-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
They Should Tell You Climate change
- Thread starter stonehart
- Start date
Free episodes:
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.
UN IPCC Scientist Kenneth P. Green Declares ‘A Death Spiral for Climate Alarmism’ – September 30, 2009 – ‘We can expect climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority’ - Dr. Kenneth Green was a Working Group 1 expert reviewer for the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001
‘The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart — Heads will roll!’ -South African UN Scientist Dr. Will Alexander, April 12, 2009 – Professor Alexander, is Emeritus of the Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering at the University of Pretoria in South Africa, and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters.
UN IPCC Scientist Kenneth P. Green Declares ‘A Death Spiral for Climate Alarmism’ – September 30, 2009 – ‘We can expect climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority’ - Dr. Kenneth Green was a Working Group 1 expert reviewer for the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001
‘The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart — Heads will roll!’ -South African UN Scientist Dr. Will Alexander, April 12, 2009 – Professor Alexander, is Emeritus of the Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering at the University of Pretoria in South Africa, and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” – South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” – South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
“The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense” – declared IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, of New Zealand in 2007. Gray was an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990, author of more than 100 scientific publications. (LINK) & (LINK)
“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
UN IPCC Lead Author Tom Tripp Dissents on man-made warming: ‘We’re not scientifically there yet’ – July 16, 2009
The UN IPCC’s Kevin Trenberth’s claim that the UN IPCC is an “very open” also needs examining. The IPCC summary for policymakers is used to scare politicians and goad the public into action. The UN is all about politics.
“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
UN IPCC Lead Author Tom Tripp Dissents on man-made warming: ‘We’re not scientifically there yet’ – July 16, 2009
The UN IPCC’s Kevin Trenberth’s claim that the UN IPCC is an “very open” also needs examining. The IPCC summary for policymakers is used to scare politicians and goad the public into action. The UN is all about politics.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Dr. John Brignell, a UK Emeritus Engineering Professor at the University of Southampton who held the Chair in Industrial Instrumentation at Southampton, accused the UN of “censorship” on July 23, 2008. “Here was a purely political body posing as a scientific institution. Through the power of patronage it rapidly attracted acolytes. Peer review soon rapidly evolved from the old style refereeing to a much more sinister imposition of The Censorship. As Wegman demonstrated, new circles of like-minded propagandists formed, acting as judge and jury for each other. Above all, they acted in concert to keep out alien and hostile opinion. ‘Peer review’ developed into a mantra that was picked up by political activists who clearly had no idea of the procedures of science or its learned societies. It became an imprimatur of political acceptability, whose absence was equivalent to placement on the proscribed list,” Brignell wrote.
Research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) & (LINK) McLean’s research revealed that the UN IPCC peer-review process is “an illusion.” McLean’s study found that very few scientists are actively involved in the UN’s peer-review process. The report contained devastating revelations to the central IPCC assertion that ‘it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.” The analysis by McLean states: “The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all.” Repeating: Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, according to this recent analysis.
Research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) & (LINK) McLean’s research revealed that the UN IPCC peer-review process is “an illusion.” McLean’s study found that very few scientists are actively involved in the UN’s peer-review process. The report contained devastating revelations to the central IPCC assertion that ‘it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.” The analysis by McLean states: “The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all.” Repeating: Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, according to this recent analysis.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Here is a small sampling of what current and former UN scientists have to say about the UN IPCC’s “very open” process.
(Below are excerpts from various U.S. Senate reports which Climate Depot’s Morano authored during his years at the U.S. Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee.)
One former UN IPCC scientist bluntly told the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) committee how the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers “distorted” the scientists work. “I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said,” explained South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
In an August 13, 2007 letter, UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Madhav Khandekar, a retired Environment Canada scientist, lashed out at those who “seem to naively believe that the climate change science espoused in the [UN's] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) documents represents ‘scientific consensus.’” Khandekar continued: “Nothing could be further than the truth! As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters. I have also pointed out in my letter that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of Greenhouse gas induced warming of the earth’s surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed.” “Unfortunately, the IPCC climate change documents do not provide an objective assessment of the earth’s temperature trends and associated climate change,” Khandekar concluded.
