<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Attempt to Manipulate and Confuse Public Thinking on Climate Change</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.asiaisgreen.com/2009/11/01/attempt-to-manipulate-and-confuse-public-thinking-on-climate-change/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.asiaisgreen.com/2009/11/01/attempt-to-manipulate-and-confuse-public-thinking-on-climate-change/</link>
	<description>Green Resource Guide for Singapore and Asia</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2010 05:21:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: indignant</title>
		<link>http://www.asiaisgreen.com/2009/11/01/attempt-to-manipulate-and-confuse-public-thinking-on-climate-change/#comment-84845</link>
		<dc:creator>indignant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:42:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.asiaisgreen.com/?p=1415#comment-84845</guid>
		<description>http://www.fas.nus.edu.sg/geog/news/nobelprize_wpp.htm</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.fas.nus.edu.sg/geog/news/nobelprize_wpp.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.fas.nus.edu.sg/geog/news/nobelprize_wpp.htm</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: indignant</title>
		<link>http://www.asiaisgreen.com/2009/11/01/attempt-to-manipulate-and-confuse-public-thinking-on-climate-change/#comment-84844</link>
		<dc:creator>indignant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:42:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.asiaisgreen.com/?p=1415#comment-84844</guid>
		<description>We should hear from AProf Wong Poh Poh, who was on the IPCC team that won the Nobel with Al Gore for their work on Climate Change.   Why hasn&#039;t his informed views been tapped??

http://www.fas.nus.edu.sg/geog/news/nobelprize_wpp.htm</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We should hear from AProf Wong Poh Poh, who was on the IPCC team that won the Nobel with Al Gore for their work on Climate Change.   Why hasn&#8217;t his informed views been tapped??</p>
<p><a href="http://www.fas.nus.edu.sg/geog/news/nobelprize_wpp.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.fas.nus.edu.sg/geog/news/nobelprize_wpp.htm</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Singapore Daily &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Weekly Roundup: Week 45</title>
		<link>http://www.asiaisgreen.com/2009/11/01/attempt-to-manipulate-and-confuse-public-thinking-on-climate-change/#comment-84422</link>
		<dc:creator>The Singapore Daily &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Weekly Roundup: Week 45</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Nov 2009 03:25:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.asiaisgreen.com/?p=1415#comment-84422</guid>
		<description>[...] Green Dot - AsiaIsGreen: Attempt to Manipulate and Confuse Public Thinking on Climate Change [Recommended] - Tales Over Coffee: Singapore Rejects Firm Emissions Targets? What About The [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Green Dot &#8211; AsiaIsGreen: Attempt to Manipulate and Confuse Public Thinking on Climate Change [Recommended] &#8211; Tales Over Coffee: Singapore Rejects Firm Emissions Targets? What About The [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joseph Lai</title>
		<link>http://www.asiaisgreen.com/2009/11/01/attempt-to-manipulate-and-confuse-public-thinking-on-climate-change/#comment-83860</link>
		<dc:creator>Joseph Lai</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:30:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.asiaisgreen.com/?p=1415#comment-83860</guid>
		<description>Bravo for clearing the air - literally. You blew apart the hazy article by Andy Ho and allowed the light of truth to shine through and show the facts as they stand - rigorous and concise. I hope your article here will be read far and wide, esp by readers of ST.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bravo for clearing the air &#8211; literally. You blew apart the hazy article by Andy Ho and allowed the light of truth to shine through and show the facts as they stand &#8211; rigorous and concise. I hope your article here will be read far and wide, esp by readers of ST.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe Lim</title>
		<link>http://www.asiaisgreen.com/2009/11/01/attempt-to-manipulate-and-confuse-public-thinking-on-climate-change/#comment-83803</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Lim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 05:18:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.asiaisgreen.com/?p=1415#comment-83803</guid>
		<description>I wrote a personal email to him as well the morning that article came out. this is the email i sent to him 

&quot;Hi Andy

I read this morning with interest your comments on climate change and human activities.

Let me play devils-advocate...

let&#039;s assume these assumptions.....

Yes, and even if homosapiens ballooning population (we only had 1 billion 209 years ago in 1800s; it&#039;s 6..67 billion today; 9 billion in 2030) has nothing to do with climate change and even if our human activities are beneficial for the environment; ie CO2 doesnt contribute to climate change. and the current weather is merely a cyclical observation

I&#039;m sure you would agree with me that people&#039;s NEEDS are so confused with their WANTS; (their wants have become their needs)

climate change is already NOT a environmental issue but a MORAL issue to me.

superlatives like &quot;More&quot; is better, &quot;Big&quot; is better and &quot;NEW&quot; is better is already in most of our bloodstream....

we humans are ever so clever to invent big words like &#039;perceived obsolescences&quot; and &quot;planned obsolescences&quot; in the spirit of consumerism. The consumer is KING these days...just look at our wasteful, throw-away affluent societies are now...
(www.thestoryofstuff.com)

