tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5553223153127316311.post3273122433725671777..comments2023-11-02T20:57:52.529+05:30Comments on Rajan's Take: Climate Change: Climate Change Policy of Christian Aid: Nothing inherently Christian about it!Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5553223153127316311.post-61953540626091194082010-02-19T20:59:27.375+05:302010-02-19T20:59:27.375+05:30You can sum up knowledge in your own words in many...You can sum up knowledge in your own words in many circumstances, assuming your knowledge corresponds to actual facts and assuming the audience is familiar enough with you to understand your level of knowledge (such as casual conversation, a speech where people come to hear you because of your credentials, etc.). Also, assuming it is a form of communication that doesn't lend itself well to citations (such as verbal), that is acceptable.<br /><br />1. This is not a casual conversation. You're writing a lengthy piece intending to persuade the public about a particular point. It's a form where you could easily link to data if you choose, in fact most people do.<br /><br />2. When asked for evidence, you need to be able to provide that specific evidence (show me exactly what confirms it).<br /><br />3. When you can't find it, you need to acknowledge that fact in order to at least confirm your honesty.<br /><br />Like I said, I get the part-time blogger thing. Might I suggest that, instead of writing thousands and thousands of words, you bite of smaller chunks and include some data and evidence along with your points?<br /><br />As to the U.S. farmer debate: so if we're in trouble for dumping corn, why the outcry when we have another domestic market to take up the surplus? That's what I'm talking about, U.S. farmers are criticized on every side: You make too much and dump it in other markets/You don't provide enough for other markets because of biofuels.<br /><br />And even before GM crops, our yields were well above the rest of the world, even the rest of the worlds' yields today. Our irrigation rates are low (85% of our corn uses rain). Fertilizer rates get lower as more targeted practices are adopted each year. We've established programs that are successfully lowering fertilizer runoff into the Mississippi River.<br /><br />So do you want us to provide for the hungry, or grow less?<br /><br />We're still growing the same stuff we grew decades before biofuels, and we're doing a better job of it every year.Matt Merritthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02731741347561501172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5553223153127316311.post-23638549597170438332010-02-19T09:49:30.971+05:302010-02-19T09:49:30.971+05:30Matt,
Citing a source surely gives a sense of aut...Matt,<br /><br />Citing a source surely gives a sense of authority. On the other hand, you can sum up knowledge in your own words. A blog is different from an academic paper that is to be published in the sense it is not meant to boost one's profession as part of their CV. So viva la difference. <br /><br />You be surprised that I have done some grassroot work in environment and organic farming. After 2000, I stopped to concentrate full-time on consulting. I appreciate the difference that both productivity and, production have significantly increased in the last century. It has done so, all over the world. But acreage is slipping. So has grain availability. Cultivated acreage has to increase side by side productivity increases if globally we have to feed humanity as well as it has it be made cheap enough to be affordable for the poor. <br /><br />Matt, US farmers might take pride in feeding the world. Other countries of the world, including EU don't. We like to feed ourselves. If the US is seen as the devil, it is because of the subsidy factor that dumps cheap imports in other countries that make local agriculture uncompetitive. Alot of food besides gets dumped as aid. I have seen its adverse effect in many countries I had evaluated. Take away subsidies and see the real cost of production. That's another debate I do not want to enter at this moment.<br /><br />Our organic movement in India is rapidly growing, especially in South India where I live. It reduces cost/pesticide use and gives more consistent high yields, less water intensive. One of the reasons why GM cannot make much headway is that in terms of practice and productivity, the organic movement can tout results. We beat off introduction of BT Brinjal a few weeks back. 60% of our agriculture is rainfed. The SW Monsoon failed last year - our main agricultural season. However preliminary estimates indicate that we will end up with flat growth, if not slightly positive growth this current year. Over the years, we have succeeded in drought proofing our agriculture through micro-watershed, irrigation etc. BT Cotton has shown mixed results. In some states it failed miserably leading to farmer suicides while in others it has given increased yields.Rajan Alexandernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5553223153127316311.post-18029947875936355652010-02-19T04:01:43.730+05:302010-02-19T04:01:43.730+05:30I understand the “part-time blogger” notion, and I...I understand the “part-time blogger” notion, and I don’t think any errors are intentional misrepresentations. <br /><br />I think most people go through each day with little to no thought about what they’re doing to the environment, how much food they’re WASTING, who or what they’re funding with import buys, etc. Meanwhile, at the drop of a hat they point at the American farmer as the devil of the modern world. Trust me, farmers care more about their land than most people. They take an incredible amount of pride in their role of feeding the world. They have important generational ties to their land and communities.