Paul Reiter, a malaria expert formerly of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, participated in a past UN IPCC process and now calls the concept of consensus on global warming a “sham.” Reiter, a professor of entomology and tropical disease with the Pasteur Institute in Paris, had to threaten legal action to have his name removed from the IPCC. “That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed,” he said on March 5, 2007. “It’s not true,” he added.
Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea of NOAA’s National Hurricane Center, was both an author a reviewer for the IPCC’s 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, but resigned from the 4th Assessment Report after charging the UN with playing politics with Hurricane science. Landsea wrote a January 17, 2005 public letter detailing his experience with the UN: “I am withdrawing [from the UN] because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.” “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound,” Landsea added.
In addition, a Greenpeace activist co-authored a key economic report in 2007. Left unreported by most of the media was the fact that Bill Hare, an advisor to Greenpeace, was a lead co- author of a key economic report in the IPCC’s 4th Assessment. Not surprisingly, the Greenpeace co-authored report predicted a gloomy future for our planet unless we follow the UN’s policy prescriptions.
The UN IPCC’s own guidelines explicitly state that the scientific reports have to be “change[d]” to “ensure consistency with” the politically motivated Summary for Policymakers.
In addition, the IPCC more closely resembles a political party’s convention platform battle – not a scientific process. During an IPCC Summary for Policymakers process, political delegates and international bureaucrats squabble over the specific wording of a phrase or assertion.
Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit, one of the individuals responsible for debunking the infamous “Hockey Stick” temperature graph, slammed the IPCC Summary for Policymaker’s process on January 24, 2007.
McIntyre wrote: “So the purpose of the three-month delay between the publication of the (IPCC) Summary for Policy-Makers and the release of the actual WG1 (Working Group 1) is to enable them to make any ‘necessary’ adjustments to the technical report to match the policy summary. Unbelievable. Can you imagine what securities commissions would say if business promoters issued a big promotion and then the promoters made the ‘necessary’ adjustments to the qualifying reports and financial statements so that they matched the promotion. Words fail me.”
Former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. also detailed the corruption of the UN IPCC process on September 1, 2007: “The same individuals who are doing primary research in the role of humans on the climate system are then permitted to lead the [IPCC] assessment! There should be an outcry on this obvious conflict of interest, but to date either few recognize this conflict, or see that since the recommendations of the IPCC fit their policy and political agenda, they chose to ignore this conflict. In either case, scientific rigor has been sacrificed and poor policy and political decisions will inevitably follow,” Pielke explained. He added: “We need recognition among the scientific community, the media, and policymakers that the IPCC process is obviously a real conflict of interest, and this has resulted in a significantly flawed report.”
Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher: “The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact.”
UN Scientists Who Have Turned on the UN IPCC & Man-Made Climate Fears — A Climate Depot Flashback Report | Climate Depot
(Below are excerpts from various U.S. Senate reports which Climate Depot’s Morano authored during his years at the U.S. Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee.)
One former UN IPCC scientist bluntly told the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) committee how the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers “distorted” the scientists work. “I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said,” explained South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
In an August 13, 2007 letter, UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Madhav Khandekar, a retired Environment Canada scientist, lashed out at those who “seem to naively believe that the climate change science espoused in the [UN's] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) documents represents ‘scientific consensus.’” Khandekar continued: “Nothing could be further than the truth! As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters. I have also pointed out in my letter that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of Greenhouse gas induced warming of the earth’s surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed.” “Unfortunately, the IPCC climate change documents do not provide an objective assessment of the earth’s temperature trends and associated climate change,” Khandekar concluded.
Paul Reiter, a malaria expert formerly of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, participated in a past UN IPCC process and now calls the concept of consensus on global warming a “sham.” Reiter, a professor of entomology and tropical disease with the Pasteur Institute in Paris, had to threaten legal action to have his name removed from the IPCC. “That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed,” he said on March 5, 2007. “It’s not true,” he added.
Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea of NOAA’s National Hurricane Center, was both an author a reviewer for the IPCC’s 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, but resigned from the 4th Assessment Report after charging the UN with playing politics with Hurricane science. Landsea wrote a January 17, 2005 public letter detailing his experience with the UN: “I am withdrawing [from the UN] because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.” “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound,” Landsea added.
