by Mr. Gore's 'creative' use of facts and figures, the sort pointed out by this UK court ruling...

And of course, Mr. Gore has a vested interest in backing the mainstream view. Aside from his ongoing political affiliations which back a specific political response to the issue, he's also one of the major players in the carbon offset credit industry and has substantial holdings, like this one. And this in spite of the fact that the carbon credit system is much criticised in the environmentalist community as being ineffective at best and counter-productive at worst.

Mr Gore demonstrably has a lot to lose if his policies aren't adapted and much to gain if they are. And they might even help the environment a little, who knows? We don't, in part because he opposes the research that would tell us so.

So, I think that if one considers Mr. Gore's involvements, affiliations and track record, one might well learn a lot from him. And there just might be something more to be learned at a logical level above the level of the content he's delivering, by considering the context.

Or so it seems to me.

Be Well,

Michael Perez

Hi All,

One last bit and I'll climb down off me soapbox and stop speechifying for a bit...

I'm always much more about lighting candles than cursing the darkness, so here's one of my favourite renaissance men, Dr. Freeman Dyson on his long-term involvement with the issue, his experience with what happened after big political money and 'big science' became involved with it and his practical thoughts as to what can be done from a scientific rather than political perspective.

Here's a video interview in two parts, [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTSxubKfTBU&feature=related"]here[/ame] and [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k69HUuyI5Mk&NR=1"]here[/ame].

And here's a recent article here.

Practical, cogent stuff, methinks. And if Dyson's optimistic that the truth will out in these things, perhaps even jaded ole me can be as well...

Be Well,

Michael Perez

Hi Michael,

Don't mind you on your soap box at all. Usually learn something. And if you're standing up high, it's probably better to have something better than soap, if things get too hot in here, less likely to melt, less likely to cause accidents

Sam

hi Michael, climate...change...has...been...caused...by...hydr o...electric...Dams...
over...the...last...hundred...years...or...so!..co mmon...sense...really!..consider...
the...effects...on...the...weather...moving...larg e...amounts...of...water...
sometimes...many...many...miles...from...its...ori ginal...source!..moving...
where...the...condensation...rises!...and...where. ..clouds...form...
its...not...rocket...science!..

peace&love...vern

Hi Vern,

Thanks for your input. I'll take that into consideration.

Be Well,

Michael Perez