The Real Carbon “Monster” Revealed
Another day, another stupid assault on the truth by the fossil fuel industry and its paid lackeys. In a recent op-ed for the New York Post, Tom Harris, the executive director of the so-called International Climate Science Coalition -- an organization that’s funded, in part, by the fossil fuel industry -- blasted Leonardo DiCaprio for his work on “Carbon,” a new documentary on climate change that I helped write and present.
I won’t bore you with the details, but essentially, Harris’ editorial is basically a grab bag of all the recycled myths trotted out by Big Oil every time someone dares to mention global warming.
They're all there - idea that man-made climate change isn’t settled science, the idea that greenhouse gasses are actually “good,” the idea that there’s a big globalist conspiracy to hide the truth about CO2. Anybody who reads it is almost guaranteed to lose a few IQ points.
But there’s one lie that really stands out from Harris’ piece. And that’s the idea that climate scientists and climate activists are actually evil, that they’re part of a big virus or “monster” that’s sucking up money and resources all in the name of saving the planet.
Quoting fellow global warming denier Gordon Fulks, Harris writes, The climate scare... has ‘become a sort of societal pathogen that virulently spreads misinformation in tiny packages like a virus’....The costs of feeding the climate-change ‘monster’ are staggering. According to the Congressional Research Service, from 2001 to 2014 the US government spent $131 billion on projects meant to combat human-caused climate change.
Of all the obscene things said about climate science by global warming deniers, this has got to be one of the worst. Sure, some of the projects aimed at fighting global warming might be expensive, but they’re worth it. And as a new study by the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate has found, they’ll actually be better for the economy in the long run, especially if paired with something like a carbon tax.
But the most insane part of the idea that climate scientists and environmentalists are a bloodsucking “monster” is that carbon, which Tom Harris wants you think is a good thing, is the real “monster.” And as Leonardo DiCaprio and I pointed out in our new documentary, it’s about to get a whole lot bigger:
Make no mistake, if we don’t do something soon to keep this carbon monster under control, industrial civilization as we know it could vanish, maybe even forever. There is no debate, and the science is settled. Global warming is real, and probably worse than we thought. Ignore the lies from the fossil fuel industry and start taking action before it’s too late.
Go to greenworldrising.org for more information on how you can fight the carbon monster and save planet earth, the one planet we call home.
Dear Thom, nothing you have said provides the slightest bit of evidence that man-made carbon dioxide causes dangerous global warming.
In many blogs like this, I have challenged people like you to produce hard evidence that man-made carbon dioxide causes dangerous global warming. Without exception, they have shut down the conversation without responding to the question.
Perhaps you can provide the answer I seek? If you can, please do so: if you cannot, then I can only conclude that you have no scientific argument to support your beliefs.
Please note that you cannot use the output of climate models as "evidence". Firstly, because they are programmed to show rapid warming if carbon dioxide levels increase. So, if you use them, you are assuming what you are trying to prove. Secondly, you must explain why the climate models failed to predict the lack of warming over the last 17 years. So far, there appear to be 29 different excuses for this. None of them touch on the obvious explanation: the climate changes naturally.
Note also, that you cannot use "consensus". This from Michael Crichton.
"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."
Even if consensus did matter, there is no known consensus among climate experts who focus on the causes of climate change about the only issue that matters:
"Are carbon dioxide emissions from human activity causing, or likely to cause, dangerous climate change?" The consensus argument is simply an urban legend to keep those who disagree with political correctness on this issue afraid to speak out.
Here is the interview I just reference on NewsMax: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/climate-change-Tom-Harris-restrictions-crazy/2014/09/17/id/595292/
As a botanist, the only engineer who has ever liked me was a soil engineer. Elsewise, engineers and the earth are mortal enemies, and they see me coming a mile off singing "I'm a ramblin' wreck from Georgia Tech and a Hell of an Engineer. A Hell of a, Hell of a, Hell of a, Hell of a, Hell of an engineer."
