Billionaires fund attacks on climate science

[WhenWhatWho]

In tailing ponds?

Yup, even there...

Phytoremediation

Phytoremediation (from Ancient Greek φυτο (phyto), meaning "plant", and Latin remedium, meaning "restoring balance") describes the treatment of environmental problems (bioremediation) through the use of plants that mitigate the environmental problem without the need to excavate the contaminant material and dispose of it elsewhere.

Phytoremediation consists of mitigating pollutant concentrations in contaminated soils, water, or air, with plants able to contain, degrade, or eliminate metals, pesticides, solvents, explosives, crude oil and its derivatives, and various other contaminants from the media that contain them.

Application

Phytoremediation may be applied wherever the soil or static water environment has become polluted or is suffering ongoing chronic pollution. Examples where phytoremediation has been used successfully include the restoration of abandoned metal-mine workings, reducing the impact of sites where polychlorinated biphenyls have been dumped during manufacture and mitigation of on-going coal mine discharges.

Phytoremediation refers to the natural ability of certain plants called hyperaccumulators to bioaccumulate, degrade,or render harmless contaminants in soils, water, or air. Contaminants such as metals, pesticides, solvents, explosives,[1] and crude oil and its derivatives, have been mitigated in phytoremediation projects worldwide. Many plants such as mustard plants, alpine pennycress, hemp, and pigweed[disambiguation needed] have proven to be successful at hyperaccumulating contaminants at toxic waste sites.

Over the past 20 years, this technology has become increasingly popular and has been employed at sites with soils contaminated with lead, uranium, and arsenic. While it has the advantage that environmental concerns may be treated in situ; one major disadvantage of phytoremediation is that it requires a long-term commitment, as the process is dependent on a plant's ability to grow and thrive in an environment that is not ideal for normal plant growth.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytoremediation

[SurplusElect]

Yup, even there...

So move your family there, set up a drinking well and go swimming. Nature evolves. You can be the first.

See if your child's body can "evolve" around cancer.

[Sneaksuit]

Evolution is goes far beyond genetics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociocultural_evolution

[WhenWhatWho]

So move your family there, set up a drinking well and go swimming. Nature evolves. You can be the first.

See if your child's body can "evolve" around cancer.

That's your best argument? I argue life's resilience (not just human life) and you argue .....actually I'm not too sure what you're getting at.

I'm done replying to you.

[WhenWhatWho]

Evolution is goes far beyond genetics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociocultural_evolution

Now, you're just clutching at straws. I use the term in the classical sense.

[Sneaksuit]

Now, you're just clutching at straws. I use the term in the classical sense.

WhenWhatWho, we're here to learn and share ideas right? Is there a need for belittling rhetoric?

Cultural, technological, social, political and all other forms of meme evolution is most definitely relevant to your argument. Epigenetics surpassed genetics long ago making it the dominant feature of human evolution. Our species is "consciously" evolving, so we choose to affect our environment (Earth) in a way which is conducive to a thriving humanity or is conducive to destroying humanity. It is our choice.

Other species that do not modify their behavior during environmental crisis, such as dietary pressure, face extinction...as the fossil record has witnessed.

[logicalview]

Strange notion. It's not the "green side" it is the "science side". Scientists are at a near consensus that anthropogenic global warming is real. You are saying that scientists are not doing science.

Yet another manufactured "truth" from the completely manufactured man created global warming myth.

[Sneaksuit]

Yet another manufactured "truth" from the completely manufactured man created global warming myth.

Hi logicalview, what is manufactured about the "truth"?

[logicalview]

Hi logicalview, what is manufactured about the "truth"?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2 ... ensus-not/

Now watch the usual suspects pull the Koch brothers out of their butts as their usual straw man to deflect from how the entire man made global warming myth is a giant pile of manufactured lies...

[logicalview]

http://www.thegwpf.org/mett-ridley-luke ... ten-tests/

More good stuff, for those not completely brainwashed by the warmist religion.

[Sneaksuit]

Think about it...if we want information about anthropogenic global warming, would we read a scientific journal which is peer reviewed? Or Forbes which,

"publishes many lists focusing on billionaires and their possessions, especially expensive homes, a critical aspect of the website's apparent popularity.  Forbes.com employs the slogan "Home Page For The World's Business Leaders" and sometimes claims to be the world's most widely visited business web site."? (Wiki)

And your other crackpot website...

"David Aaronovitch noted the GWPF's launch in The Times, writing "Lord Lawson’s acceptance of the science turns out, on close scrutiny, to be considerably less than half-hearted. Thus he speaks of 'the (present) majority scientific view', hinting rather slyly at the near possibility of a future, entirely different scientific view. (...) 'Sceptic' (...) is simply a misnomer. People such as Lord Lawson are not sceptical, for if one major peer-reviewed piece of scientific research were ever to be published casting doubt on climate change theory, you just know they’d have it up in neon at Piccadilly Circus. They are only sceptical about what they don’t want to be true."[25]
The Daily Mail stated that "(Lord Lawson) said the integrity of the evidence on which 'far-reaching and hugely expensive policy decisions' are based has been called into question and the reputation of British science was 'seriously tarnished'. (He) was launching The Global Warming Policy Foundation, a think tank devoted to challenging conventional wisdom about climate change."[26]
The Guardian quoted Bob Ward, policy and communications director of the Grantham Research Institute, as saying "some of those names are straight from the Who's Who of current climate change sceptics...It's just going to be a way of pumping material into the debate that hasn't been through scrutiny". The article cast doubt on the idea that an upsurge in scepticism was underway, noting that "in (the US) Congress, even the most determined opponents of climate change legislation now frame their arguments in economic terms rather than on the science".[27]
Fred Pearce wrote in The Guardian that the three inquiries GWPF looked into were all badly flawed, and that The Climategate Inquiries report ably dissects their failures. He writes that the report, "for all its sharp—and in many cases justified—rejoinders to the official inquiries ... is likely to be ignored in some quarters for its brazen hypocrisy." Pearce argues that one of the criticisms of the three inquiries was that no climate sceptics were on the inquiry teams, and now the critics themselves have produced a review of the reviews that included no one not already supportive of the sceptical position. But, Pearce wrote, Montford "has landed some good blows here." [28] (Wiki)


Get real. You wouldn't get your car fixed by a musician or get your house built by computer programmer so why would you ask a business man about global warming? They won't even reveal who funds them.

[logicalview]

Try reposting without personal attakcs - Jennylives

[JLives]

Posts are getting dangerously close to personal attacks. Stick to the topic and presenting your point of view without attacking others please.

[SurplusElect]

That Forbes article goes into great detail

That is a opinion piece, not a news article.

[logicalview]

Use the PM feature to contact mods.