Former Irish Times journalist John Gibbons on media coverage of climate change

[The Field Marshal]

In your terminology Gibbons was without a doubt an AGW cultist, probably a archangel of Gaia actually.

Well if you want to put it that way.


Gaia Im sure you know has been scientifically analysed.


The results have proved what many have thought for a long long time namely that :

the entire Gaia hypothesis is based entirely on the random arrangement of virulent escherichia coli within the human intestine.

[Húrin]

Well if you want to put it that way.


Gaia Im sure you know has been scientifically analysed.


The results have proved what many have thought for a long long time namely that :

the entire Gaia hypothesis is based entirely on the random arrangement of virulent escherichia coli within the human intestine.

right

[jmcc]

So the IT is finally rid of that twit. maybe there is hope for the IT yet. Journalistic integrity is more important that the 'coming climite crisis' or what ever is the current uber-liberal madness.

I had to laugh at the rather grandiose positioning of the Irish Times as Ireland's equivalent of the UK's Guardian newspaper. I wonder if any more 'columnists' will be canned by the Irish Times as it seeks to recover from the damage of the reign of error. The IT must have worn all those poor shills out inflating the property bubble.

Regards...jmcc

[SirCharles]

If you follow the citations at the bottom of the article, I think you'll find the 400 years information. It's in a pdf file. Here's an html link:

Bad Mileage: 98 tons of plants per gallon



Now whether or not you believe in AGW, the volumes of biomass required to power modern industrial civ (via fossil fuels) are mind boggling. The world currently consumes one cubic mile of oil a year - this link shows what would be needed to replace this apparently peaking energy source with alternatives:

The Oil Drum | That cubic mile

I think you don't get me, derm0t. So here my previous post again:

"I'm not talking about the natural fluctuation of bio masse on the planet.

Those oil and gas fields, which we are sucking empty in just a couple of decades, have taken tens and hunderds of millions of years to develop.
Every year we are burning the equivalence of 100,000s if not even 1,000,000s of the years it had taken mother nature's planet to absorb that amount of carbon out of our atmosphere.
Every year we produce more than 30 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide additional to the existing carbon household which is already weakened by massive deforesting."

When we know that we burn every year the equivalence of 400 years global vegetations' growing, then we should realise how unbalanced our system of robbing the planet is. And we should also consider how many millions of years this once tropical planet took to absorp and store the carbon we release nowadays without batting an eye.

I don't ask myself anymore the question whether this "could have an impact" on our planet's climate.

[Tombo]

I thought Gibbins was spon on.

On one side, arguing the reality of AGW, are climate scientists. On the other, with a thousand-and-one much-debunked & clapped-out denials are cranks, free market ideologues and attention seekers.

Whose side are you on?

Whose side?

What is more reassuring about the true skeptical approach to this issue is that it recognises that the issue is far more nuanced than this.

But given you believe that people must be strictly categorised into two distinct buckets, into which one goes Gibbons? Is he a climate scientist or an clapped-out crank and ideologue?

[Húrin]

Whose side?

What is more reassuring about the true skeptical approach to this issue is that it recognises that the issue is far more nuanced than this.

Is that the same approach that lambasts anyone who doesn't dismiss AGW as being a Marxist conspiracy, with charges that they are a Gaia cultist?