When I was in college, I took my savings and opened a plant shop across from campus- a little ahead of my time. I had some visual designers make a green silk banner to hang over my upstairs window. It was very expensive. Guess who got drunk and tore it down and hung it up in his dorm room as a trophy? An engineering student. Someone ratted him out to me through the school newspaper. I called the police to get it back, and the grommets had been ripped out of the fabric, so it was essentially ruined. The police wanted me to press charges. The student begged on his knees not to press charges because he was graduating engineering school and it would ruin his career. He promised to pay for a new banner. As mad as I was, I couldn't ruin someone's career, though he had violated my attept at doing business. No charges were pressed, and he never replaced the banner. He never had the money.
The engineer and I are like two magnets repelling each other. From my point of view, those who have been wantonly de-foresting, draining, damming, mining, drilling, blasting, and excavating the earth for hundreds of years are bent on the destruction of the world.
Those who poison us are bent on the destruction of mankind.
Those who take our property and bleed us dry are bent on enslavement.
It is true we are a carbon-based planet. It is true that C02 is different than Carbon.
However to say that C02 is not toxic is not true according to U.S. National Library of Medicine Institutes of Health.
Toxicol Rev. 2005;24(4):229-35.Carbon dioxide poisoning.Langford NJ.Author information
Carbon dioxide is a physiologically important gas, produced by the body as a result of cellular metabolism. It is widely used in the food industry in the carbonation of beverages, in fire extinguishers as an 'inerting' agent and in the chemical industry. Its main mode of action is as an asphyxiant, although it also exerts toxic effects at cellular level. At low concentrations, gaseous carbon dioxide appears to have little toxicological effect. At higher concentrations it leads to an increased respiratory rate, tachycardia, cardiac arrhythmias and impaired consciousness. Concentrations >10% may cause convulsions, coma and death. Solid carbon dioxide may cause burns following direct contact. If it is warmed rapidly, large amounts of carbon dioxide are generated, which can be dangerous, particularly within confined areas. The management of carbon dioxide poisoning requires the immediate removal of the casualty from the toxic environment, the administration of oxygen and appropriate supportive care. In severe cases, assisted ventilation may be required. Dry ice burns are treated similarly to other cryogenic burns, requiring thawing of the tissue and suitable analgesia. Healing may be delayed and surgical intervention may be required in severe cases."
Further, as humans we have much greater mass than smaller to miniscule organisms. What is a relatively low concentration for human exposure is greater for invertebrates and moreso, for plankton, the base of the world's food chain.
I watched greenworld rising and think Leonardo D-C's voice and phrasing was as laden with foreboding and danger as the situation warrants. It all went perfectly with my concept of earth destroyers sucking up bucks and leaving swathes of destruction wherever they go.
Probably, this has blown his chance to be asked to run for governor of California.
It is our position, after over a decade of climate science literature review, that the sun is the main direct and indirect driver of climate change - affecting atmospheric oscillations and ocean currents. There are cyclical patterns of solar variation give a very good correlation over 400 years of observations. Current climate models are diverging rapidly higher from observed temperatures - and this was noted in the last IPCC report of Setp 2013 -the Physical Sciences Working Group I. Dr. Judith Curry's testimony to the US Senate (Jan 16, 2014) outlined threee problems with current global warming theory - carbon dioxide is rising but temperatures have stagnated; human factors appear to be less influential than natural factors; the IPCC has no acceptable explanation for this divergence. As of 2002 temperature trends are declining along with TSI. Global warming stopped before Kyoto was ever ratified. These are facts - important facts. We should be able to discuss them in a calm and rational manner. One of our scientific advisors, Dr. Madhav Khandekar, prepared a report called "The Global Warming-Extreme Weather Link" and in it, he shows that the only trend toward extreme weather is an increase in cold snaps - some in tropical places; some extended as in Europe's recent long cold winters. If, as solar physicists almost unanimously predict, global cooling is imminent, we are completely unprepared. Consequently, let us discuss these matters in a way that can benefit all of us. The investment of $1.2 trillion in carbon reduction/climate change measures up to 2012 has done nothing for the environment and has helped to virtually bankrupt much of Europe and the UK which 'rushed to renewables' - only to find their people entrenched in 'heat or eat' poverty and industry staggering under the burden of heavy subsidies and an unreliable power grid. We would be pleased to answer questions on our perspective or provide additional references.