<br /><br />On the laundry list of things causing world hunger, I believe farm management and biofuels are insignificant, well behind war, corrupt third-world governments, poor distribution infrastructure, etc. The World Bank report was written during the height of the commodities run-up of 2008. The stock market was crashing, oil was at $140 a barrel, and investors fled to commodities and ran prices up to $8 per bushel. Today, we make way more ethanol and biofuels, yet corn is at $3.60. Since that report, we have the benefit of hindsight, and hindsight tells us that biofuels did not ruin the market. Flighty investors did.<br /><br />Farmers this year produced a record 165 bushels per acre for corn. We set a production record on 7 million fewer acres than the previous record a few years back. That’s mind-blowing efficiency, and it’s not a one-time bump. Our efficiency has consistently improved since the Dust Bowl. <br /><br />Meanwhile, Brazil’s producing 60 bushels per acre. China’s producing 90 bushels per acre. Rather than screaming about farmers’ practices, we should be teaching other countries how to improve their yields to feed the hungry. If you boosted yields just in China and Brazil by 25 percent (waaaay below the U.S. still), you’d add more than 2 billion bushels to the market. That’s more than the U.S. exports. You asked if the U.S. was going to need to import feed corn in the future. We’ve maintained 1.5-2 billion bushel corn carryovers throughout the biofuels boom, the same as before, and our soybean acres are just as high as before, highest ever this year, in fact. How? Mainly yield increases.<br /><br />Plus, ethanol production returns 1/3 of the grain back to the livestock industry through its high-protein byproduct, distillers’ grains.<br /><br />We need to continue to decrease fertilizer rates. We need more buffer strips. But the amount of disdain for the American farmer is largely a product of over-hyped critics who each outdo the last with their fury until the clamoring is so loud you can’t hear yourself think.<br /><br />Most farmers aren’t online defending themselves, so I happily oblige.Matt Merritthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02731741347561501172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5553223153127316311.post-80540604198452489462010-02-19T01:12:06.284+05:302010-02-19T01:12:06.284+05:30Matt!
Thanx. You are right - cite the source, and...Matt!<br /><br />Thanx. You are right - cite the source, and there should be no ambiguity. <br /><br />Most Bloggers have a problem. They make a living out of some other activity and make some spare time for blogging. Actually, I have been since late Oct been writing on this issue, once a week - usually Sunday nights. I started to put this on blog only recently. So your advice is appreciated.<br /><br />Science is essentially skepticism. By your postings, I can appreciate you have all the qualifications of a genuine scientist, since skepticism is alive and kicking in you. You have my e-mail ID and if you think any of your writings may interest me, please be free to send me a copy.<br /><br />From libel to unethical - this is progress. In my opinion, unethical only applies when one is not true to his beliefs. I do not think I fall into this category. I never have been. Secondly, it may apply if sworn in secrecy by some previous contract. I have done a couple of assignments for Christian Aid but not involving Climate Change. <br /><br />I have spent 30 years in the NGO sector, 15 years of which closely associated with the European Protestant Donor network in India, which Christian Aid is apart. Besides, I am an Indian and affected by their climate change advocacy. This gives me a right however indirect to comment on their policy.Rajan Alexanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07496301416048254072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5553223153127316311.post-77670489889292693892010-02-19T00:49:06.622+05:302010-02-19T00:49:06.622+05:30I myself am skeptical of global warming. I’ve look...I myself am skeptical of global warming. I’ve looked at evidence on both sides, and I’m still undecided. My issue is that it seems that ideology is the guiding force on both sides of the issue, rather than an honest look at the data.<br /><br />My issue with you is that you refuse to quote any passage that supports your claim. You copy out titles of articles or provide links to volumes of text, yet you can’t pinpoint a single piece of data that confirms what you said, and after reading everything, I can’t see it either. You write “When you quote a source it does not mean one endorses all what he or she wrote.” Yet you won’t quote for me what, specifically, supports your claim, so what am I supposed to think?<br /><br />On top of that, you go off on others for not citing “data” when they question you.<br /><br />My request from the get-go was simple. Provide a quote and a link that confirms what you said about corn, end use and its impact on land management decisions by farmers. I believe that you are intelligent enough to understand my request, but no such evidence exists.