In addition, a Greenpeace activist co-authored a key economic report in 2007. Left unreported by most of the media was the fact that Bill Hare, an advisor to Greenpeace, was a lead co- author of a key economic report in the IPCC’s 4th Assessment. Not surprisingly, the Greenpeace co-authored report predicted a gloomy future for our planet unless we follow the UN’s policy prescriptions.
The UN IPCC’s own guidelines explicitly state that the scientific reports have to be “change[d]” to “ensure consistency with” the politically motivated Summary for Policymakers.
In addition, the IPCC more closely resembles a political party’s convention platform battle – not a scientific process. During an IPCC Summary for Policymakers process, political delegates and international bureaucrats squabble over the specific wording of a phrase or assertion.
Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit, one of the individuals responsible for debunking the infamous “Hockey Stick” temperature graph, slammed the IPCC Summary for Policymaker’s process on January 24, 2007.
McIntyre wrote: “So the purpose of the three-month delay between the publication of the (IPCC) Summary for Policy-Makers and the release of the actual WG1 (Working Group 1) is to enable them to make any ‘necessary’ adjustments to the technical report to match the policy summary. Unbelievable. Can you imagine what securities commissions would say if business promoters issued a big promotion and then the promoters made the ‘necessary’ adjustments to the qualifying reports and financial statements so that they matched the promotion. Words fail me.”
Former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. also detailed the corruption of the UN IPCC process on September 1, 2007: “The same individuals who are doing primary research in the role of humans on the climate system are then permitted to lead the [IPCC] assessment! There should be an outcry on this obvious conflict of interest, but to date either few recognize this conflict, or see that since the recommendations of the IPCC fit their policy and political agenda, they chose to ignore this conflict. In either case, scientific rigor has been sacrificed and poor policy and political decisions will inevitably follow,” Pielke explained. He added: “We need recognition among the scientific community, the media, and policymakers that the IPCC process is obviously a real conflict of interest, and this has resulted in a significantly flawed report.”
Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher: “The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact.”
UN Scientists Who Have Turned on the UN IPCC & Man-Made Climate Fears — A Climate Depot Flashback Report | Climate Depot
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Lead author of UN climate report removes name from report: Says colleagues ‘drifted too far to the alarmist side’ & were likening climate change to the ‘Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse’
Via UK Daily Mail: Professor Richard Tol, an economist at the University of Sussex, said the drafts had been changed to make the findings more ‘apocalyptic’. He said colleagues ‘drifted too far to the alarmist side’ and were likening climate change to the ‘Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse’. His section of the report, based on 18 economic studies, predicted in early drafts that global warming of 2.5°C would cut economic output by between 0.2 and 2 per cent a year – much less than the previous estimates of up to 20 per cent.
Via UK Daily Mail: Professor Richard Tol, an economist at the University of Sussex, said the drafts had been changed to make the findings more ‘apocalyptic’. He said colleagues ‘drifted too far to the alarmist side’ and were likening climate change to the ‘Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse’. His section of the report, based on 18 economic studies, predicted in early drafts that global warming of 2.5°C would cut economic output by between 0.2 and 2 per cent a year – much less than the previous estimates of up to 20 per cent.
Angel of Ioren
Friendly Skeptic
Yup, because an economist is the go-to guy for a scientific study... slow clap.
Angel of Ioren
Friendly Skeptic
I must commend your drive in the face of adversity in your cause. It's all good - keep on typing because this thread is quite entertaining.
Angel of Ioren
Friendly Skeptic
So... your philosophy is to if it hurts your wallet it can't be true? Facts don't work that way.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Hey, the guy is a lead author on the IPCC report you claim as your climate authority! LMAO Thank you for making my point.
Burnt State
Paranormal Adept
well at least stay away from coastlines that are falling into the sea, and those that are in fact flooding, or at least the ones where insurance companies are ratcheting up rates for those in dense coastal areas where flooding has been repeating and is expected to get worse by same insurance companies.
that and reconsidering the building of nuclear power stations on top of fault lines, or anywhere near people in fact - that would be a good idea as well.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Al gore told us the sea was rising then bought 2 ocean view homes. Burnt...you and Angelo and a few others will figure out soon you have been conned... and you are going to feel real stupid... just like all the IPCC scientists who are jumping ship.