How is it that people breath out CO2 at a rate of 40,000 ppm and don't drop dead?
Even if C02 emmissions did not affect climate change, we are still exposed to fallout as are all the organisms of the sea. Countries which have instituted anti-pollution measures are still exposed to what blows around the world. This is true for all air pollutants.
Carbonated beverages will dissolve bone and I am soon going to conduct, for online presentation, an experiment with Pepsi and Coke showing what they dissolve.
There ought to be an investigation of the actual college transcripts and GPA's of some of these people.
I stopped reading the post from the anonymous "leighmf" after the following abusive remarks:
"As a botanist, the only engineer who has ever liked me was a soil engineer. Elsewise, engineers and the earth are mortal enemies"
Why would anyone take anything else he/she says seriously. Sad that the debate is poisoned like this.
Only another botanist, ecologist, biosystematist, zoologist, cell biologist, or bio-organic chemist would take me seriously. That's the point, and that's how seriously I take anything from an engineer who doesn't know C02 is toxic.
I am a comedienne. My name is Leigh. That is pronounced "LEEEEE." I am so beautiful that I cannot post more than my middle and last initial- I get invitations from men all over the world, men who want my full name and address and phone number.
I am also a poet. Do you love poetry?
My perspective is based on the fact that engineers don't like me just because I am in an ecological endeavor. My job assessing impacts always puts limits on their plans. I have experienced this throughout a long career.
Atta girl, Leigh! You tell 'em.
That must be a helluva good post Thom wrote, to attract so much flack from fossil fuel flackies.
By the way, I love poetry.
And please don't take offense to this, but I like looking at your face a lot more than your navel. But if you decide to ignore this unsolicited comment from me, no hard feelings. - AIW
Tom Harris, people on this site usually use monikers that are expressive of who they are or their views, rather than their actual names. It typically has nothing to do with a desire to remain anonymous. In fact, Leigh is her real given name, and M.F. are her other initials. I know what her family name is too, so nothing anonymous is going on there. It's right wing trolls who really hide their identities by revealing as little about themselves as possible on this site. Oh, Leigh and a bunch of other people know my real name, too.
I am still dumbfounded as to what part of global warming people such as you and others in your organization don't understand. People burn stuff, and they have been ever since humans first learned to use fire. Burning stuff combines oxygen and carbon to create CO2 gas, along with direct heat and lots of smoke containing various chemicals.
As human culture has evolved, the rate at which people burn stuff has accelerated, especially with the discovery of fossil fuels. Now, such fuels are being burned at a mind boggling rate as the human population has increased and humans have become dependent upon them as part of our industrial lifestyle. Thus, CO2 levels have increased drastically. Since CO2 acts to trap in heat, the planet is warming. Geologists have shown from geological records, that every time CO2 levels rise, planet Earth warms, with massive ecological consequences. Thus, there is strong circumstantial evidence that CO2 does indeed cause global warming. There is also laboratory evidence showing how CO2 works to trap in heat.
This is the second time I have explained this simple logic this week. The other person has been convinced as have so many others, by wild conspiracy theories that global warming is a hoax being perpetrated by a small cadre of wealthy people in order to tax the rest of us. Do you really want to be associated with the likes of such conspiracy theorists? I guess money talks a lot louder than science for people such as yourself. I certainly don't think 97% of climate scientists could be all that wrong.
Alice what a riot! That is not my real belly button. That icon is an experiment to see if men would be less hostile to a thinking bikini. Plus, it is satire, farce, and my outrageous sense of humor at work.
Thank you for liking my face- I prefer faces too. I'll be back....
You say, "Geologists have shown from geological records, that every time CO2 levels rise, planet Earth warms."
No, you have cause and effect mixed up.
You should have said, "Geologists have shown from geological records, that every time temperature levels rise, CO2 levels also follow with a time delay up to about 8 centuries."