<br /><br />And you’re right, what you’ve written doesn’t meet the legal definition of libel. I should have said, “unethical.”Matt Merritthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02731741347561501172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5553223153127316311.post-86738878950693228522010-02-19T00:32:57.819+05:302010-02-19T00:32:57.819+05:30If Hansen, NASA-GISS, considered by many as the gr...If Hansen, NASA-GISS, considered by many as the grandfather of global warming, called for the rejection of any climate treaty involving carbon trading during Copenhagen, does it make him a climate skeptic who demanded the same. He still remains one of the staunchest advocates of the global warming theory.<br /><br />Be in the real world Matt. When you quote a source it does not mean one endorses all what he or she wrote. I am amazed to find you equating a whole paper as 'data' specially when global warming was not the main focus of his paper. <br /><br />There is no difference in views regarding greenhouse gases has increased. There is no difference of opinion that without greenhouse gases, much of earth will be reduced to arctic conditions. <br /><br />The only difference between skeptics and warmists is the extent continued increase of greenhouse gases would have on temperature. <br />Brubaker has one set of analysis and I have another. Period. IPCC 4th Report has been broken into pieces by the recent controversies. It proved that there is no consensus and no settled science. Period.<br /><br />I have given enough sources to back up all my assertions in the blog. If you are not satisfied then I can't help it. They are others as you yourself observed who are convinced of it.<br /><br />If my blog is libelous as you feel then let those who feel libeled against initiate legal proceedings.Rajan Alexanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07496301416048254072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5553223153127316311.post-71549740762229897212010-02-18T23:40:40.777+05:302010-02-18T23:40:40.777+05:30I’m not asking for a source that criticizes biofue...I’m not asking for a source that criticizes biofuels. Clearly many of those exist. I’m asking for a source that confirms WHAT YOU WROTE. It’s obvious that doesn’t exist, but you just won’t swallow your pride and admit it. If it exists QUOTE IT. <br /><br />I’m not being childish. When you chastise others by saying “What is the empirical evidence that establish CO2 as the causation of global warming?” you cast yourself as a person who deals in facts. However, it is clear you do not deal in facts, you deal in ideology. You cherry-pick data to suit your whims and your write libelous and destructive diatribes that, judging from a couple comments, have unfortunately managed to influence a couple people.Matt Merritthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02731741347561501172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5553223153127316311.post-9317654525537998312010-02-18T23:24:22.189+05:302010-02-18T23:24:22.189+05:30One other thing, if you really are using that Brub...One other thing, if you really are using that Brubaker article as your source of information, how do you reconcile that, in the very same article, he says this: “However, the last few decades have seen an extraordinary explosion in these three greenhouse gases. The result has been global warming. All 10 of the hottest years on record have occurred in the last 15 years.”<br /><br />Are you saying you believe Brubaker’s work is sound and well-sourced? Because if so, you might want to revisit a large chunk of your article and some of your comments to others in here. He clearly believes global warming is a fact.<br /><br />Or do you just cherry-pick data to suit your preconceived notions?Matt Merritthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02731741347561501172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5553223153127316311.post-59384989671955171132010-02-18T23:20:33.960+05:302010-02-18T23:20:33.960+05:30Matt,
You are being childish. OK you don't tr...Matt,<br /><br />You are being childish. OK you don't trust bloggers. Fine. Here's World Bank:Biofuels: The Promise and the Risks, World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development<br /><br />http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/EXTRESEARCH/EXTWDRS/EXTWDR2008/0,,contentMDK:21501336~pagePK:64167689~piPK:64167673~theSitePK:2795143,00.html<br /><br />Extracts:<br /><br />"However, few current biofuel programs are economically viable, and most have social and environmental costs:<br /><br /> * upward pressure on food prices,<br /> * intensified competition for land and water,<br /> * and possibly deforestation."<br /><br />Other sources saying what I say.