Angel of Ioren
Friendly Skeptic
Anyhoo guys, can we just agree to disagree on this? This thread is basically a rehash of the others...lets go talk about cars! I am so glad I didn't buy a Prius! 
Burnt State
Paranormal Adept
ok, really, for the last time - I DONT CARE WHAT AL GORE DOES!!!
i don't need a leader or an evangelist to form my beliefs. i do not rely on movements. i read, use my life experience, seek out experts, research who is spouting bullsh*t and who has something reasonable and practical to say that is not influenced by an oil or energy company. i dismiss all rhetoric. please, be happy dancing on the oil wastelands with all the profiteers of energy if that suits your own belief system.
Burnt State
Paranormal Adept
I'm not sure who subscribes to AVAAZ.org but i really like their social model of crowd sourcing for human voices and votes to protest global evil in its many forms i.e. rape in Nigeria, murder most foul, planetary destruction, mass executions in Egpyt, pesticides and toxins in your food or whatever cause floats your boat and that you feel is worth supporting. Recently i got a post from them regarding the bee colony disasters and its implications - something we should all be concerned about as pollination is not something you can afford to do by hand. i found in interesting that they linked the same mode of thinking around why Big Pharma gets a pass on toxins in the landscape to climate change denial and how Big Oil also gets to delay progress and positive steps forward by keeping silly arguments like this thread alive that can barely have a reasonable discussion.
anyway here's their email - usually they don't ask for cash, they ask for votes to bring them directly to the political leaders who can create change in the countries that the issue targets. they have been very effective at achieving real global change just through votes - i encourage others to join that digital nation. The links below are inactive - so you'll have to cut and paste if you are interested in pursuing the bee thing. anyone who knows a beekeeper knows the urgency of this issue.
---------------------------------------------------
Dear friends,
Billions of bees are dying, and it's causing an environmental holocaust that threatens all of us. Most scientists agree pesticides are to blame, but pesticide companies are funding junk science that gives politicians an excuse to delay taking action. If enough of us pledge, we could launch a people-powered, totally independent study that finally challenges big pharma.
Click to pledge what you can:
$3$5$10$20$40Pledge another amount.
Right now, billions of bees are dying. Already, there are nowhere near enough honeybees in Europe to pollinate the crops, and in California -- the biggest food producer in the US -- beekeepers are losing 40% of their bees each year.
We're in the middle of an environmental holocaust that threatens all of us, because without pollination by bees, most plants and ⅓ of our food supply are gone.
Scientists are sounding the alarm about pesticides that are toxic to bees, and say we’re using way, way more pesticides on our crops than we need. But as with oil companies and climate change, big drug companies that sell pesticides are fighting back with corporate-funded junk science that questions the evidence, and gives politicians an excuse to delay.
Scientific studies are expensive. Avaaz may be the only crowdsourced funding model in the world able to raise enough to fund the world's first large scale, grass-roots supported, totally independent study of what's killing our bees, that decisively challenges the junk science of big pharma. The need is urgent, and if we can't do this, it's not clear who can. Let's see if we can raise a massive fund to save our bees.
Click to pledge what you can, we’ll process your donation only if we raise enough to fund a study that can go head to head with big pharma:
YES, I'LL PLEDGE $3YES, I'LL PLEDGE $5YES, I'LL PLEDGE $10YES, I'LL PLEDGE $20YES, I'LL PLEDGE $40
To pledge an amount other than the ones listed above, click here.
We’re running out of time. A new study has revealed the scary truth: in more than half of European countries, there are not enough honeybees to pollinate crops. In the UK, the honeybee population is only a quarter of what is actually needed for pollination -- and although other kinds of bees are stepping in to fill the honeybee void, we’ll likely start losing them too if we keep loading our crops down with pesticides.
And it might all be for nothing: in the 70 years since pesticides were introduced, we've learned that some of them do more harm than good when it comes to cultivating our foodbecause they kill off the natural enemies of pests. Worse still, over time many pests become immune to pesticides, forcing farmers to use more and more deadly chemicals -- often poisoning themselves in the process.