Another movie, HOME, premiered this june and it shows stunning photos of our natural landscape as well as our human landscape....

maybe this movie would be able to shed some light into how unsustainable, unequal, and immoral our civilization has become....

it&#039;s no longer about Green.....but another 5 letter word GREE-D

Trailer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a74nAerEONE

Entire Movie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU

Joe</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wrote a personal email to him as well the morning that article came out. this is the email i sent to him </p>
<p>&#8220;Hi Andy</p>
<p>I read this morning with interest your comments on climate change and human activities.</p>
<p>Let me play devils-advocate&#8230;</p>
<p>let&#8217;s assume these assumptions&#8230;..</p>
<p>Yes, and even if homosapiens ballooning population (we only had 1 billion 209 years ago in 1800s; it&#8217;s 6..67 billion today; 9 billion in 2030) has nothing to do with climate change and even if our human activities are beneficial for the environment; ie CO2 doesnt contribute to climate change. and the current weather is merely a cyclical observation</p>
<p>I&#8217;m sure you would agree with me that people&#8217;s NEEDS are so confused with their WANTS; (their wants have become their needs)</p>
<p>climate change is already NOT a environmental issue but a MORAL issue to me.</p>
<p>superlatives like &#8220;More&#8221; is better, &#8220;Big&#8221; is better and &#8220;NEW&#8221; is better is already in most of our bloodstream&#8230;.</p>
<p>we humans are ever so clever to invent big words like &#8216;perceived obsolescences&#8221; and &#8220;planned obsolescences&#8221; in the spirit of consumerism. The consumer is KING these days&#8230;just look at our wasteful, throw-away affluent societies are now&#8230;<br />
(www.thestoryofstuff.com)</p>
<p>Another movie, HOME, premiered this june and it shows stunning photos of our natural landscape as well as our human landscape&#8230;.</p>
<p>maybe this movie would be able to shed some light into how unsustainable, unequal, and immoral our civilization has become&#8230;.</p>
<p>it&#8217;s no longer about Green&#8230;..but another 5 letter word GREE-D</p>
<p>Trailer</p>
<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a74nAerEONE" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a74nAerEONE</a></p>
<p>Entire Movie</p>
<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU</a></p>
<p>Joe</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Jensen</title>
		<link>http://www.asiaisgreen.com/2009/11/01/attempt-to-manipulate-and-confuse-public-thinking-on-climate-change/#comment-83792</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Jensen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 03:50:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.asiaisgreen.com/?p=1415#comment-83792</guid>
		<description>Eugene, nice rebuttal, but on point number 6, comparison to other spending is good - but a better comparison is simply the cost of not reducing carbon emissions.

A recent report in the new scientist from economists states the death of coral reefs (currently on the brink of collapse) will cost $172 billion per year - and that&#039;s just coral, that doesn&#039;t include all the other costs like rising sea, refugees, etc.

Which makes better business sense?
$100 billion in prevention
or
$172 billion (plus) in damages?


Point number 8 hardly seems worth mentioning - mother nature doesn&#039;t respond to public polling, climate change will happen weather the public believe in it or not.
The public doubt has much more to do with irresponsible reporting than science.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Eugene, nice rebuttal, but on point number 6, comparison to other spending is good &#8211; but a better comparison is simply the cost of not reducing carbon emissions.</p>
<p>A recent report in the new scientist from economists states the death of coral reefs (currently on the brink of collapse) will cost $172 billion per year &#8211; and that&#8217;s just coral, that doesn&#8217;t include all the other costs like rising sea, refugees, etc.</p>
<p>Which makes better business sense?<br />
$100 billion in prevention<br />
or<br />
$172 billion (plus) in damages?</p>
<p>Point number 8 hardly seems worth mentioning &#8211; mother nature doesn&#8217;t respond to public polling, climate change will happen weather the public believe in it or not.<br />
The public doubt has much more to do with irresponsible reporting than science.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Singapore Daily &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Daily SG: 2 Nov 2009</title>
		<link>http://www.asiaisgreen.com/2009/11/01/attempt-to-manipulate-and-confuse-public-thinking-on-climate-change/#comment-83788</link>
		<dc:creator>The Singapore Daily &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Daily SG: 2 Nov 2009</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 03:24:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.asiaisgreen.com/?p=1415#comment-83788</guid>
		<description>[...] Green Dot - AsiaIsGreen: Attempt to Manipulate and Confuse Public Thinking on Climate Change - Tales Over Coffee: Singapore Rejects Firm Emissions Targets? What About The Elephant In The [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Green Dot &#8211; AsiaIsGreen: Attempt to Manipulate and Confuse Public Thinking on Climate Change &#8211; Tales Over Coffee: Singapore Rejects Firm Emissions Targets? What About The Elephant In The [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