<br /><br />World Bank says food prices hit by biofuels<br />http://cleantech.com/news/2694/world-bank-says-food-prices-hit-by-biofuels<br /><br />Can a Hungry World Afford Biofuels?, http://www.foodgrainsbank.ca/uploads/Can%20a%20hungry%20world%20afford%20biofuels.pdfRajan Alexandernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5553223153127316311.post-31206149630683012812010-02-18T23:02:52.157+05:302010-02-18T23:02:52.157+05:30If you'll acknowledge that you were simply wri...If you'll acknowledge that you were simply writing off the top of your head and didn't look up any data to support your claims, we can move on to a couple other mistakes you're making.Matt Merritthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02731741347561501172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5553223153127316311.post-33039986357961747782010-02-18T21:43:17.905+05:302010-02-18T21:43:17.905+05:30Why don’t you research whether they’re the same, s...Why don’t you research whether they’re the same, since you’re writing the articles? But the main point is, have we had some sort of wholesale move out of sweet corn production thanks to biofuels that has caused farmers to become less responsible with their land than they had been before? Does the fact that field corn goes to a biofuels plant rather than a feedlot affect land management practices? Not whether long-standing ag practices differ between sweet and field corn (Not that I’ll even concede that without proof from you). <br /><br />As to your “from my readings” statements, I don’t blindly trust bloggers, I need some sort of evidence. I’ve given you ample opportunity to provide that. I know for sure some of your “readings” are wrong, by the way, but I don’t intend to let you out of this argument and into another. Quit making blanket, unsourced statements.<br /><br />You’ve already put the burden upon me to do all the research here, and now you’re asking me to do more. I’ve provided you actual primary data. I’ve read through your four alleged sources (none primary). I’m not writing 3,000-word diatribes slamming industries and claiming they are acting immorally. Nor am I attacking aid organizations and calling them unchristian. The burden of proof is entirely on your shoulders.Matt Merritthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02731741347561501172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5553223153127316311.post-20072702120079326422010-02-18T18:04:53.976+05:302010-02-18T18:04:53.976+05:30Brubaker source: www.vivausa.org/guides/planetonap...Brubaker source: www.vivausa.org/guides/planetonaplateref/htm<br /><br />While it maybe true that an overwhelming majority of corn in the US is feed corn, the following could be kept in mind:<br /><br />a. Maybe you could research whether farming practices for feed corn and those for human consumption in the US are the same. As the Brubaker article indicates, they are not. <br /><br />From my readings in the past, GM has captured a considerable share of corn seed. Precisely, because it is not used for human consumption, quality standards for these grains are weak - prompting farmers to opt for inorganic and GM inputs.<br /><br />b. Through the livestock, inorganic and GM inputs enter the food chain even in the US.<br /><br />c. From my readings almost 25% of US corn has switched for bio-fuel use and expected to drastically increase further in the future, if Obama has his way. So what would is their implication for supply of feed stock within the US? Is the US on its way to be a net importer of feed corn in the future, if it is not happening already? Or is livestock population poised to decline in the US?<br /><br />d. Though not used directly in the use for human consumption within the US, corn is also used in food aid distribution in Africa. The more corn is diverted for bio-fuels, the less grain available globally, driving up prices. <br /><br />My e-mail Id is devconsultgroup@gmail.comRajan Alexandernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5553223153127316311.post-73962709966347351382010-02-18T05:00:10.395+05:302010-02-18T05:00:10.395+05:30Read it. No mention of how the end use, whether it...Read it. No mention of how the end use, whether it's for feed, food or fuel, affects the manner in which a farmer works his land. You've sent me to four different articles now. If evidence exists, please just quote it and link to it. <br /><br />The author, Brubaker, has footnote numbers after some of his statements, but I don't see any actual footnotes. Do you know where I could see the source documents? He makes a number of interesting statements that I'd like to hear more about, specifically about the inefficiency of meat and topsoil degradation. <br /><br />I do support working with farmers to find the best ways to use our land. The main problem I see is that people write vitriolic diatribes based on others' vitriolic diatribes until the accusations get so wildly out of touch with reality its laughable. That does NOT build bridges to our rural communities and farmers. It simply widens the gap and makes any real progress more difficult.Matt Merritthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02731741347561501172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5553223153127316311.post-73479069726415451922010-02-17T23:48:02.484+05:302010-02-17T23:48:02.484+05:30I'll read your new source when I get time toda...I'll read your new source when I get time today. I hope this one is the right one, but I'm not optimistic that it will say anything about growing for consumption vs. biofuels and the impact that has on ag practices, since a quick document search didn't bring up any hits for biofuels or ethanol. It would be better if you could quote the actual section and just end this debate.