NASA has a different perspective:
The graphs show a direct relationship with temperature rise and rise in atmospheric C02 and sea level rise, in recent time, year by year. This only strengthens the argument that slower causes of global warming in the past such as tectonic movements and gradual changes in ocean circulation patterns indicate that the year by year increase we are experiencing is highly accelerated compared with the past. NASA says the cause is greenhouse gases.
Mr. Harris, all the long-winded posts from you and your ilk won't change the reality of global warming one iota, so you are wasting your time here. I don't pretend to be a scientist, but I am smart enough to know how to distinguish credible scientists from industry hacks like yourself. Sorry you don't like Thom's input on this issue, but it's not going to go away, nor are the 97% of climate scientists who agree with him. So have a nice day, and run along now. - AIW
NASA also states that "The year 2013 tied with 2009 and 2006 for the seventh warmest year since 1880."
I checked into some of my industrial data and found that worldwide, 1880 was a peak period of railroad manufacturing- foundries, smelting houses, mines, and canals dug for steamboats.
Auburn Foundry and Machine Works, J. W. Baxter, President, C. H. Hanna, Secretary and Treasurer Manufacturers of Engines and Boilers and Wood-Working Machinery, Also Designers of Special Machinery On Wabash tracks at foot of Main and Jackson Sts Established 1880 Incorporated 1888;
The phosphate boom of the 1880s;
Jay Cooke (former railroad tycoon) once again wealthy by investing in a silver mine in Utah
Nickel Plate Road built
Oregonian Railway formed in Dundee by Robert Fleming; Earl of Airlie (chairman), Messrs T. H. Cox, Wm. Lonrson (mnnagiug director), John Long, and P. M, Cochrane.
1/21/1880 NEW YORK, ONTARIO AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY Filing Date: JANUARY 21, 1880 Jurisdiction: NEW YORK Status: ACTIVE
2/29/1880 Gotthard railway tunnel between Switzerland and Italy completed
ATLANTIC COAST STEAMBOAT CANAL AND IMPROVEMENT COMPANY JACKSONVILLE FL Filed 11/23/1880 DISS 1/01/1933
INDIAN RIVER RAILWAY AND TRANSPORTATION COMPANY JACKSONVILLE FL Filed 03/22/1880 VOLUNTARY DISSOLUTION 12/31/1963 Officer/Director CHURCHILL, WILLIARD TITUSVILLE FL D SHOEMAKER, JANICE M JACKSONVILLE FL D BASSETT, ARTHUR JACKSONVILLE FL
Naturally I have more examples than the human attention span can handle, but 1880 was a year of great industrial carbon-based pollution, and boy was it hot.
Leigh, I think there will always be men who hate intelligent, thinking women whether they are clad in bikinis, burkas or anything inbetween. We present too much of a threat to their illusions of male superiority.
Don't ever lose that sense of humor. It rocks. - AIW
So, new data indicates that rising CO2 levels lag temperature rise by only about 200 years.
In the second link, it is mentioned that 90% of temperature rise in past events, occured after CO2 levels rose.
Regarding cause and effect, when temperatures rise:
CO2 could cause temperatures to rise,
Temperature rise could cause CO2 levels to rise;
CO2 levels and temperature could interact to cause a rise in both;
or, a third factor could cause both to rise.
Given the complexity of the earth's ecosystem, and the available data, it seems likely that the third scenario is the case: CO2 and temperature interact to cause mutual rises in both during periods of global warming.
Perhaps rising temperatures cause the release of more sequestered CO2, or methane (as is beginning to happen now). Also, warming temperatures could cause more fires, resulting in more release of CO2 into the atmosphere, or, it could devastate forests, reducing the amont of CO2 absorbed by plants.
(By the way, the devastation of forests by humans over the centuries is another factor causing CO2 levels to rise, since plants absorb CO2.)
A lot of us men are actually sapiosexuals, you know. :)
By the way, by clicking on our names on this site, people can see the real names of both Leighmf and myself, so, anonymity -- no way.
One more point, during the current period of warming, we may not be following the natural trend seen during previous periods, due to human-caused combustion. If the idea that CO2 rises lag temperature increases were always true, then this planet should have had significant warming centuries ago, but instead, both temperature and CO2 levels appear to be rising simultaneously.