Everyone from official government agencies to scientists agree that one group of widely-used pesticides called neonicotinoids is killing bees. But chemical giants like Bayer and their supporters continue to argue against regulation of their products, presenting self-funded research they claim show pesticides aren't necessarily responsible for the bees’ deadly decline. And it's working -- in the United States, the newest battleground for the ban on deadly pesticides, the government says there is not yet enough evidence to justify a ban. If we lose in the US, Europe could follow suit and lift their own temporary hold on these dangerous chemicals.
It’s time to end the debate once and for all. When enough of us pledge, Avaaz will fund research by highly-respected scientists to fill critical gaps in knowledge. Then, we can join beekeepers and local advocacy organisations in a massive global offensive to save the bees by fueling strategies like:
YES, I'LL PLEDGE $3YES, I'LL PLEDGE $5YES, I'LL PLEDGE $10YES, I'LL PLEDGE $20YES, I'LL PLEDGE $40
To pledge an amount other than the ones listed above, click here.
If the bees die out, the world we hand off to our grandchildren will look very different -- apples and almonds could become exotic foods in our supermarkets. But we’re making incredible progress in the fight to protect our precious pollinators: last year 2.4 million Avaaz members were part of a massive movement in Europe that convinced the EU Parliament to place a 2-year ban on the worst bee-killing chemicals. If our movement joins forces now to clear up the false debate that’s stalling our legislators, we could win urgently-needed pesticide bans all over the world and end the chemical war on bees once and for all!
With hope and determination,
Ricken, Mia, Emma, Allison, Christoph, Mais, Emily, Ian, Jeremy and the whole Avaaz team
MORE INFORMATION:
Pesticides halve bees' pollen gathering ability, research shows (The Guardian)
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/29/bees-pollen-pesticides-ban
Honeybee shortage threatens crop pollination in Europe (BBC)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25656283
Pesticides 'making bees smaller' (The Guardian)
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/20/pesticides-making-bees-smaller
U.S. funds research to reduce use of pesticides harmful to bees (Reuters)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/08/epa-honeybees-idUSL2N0KI1QM20140108
Chemical giants go to court, bees go to Washington, and giant carpenter bees (The Guardian)
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/04/bees-buzzfeeds-pesticides-ban-congress
One-Third of U.S. Honeybee Colonies Died Last Winter, Threatening Food Supply (Wired)
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/05/winter-honeybee-losses/
Pesticide Lobby Spends Millions To Defend Chemicals Tied To Bee Deaths (Huffington Post)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/29/pesticide-lobby-bees_n_2980870.html
Warning Signs: How Pesticides Harm the Young Brain (The Nation)
http://www.thenation.com/article/178804/warning-signs-how-pesticides-harm-young-brain
anyway here's their email - usually they don't ask for cash, they ask for votes to bring them directly to the political leaders who can create change in the countries that the issue targets. they have been very effective at achieving real global change just through votes - i encourage others to join that digital nation. The links below are inactive - so you'll have to cut and paste if you are interested in pursuing the bee thing. anyone who knows a beekeeper knows the urgency of this issue.
---------------------------------------------------
Dear friends,
Click to pledge what you can:
$3$5$10$20$40Pledge another amount.
Right now, billions of bees are dying. Already, there are nowhere near enough honeybees in Europe to pollinate the crops, and in California -- the biggest food producer in the US -- beekeepers are losing 40% of their bees each year.
We're in the middle of an environmental holocaust that threatens all of us, because without pollination by bees, most plants and ⅓ of our food supply are gone.
Scientists are sounding the alarm about pesticides that are toxic to bees, and say we’re using way, way more pesticides on our crops than we need. But as with oil companies and climate change, big drug companies that sell pesticides are fighting back with corporate-funded junk science that questions the evidence, and gives politicians an excuse to delay.
Scientific studies are expensive. Avaaz may be the only crowdsourced funding model in the world able to raise enough to fund the world's first large scale, grass-roots supported, totally independent study of what's killing our bees, that decisively challenges the junk science of big pharma. The need is urgent, and if we can't do this, it's not clear who can. Let's see if we can raise a massive fund to save our bees.
Click to pledge what you can, we’ll process your donation only if we raise enough to fund a study that can go head to head with big pharma:
YES, I'LL PLEDGE $3YES, I'LL PLEDGE $5YES, I'LL PLEDGE $10YES, I'LL PLEDGE $20YES, I'LL PLEDGE $40
To pledge an amount other than the ones listed above, click here.