<br /><br />My point is that you appear to say that farmers change the way they grow crops if the don't have to worry about meeting some "standards for human consumption" and that the consequences of that are soil degradation, poor nutrient content, or whatever. I've honestly never heard of that, and I want to see some source that confirms it. I'm skeptical because the first three sources you listed were simply articles ripping biofuels, but never spoke to the point in question.Matt Merritthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02731741347561501172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5553223153127316311.post-42939954585544437082010-02-17T23:42:33.464+05:302010-02-17T23:42:33.464+05:30Sure. USDA's National Agricultural Statistics ...Sure. USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service crop acreage database: http://www.nass.usda.gov/QuickStats/indexbysubject.jsp?Pass_group=Crops+%26+Plants. For instance, in 2009 we planted 86,482,000 acres of field corn vs. 655,600 acres of sweet corn (fresh, canned and frozen). So last year it was around 0.75 percent.Matt Merritthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02731741347561501172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5553223153127316311.post-9590725996306665312010-02-17T23:19:49.517+05:302010-02-17T23:19:49.517+05:30Hi Matt,
Refer: vivausa.org Planet on a Plate - i...Hi Matt,<br /><br />Refer: vivausa.org Planet on a Plate - impact on soil etc<br /><br />All articles have cited primary sources - you need to only refer to get to the primary sources. So where's the problem. But your point is well appreciated<br /><br />Can you tell me the source for the para "Field corn....Sweet corn is never more than 1%...."Rajan Alexandernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5553223153127316311.post-58655350307040051292010-02-17T23:14:26.582+05:302010-02-17T23:14:26.582+05:30Massive toxic corn monocultures devastate ecosyste...Massive toxic corn monocultures devastate ecosystems and provide little additional energyRajan Alexandernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5553223153127316311.post-2724245034806699892010-02-17T21:10:38.356+05:302010-02-17T21:10:38.356+05:30Rajan,
None of your "sources" say anyth...Rajan,<br /><br />None of your "sources" say anything about human consumption or how end use affects farming practices. I’m inclined to believe what I initially suspected, that you took a couple facts and made broad leaps to conclusions. If I missed it, please point out the specific passage that justifies your claims.<br /><br />On top of that, your “sources” are in fact magazine articles, not primary sources. Errors get repeated and magnified in the media. For instance, you assert "Further, since these (sic) production is not meant for human consumption, the tendency is to opt for practices that degrades (sic) soil fertility and depletes (sic) ground water. Seed that grows corn for biofuels doesn't have to meet the same standards as corn for human consumption."<br /><br />Your sources don’t say that at all, but in the future, if some writer needs a “source,” he can just use you, even though there is zero research supporting it.<br /><br />Please be more careful.Matt Merritthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02731741347561501172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5553223153127316311.post-61006042384846755892010-02-17T11:48:08.311+05:302010-02-17T11:48:08.311+05:30Hi Matt,
Source:
1. Can Biofuel dangerously ov...Hi Matt,<br /><br />Source: <br /><br />1. Can Biofuel dangerously oversold as green energy, NewScienist, July 2007<br />2. Focus on Bio-diesel, Energy Justice Network<br />3. Bio-fuels eating into US Corn Stockpiles, NewScientist, May 2007Rajan Alexandernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5553223153127316311.post-46806019684399491422010-02-17T03:57:26.799+05:302010-02-17T03:57:26.799+05:30(Had to edit)
"Further, since these producti...(Had to edit)<br /><br />"Further, since these production is not meant for human consumption, the tendency is to opt for practices that degrades soil fertility and depletes ground water. Seed that grows corn for biofuels doesn't have to meet the same standards as corn for human consumption."<br /><br />Did you make this up? If not, please cite some source. <br /><br />Farmers don't maintain soil fertility because of some "standard for human consumption." Degraded land won't grow corn of any kind, feed corn or sweet corn. They protect the soil because it's their livelihood.<br /><br />Field corn is what farmers have always grown, and it's never been for human consumption, outside of high fructose corn syrup. It's primarily for livestock. Sweet corn has never been more than 1 percent of the national corn crop.<br /><br />And farmers aren't using "biofuels seeds." They're growing feed corn, then they're seeing who gives them a better price: the local elevator or the local ethanol plant. <br /><br />You're taking bits of other people's reporting and making totally unjustifiable leaps of logic with no support.Matt Merritthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02731741347561501172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5553223153127316311.post-58488109562348522002010-02-17T02:58:49.727+05:302010-02-17T02:58:49.727+05:30This comment has been removed by the author.Matt Merritthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02731741347561501172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5553223153127316311.post-59901611375532678852010-02-17T02:36:42.072+05:302010-02-17T02:36:42.072+05:30@ Anonymous February 16, 2010 11:56 PM