With what I know its very fustrating to hear people talk about carbon and regulating it and taxing it or anything about it. I agree that carbon is very destructive and unhealthy. SO WHY USE IT AT ALL!! There are energies that their exhaust is only heat or water and are free to produce. If this sounds crazy is because that you don't know about this:
The powers that be keep it from us and force us to buy their products. We shouldn't be using oil or coal or any dirty fuel, especially atomic fuel. This world is so dysfunctional all in the name of greed. Alternative fuels must be used and the word must get out that there are other options. I don't hear anyone that against carbon talk about it.
Thom Hartman, could you please check out these technologies and help get the word out? We don't need to deal with carbon at all..
For the past several decades, since I was in my twenties, I have been aware of this sort of innovation suppression, keeping us all under the boot of corporate fascism.
I checked out that article, Mr. Griffin; admittedly, I don’t have the patience to read the whole thing. But I get the basic point, which I got in the first place ages ago, simply by “connecting the dots”. What first opened by eyes to this phenomenon was marijuana & hemp prohibition; then I saw the larger picture, and it was quite an epiphany. This artificial reality we live in has never looked quite the same to me since.
I think that if technology were truly harnessed to serve the interests of all, there would be no need for privately owned, centralized power sources or utilities. Every household would be functioning independently, autonomously and cheaply, without the monthly bills. We could use our own sewage to heat our homes, drive vehicles that run on organic non-polluting fuel sources, and stop using single-use, disposable, overpackaged products, buying food and other provisions in bulk instead. The list goes on and on. I’m no engineer, scientist or inventor but I have endless faith in the abilities of those who are. I really believe all this would be possible without corporate monopoly getting in the way.
Capitalism is the enemy of true progress. If we can’t figure out how to get this monkey off our backs, it will be the death of us yet. - AIW
Carbon dioxide has some similarities with Dihydrogen Monoxide, a chemical that can also kill. But this government does not class it as dangerous, when it clearly can be fatal. ;-)
So True my friend ,anything you can make from hydrocarbons in oil you can make from vegetable crops like HEMP. And just how much has the information about Cannabis been surpressed !
The point about carbon is that for Humans to survive and Thrive on this planet we need to understand our role as Good Stewards and take responsibility for our childrens and there childrens future .The planets temperatures must remain stable for Humans to evolve and this means understanding the laws of cause and effect .There are consequences for our actions and how we use the resources of our world .
We forget that the choices some of us make have a big impact on the collective and burning fossil fuel instead of using Solar and sustainable energy is one of them .We do not need to do this .
There is Another Way
The hypocricy and hate of the pretend "left" is obvious in this blog.
I have much more important questions which show the ludacracy of this debate and and also the ludacracy of Beauracracies.
To Mr. Harris
Are you against renewable energy? Do you believe mining coal is sustainable? Do you want sustainable/clean energy? We are probably in agreement on the energy debate and moving to solar/wind is much more important than a debate about the cause of climate change...Unless of course you would prefer nulear/coal energy over sustainable energy? Then, I would have to say you are backwards.
To the "left"
Do you actually think that the EPA and the corrupt government that you criticize, the same government that made monsanto head of the USDA, the same government that made the corrupt/polluting corporations you criticize in charge of the EPA, will solve the problem, as Thom is suggesting? How does that work? The beauracracy is the problem.
Here is an idea. Add up all the money spent on the epa over the last 40 years and figure out how many solar panels we could have bought with money. My guess is that with all the money spent on the beauracracy which pays fors beauracrats lunch with the fossil fuel industry, we could have made America energy independent by now.
I will do the math to check my hypothesis
Capitalism is the enemy of true progress.
I just wanted to pretend that I had written AIW's very true words.
It's because Capitalism makes the most money for its corporate shareholders if everything remains Business As Usual. Progress requires Change. Change erodes profits for the shareholders. So don't look for Capitalism to promote any changes that lead toward progress. But retrogression is always possible. Big Lie Fascism is one such retrogression.