We’re running out of time. A new study has revealed the scary truth: in more than half of European countries, there are not enough honeybees to pollinate crops. In the UK, the honeybee population is only a quarter of what is actually needed for pollination -- and although other kinds of bees are stepping in to fill the honeybee void, we’ll likely start losing them too if we keep loading our crops down with pesticides.
And it might all be for nothing: in the 70 years since pesticides were introduced, we've learned that some of them do more harm than good when it comes to cultivating our foodbecause they kill off the natural enemies of pests. Worse still, over time many pests become immune to pesticides, forcing farmers to use more and more deadly chemicals -- often poisoning themselves in the process.
Everyone from official government agencies to scientists agree that one group of widely-used pesticides called neonicotinoids is killing bees. But chemical giants like Bayer and their supporters continue to argue against regulation of their products, presenting self-funded research they claim show pesticides aren't necessarily responsible for the bees’ deadly decline. And it's working -- in the United States, the newest battleground for the ban on deadly pesticides, the government says there is not yet enough evidence to justify a ban. If we lose in the US, Europe could follow suit and lift their own temporary hold on these dangerous chemicals.
It’s time to end the debate once and for all. When enough of us pledge, Avaaz will fund research by highly-respected scientists to fill critical gaps in knowledge. Then, we can join beekeepers and local advocacy organisations in a massive global offensive to save the bees by fueling strategies like:
- Organising a media tour with our giant Bernie the bee to ensure the research shows up in the world’s biggest media outlets.
- Funding public opinion polls in key agricultural countries to smash the claim that farming communities can’t survive without bee-killing chemicals.
- Going after retailers to take the deadly pesticides off their shelves.It’s already happening in Europe, but we’ll get supermarkets and garden centres around the globe to follow suit.
- Campaigning hard to get a game-changing anti-pesticides bill that has been lounging in the US congress passed once and for all.
- Naming and shaming those pushing the bee-killing pesticides by running hard-hitting billboard and newspaper ads.
- Taking legal action to stop government agencies that have approved neonicotinoid pesticides, despite evidence proving they are toxic to bees and a host of other beneficial creatures.
YES, I'LL PLEDGE $3YES, I'LL PLEDGE $5YES, I'LL PLEDGE $10YES, I'LL PLEDGE $20YES, I'LL PLEDGE $40
To pledge an amount other than the ones listed above, click here.
If the bees die out, the world we hand off to our grandchildren will look very different -- apples and almonds could become exotic foods in our supermarkets. But we’re making incredible progress in the fight to protect our precious pollinators: last year 2.4 million Avaaz members were part of a massive movement in Europe that convinced the EU Parliament to place a 2-year ban on the worst bee-killing chemicals. If our movement joins forces now to clear up the false debate that’s stalling our legislators, we could win urgently-needed pesticide bans all over the world and end the chemical war on bees once and for all!
With hope and determination,
Ricken, Mia, Emma, Allison, Christoph, Mais, Emily, Ian, Jeremy and the whole Avaaz team
MORE INFORMATION:
Pesticides halve bees' pollen gathering ability, research shows (The Guardian)
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/29/bees-pollen-pesticides-ban
Honeybee shortage threatens crop pollination in Europe (BBC)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25656283
Pesticides 'making bees smaller' (The Guardian)
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/20/pesticides-making-bees-smaller
U.S. funds research to reduce use of pesticides harmful to bees (Reuters)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/08/epa-honeybees-idUSL2N0KI1QM20140108
Chemical giants go to court, bees go to Washington, and giant carpenter bees (The Guardian)
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/04/bees-buzzfeeds-pesticides-ban-congress
One-Third of U.S. Honeybee Colonies Died Last Winter, Threatening Food Supply (Wired)
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/05/winter-honeybee-losses/
Pesticide Lobby Spends Millions To Defend Chemicals Tied To Bee Deaths (Huffington Post)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/29/pesticide-lobby-bees_n_2980870.html
Warning Signs: How Pesticides Harm the Young Brain (The Nation)
http://www.thenation.com/article/178804/warning-signs-how-pesticides-harm-young-brain
Angel of Ioren
Friendly Skeptic
I understand that you disagree with the idea that humans have mess up the climate, but you really need to step back and not make statements like that.