@ Anonymous...@ Anonymous February 16, 2010 11:56 PM<br />@ Anonymous February 17, 2010 12:17 AM<br /><br />So you take a position only if paid? Not if one passionately believes in a cause? You haven't read my paper. I do believe in climate change. The climate has constantly changed multiple times in earth's 3 billion year history. Changed by natural causes. I have come across no proof that CO2, leave alone man-made causes are responsible for global warming. I had in fact visited twice Maldives in the last few years and in my childhood visited PNG. Are they sinking? Read, IPCC reviewers view: <br />http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf<br /><br />Well I noticed you have a sense of (black) humour - Bal Thackeray and Togadia sticking their necks out. So did Mahatma Gandhi and Abraham Lincoln. <br /><br />About Himalayan Glaciers receding, why they are receding, is not well understood as there has not been a comprehensive study till now. There are 10,000 odd glaciers and not all are receding - some observed to be advancing. To make sweeping statements as did the WWF study, quoted by the IPCC report suggests a political agenda - the Third Pole was used as a bogey to frighten India and China to sign the Copenhagen Treaty.<br /><br />In fact, I do travel - been to the Himalayas 2 years back and you right some donor paid for it but unfortunately no one paid for my paper we are discussing. If you like, please be free to make a contribution. Yes my consultancy is for-profit and my clientele includes leading NGOs, INGOs, bilateral and multi-lateral agencies. Been 30 years in the field and have worked at the grass-roots, co-funded a few NGOs, at least one of them well known. For a decade and a half was a donor consultant as well. You can work for the devil but not sell your soul!<br /><br />Credibility? I care too hoots what people think. Credibility should basically be in the minds of individuals. <br /><br />OK your name is not important. But you still didn't answer my question: What is the empirical evidence that establish CO2 as the causation of global warming? You give me that, I will re-convert to a global warmistRajan Alexanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07496301416048254072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5553223153127316311.post-54724652272994093752010-02-17T00:17:38.311+05:302010-02-17T00:17:38.311+05:30Let me endorse the above view, can we ask you to l...Let me endorse the above view, can we ask you to let us know who gave you money to write such an article, Wold Bank, ADB, USAID etc. people like you are afraid if dominant space is taken away by correct information how your supports would be able to evade their commitment to mankind to save the world from climate change. This is the line taken by people does not wan to commit to climate change commitment, I am you have ignored the first ever climate refuges at Papua New G. Maldives is making hue and cry of their crisis, I know this will not matter to you since this is not you home in Bangalore which is affect by it. <br /><br />Please thing before you condemn any claim on climate change.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5553223153127316311.post-59414860676847897832010-02-16T23:56:31.484+05:302010-02-16T23:56:31.484+05:30Dear Mr. Alexander as your names suggests you are ...Dear Mr. Alexander as your names suggests you are one another who wants to invade world with corrupt understanding. By sticking out your neck does not been you are brave, Praveen Togaria and Bal Thakre also does that, this does not mean you are right. If you admit that Himalayan Glaciers are diminishing what is you scientific wisdom about this. Mr. Alexander by dissuading people with popular misconception you are not doing anything good to people rather leading to unending miseries. I know you won’t be able to seen the consequences of Climate Change hence you can say whatever you feel like but coming generation would remember people like you to misguide them. <br /><br />You can disregard science but what about suffering of communities who are affected by climate change impact now, hope you understood my point of coming out of Bangalore and meeting people. I am sure your funders for this article would support you for your travel. Any way I would really appreciate if champion of transparency like you let all of us know how do you mange your living. Most of us would appreciate if you let us know your consultancy on last five years, how do you manage you office rent, telephone and internet bill, travel etc. etc. Would be more then happy to know a person who has not done any consultancy with INGOs you mention in your article. The very famous saying in Hindi is appropriate for you “So Chuhe Khake Billi Haj ko Challi”. This would strengthen your credibility, if you can not do so please accept that you are as much culprit as any other INGO or NGO making their way out of Climate change. My name is not important so do not worry who am I, it will not help anyone but you answers would help all of us to know credibility of people like you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5553223153127316311.post-9761341594516699202010-02-14T18:26:02.439+05:302010-02-14T18:26:02.439+05:30Excellent article well done.Excellent article well done.Stuarthttp://blog.echurchwebsites.org.uk/noreply@blogger.com