They WILL drop dead if forced to re-breath their exhalation.
And don't forget about blood gases- too muh CO2 and you can start walking toward the light...
It's just typical of someone who tries to say that because he is using his real name that he is, somehow, more believable than someone who doesn't. Many people realize that there are a lot of weirdos out there that could target you if they know your real name. Most people don't want to take the chance of using their real name because it makes it so much easier to find out where they live and a lot of other personal things about them. It's really not so hard to find out a lot about people, anyway, even if they do use a fake name on-line. They eventually say a lot about themselves in every place they go on the internet that can eventually lead to a real name and address and a lot of other stuff. But, at least, using a fake name helps to keep most people from knowing who you are. There is nothing unsavory about this practice of using fake names...in a world full of crazies...one has to try to protect oneself from them. If I had a Phd in Social/Personality Psychology, I'd probably be trying to analyze just about everyone based upon my education...but I'm not so I can't....except in my own primitive way...like he's nutso...she isn't...she's pretty intelligent but has some very deep psychological problems...that kind of thing.
Remember Mr. Valentine back in early January of 2014? Tom Harris is part of the same group. ICSC.... that was supported by the Heartland Institute and major corporations.
Signed the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change which declares that “human-caused climate change is not a global crisis” and that there is “no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.” 
The Manhattan Declaration was presented at the Heartland Institute's 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, and has since been promoted by the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC).
Tom Harris is the Executive Director of the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC), a group of climate change skeptics that has received funding from the Heartland Institute. Before starting work with ICSC, Harris was the Executive Director of the now-defunct Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP).
Prior to working with the NRSP, Harris was a Director of Operations of the Ottawa office of a Canadian PR and lobbying firm called the High Park Group (HPG). Harris has also worked with APCO worldwide, a group known for creating The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC) which worked to advance tobacco industry interests.
DeSmogBlog researched the co-sponsors behind Heartland's ICCC7 and found that they had collectively received over $67 million from ExxonMobil, the Koch Brothers and the conservative Scaife family foundations.
Tom Harris was a speaker at the Heartland Institute’s Ninth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC9) in Las Vegas, Nevada. 
According to a search of Google Scholar, Tom Harris has not published any articles in peer-reviewed journals.
Quote sourcewatch.org:The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) is a group of climate change skeptics which describes itself as "an association of scientists, economists, and energy and policy experts working to promote better public understanding of climate change science and policy.
According to the ICSC website,
"Since its formation in 2007, ICSC has been funded and supported exclusively by private individuals... We have never received financial support from corporations, foundations or government."
Yet ICSC received $45,000 from the Heartland Institute in 2007, according to Heartland's Form 990 for that year..
ICSC unwilling to resolve discrepancy
Requests that ICSC resolve this apparent discrepancy between IRS records and the ICSC assertions have been rebuffed.
SueN: I went to that link and read the article. The more I read, the more I began to wonder if this wasn't a gag. Some of the points mentioned seemed kind of incredible... especially the points about the "dangers" and "uses" of DHMO. Some points sound like DHMO should be very dangerous...like "death if you inhale it...even at small amounts", severe tissue damage, found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lessions, causing dogs to become vicious, associated with killer cyclones and hurricanes and El Nino. and then, it goes on to say this stuff is used just about everywhere...at work, in homes, etc. It is used in cult rituals, Church of Scientology, KKK, NAACP, members of Congress, in bath houses in SF and NY, in Hitler's death camps, Japanese and Chinese prison camps during WWII, by terrorist organizations, and it just goes on and on about the wide number of places it is used.
Food additives including baby food, cough medicines and other meds, oven cleaners, shampoos, shaving creams, beer, coffee...and even after washing food the DHMO is still in the food.
This is so absolutely crazy that it is almost funny...is this a gag?
Sports people take this stuff to increase their endurance?
Palindromedary, I don't know if you realize this, but in fact I do have a Ph.D. in Social/Personality Psychology, and the title is written just like that, the same way that you wrote it. I did my doctoral work at the University of California, Riverside. Do I analyze peoples' personalities, social proclivities and psychological issues? Yeah, sort of, but I try not to go overboard or jump to conclusions. It's easy to get wrong ideas if you don't know somebody very well. I do find that my knowledge as a Social/Personality Psychologist is helpful in understanding people that I meet online. I have also learned not to mention my education too much, because it brings strange and inappropriate reactions in certain people (such as paranoia that I am obsessively analyzing them, or resentment/jealousy over my education, or antintellectual reactions), although I don't avoid mentioning it altogether. In this case, I just had to mention it after reading your replies.
There are good reasons for staying anonymous that are relevant to many people. However, as I pointed out, in fact, Leigh and I are really not anonymous, and anybody can discover our identities, so that nobody can claim that we are operating in anonymity.
I noticed that there is no edit button on my first reply to this thread, but there is for subsequent replies. Did the first reply pass some sort of cutoff point for editing?
Natural Lefty: No kidding? What a coincidence! I also frequently see identical triple digits when I glance at a clock. It happens so often it's spooky. I'll wake up in the middle of the night and the clock says 4:44 or 3:33 or 2:22...etc. I keep thinking that I probably should buy a lottery ticket on the days that I experience this. But, I was told that a friend's friend frequently experienced the same thing...she died! I've been told that maybe I should just get rid of my digital clocks and get analog ones. The thing is that people say a lot about themselves on the internet, so there really is no mystery or coincidence about much of anything. But I think you know this...how else would you have been able to figure out ZZ's real name?
Palindromedary, I see pretty random times on the clock, but I am indeed a Social/Personality Psychologist and an Adjunct Professor. :)
People do indeed say a lot about themselves on the internet. Did I say that I know Zenzoe's real name, then forgot saying it? Yes, it's true, I do know her name as well as that of quite a few other people from this site. Zenzoe told me her name. It's Gloria Steinem. Nope, just kidding, but I do know her name (wouldn't say it here, though). :)
I was chatting with my nephew on Facebook recently, and my wife wanted me to print out the conversation; but when I tried, it printed out the same few lines no matter how I tried. The part it printed out was when he asked me: What is the answer to life? I said "23" because that is my number (my birthday as well as my wife's), plus we have 23 pairs of chromosomes. My nephew said he heard it was 42 in a movie. LOL I guess there was some special significance to that conversation, since it kept printing out. (?) A few days later, my nephew visited here and we gave him some money for his college expenses.
Zenzoe's name is Barbara Bush.
Leigh, I respectfully ask you, what the heck are you talking about?! Zenzoe's name is what?!!! - AIW
Natural Lefty: Yes, I would not "out" anyone's real name, either.
What is the meaning of Life?
The "Big Bang" may just be one of many and/or may be recursive. Collapse, bang, collapse, bang! As humans only use a small fraction of their brain capabilities...other lifeforms throughout the Universe may have much greater capacity. We may all be made up of vibrating strings with immense distances between them. We may all be a minuscule part of an unimaginably gigantic unintelligible Cosmic gnat's ass floating around in a vast nothingness. The "meaning of life" may just be totally unimportant because it might just be nonsense. It just is. Suffering the illusion that we can know the "meaning of life"may get us to Mars or beyond but it won't stop us from killing each other, unfortunately. It will certainly keep us busy postulating ridiculous ideas about mythical beings and trying to impose those beliefs on others.
Other life forms have different numbers of chromosomes and so the 23 pairs of chromosomes of humans would not be the right answer unless one believes that earthly humans are the only highly evolved creatures in the Universe.
Someone, who may be more evolved than us, say from another planet...or from our interplanetary visitors at Area 51( but the government tends to hide these things for whatever reason..and so unless one has actually, personally, come into contact with one...the rest of us don't really know if they exist)...;-}...and ET may may know more than we humans do what the answer to life is. But we can only know what we can know and so everything else is purely theoretical or speculative.
Even Max Cohen**, in the end, found more meaning, and perhaps bliss, in the phrase "I don't know" than he did when he spent so much energy and mental toil, assisted by his computer, Euclid, in search of the answer to "pi" ( π). Max's headaches went away at that point of resignation to "I don't know". Many people, who may be frustrated at not knowing, conjure up all kinds of fantastical answers. They claim it gives them "peace of mind"...but I doubt it really does...not really...it only puts up roadblocks to understanding the Universe.
The meaning of the universe may very well be "pi" but whatever it is...so what? Female spiders will still continue to bite the head off of their male mates after mating. Now, that's a real power trip! Some females still demand to be on top. Talk about power trips....
But while Aronofsky's π was not a comedy (?) as was Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (42), you have to remember that π is Universal but HHGTTG (42) was only about the "Galaxy" which is miniscule compared to the Universe.
Why do female spiders kill and eat their male spider mates? Because they are bigger...much bigger...and very hungry. Or, because they (the males) deserved it? Or, to stop them (the males) from snoring? ;-}
Dear Mr. Thom (or is it Dr. Thom? I see you used to work as a psychiatrist),
Thank you for bringing our article about the many mistake in the film Carbon to your readers’ attention. Perhaps the greatest mistake of all was your labeling of carbon dioxide as "poison" in the film. Do you truly believe that CO2, the stuff of life, is "poison", or was that just a slip?
Also, why do you call it "carbon"? Scientists have repeatedly explained that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, which are apparently your principal concern, are neither “carbon” nor “pollution.” Carbon is a naturally occurring, non-toxic element found in all living things. Everything from medicines to trees to oil to our own bodies and those of all other creatures are made of carbon compounds. Pure carbon occurs in nature mainly in only two forms: graphite and diamonds.
Ignoring the oxygen atoms and calling CO2 merely “carbon” makes about as much sense as ignoring the oxygen in water (H2O) and calling it “hydrogen.”
Some corrections to your piece above:
1 - The points Professor Carter and I brought up are not "recycled myths", as you call them. They are easily demonstrated facts you can check out on such sites as www.climate4you.com .
2 - We never said anything like "there’s a big globalist conspiracy to hide the truth about CO2" as you said we said (here is our piece: http://nypost.com/2014/09/14/leo-v-science-vanishing-evidence-for-climate-change/). You just made that up, or repeated it from a source that made it up.
3 - We never said "climate scientists and climate activists are actually evil." That is another thing you made up or repeated, etc.
4 - It is incorrect to say "global warming denier Gordon Fulks". He, like us, is skeptical about the causes of climate change, something all scientifically minded people should be of course, but we deny nothing, except that we are deniers. We are denial deniers.
5 - We did not write that "climate scientists and environmentalists are a bloodsucking “monster”. You must have just made that up too.
6 - You say, "if we don’t do something soon to keep this carbon monster under control, industrial civilization as we know it could vanish, maybe even forever." No one in the science community says that. In fact, science is never certain. Mathematics, yes, but science is just opinions based on observational data, the very opposite of true knowledge.
7 - You write, "There is no debate, and the science is settled." Again, this is silly. There is an immense debate in the scientific community as demonstrated by the thousands of peer reviewed science papers referenced in the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate change - see www.climatechangereconsidered.org.
8 - You write, "Global warming is real". Yes, of course, but so is sunrise, gravity and supernovas in distant galaxies (probably), but that does not mean we are causing them.
I welcome the opportunity to appear on your show about the film or any other climate topic, as I did a few minutes ago on NewsMax TV. I am neither left nor right wing overall (and, sadly, have no funding whatsoever from "Big Oil", as you suggest) and work with people from both sides of the political spectrum.
Having me on your show would be risky of course in that I might change your mind, or that of some of your listeners. But freedom of speech is all about taking risks in allowing people who disagree with you to be heard. If I am wrong, then you should have no trouble defeating me and everyone would hear it. If I am right, then people will understand the world a bit better and so do a better job at protecting the planet from real environmental problems.
Are you prepared to have me on your show? I won't attack you, or misquote you, as you have done me above because, not only is it uncivilized but it is fallacious reasoning as well.
Hope to hear from you soon,
Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng. (Mech.)
International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)
Note: The ICSC relies on donations from the public across the world to cover its operating expenses.