More climategate leaks, Copenhagen is disarray

[Wimbly]

This just keeps getting better and better. The house of cards is falling around the AGW fanatics.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text

Brand New Climate Leaks – Copenhagen Summit now in disarray

Developing countries react furiously to leaked draft agreement that would hand more power to rich nations, sideline the UN’s negotiating role and abandon the Kyoto protocol.

Guardian

The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN’s role in all future climate change negotiations.

The document also sets unequal limits on per capita carbon emissions for developed and developing countries.

The Danish text, a secret draft agreement worked on by a group of individuals known as “the circle of commitment” – but understood to include the UK, US and Denmark – has only been shown to a handful of countries since it was finalised this week.

The agreement, leaked to the Guardian, is a departure from the Kyoto protocol’s principle that rich nations, which have emitted the bulk of the CO2, should take on firm and binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, while poorer nations were not compelled to act. The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions.

The document was described last night by one senior diplomat as “a very dangerous document for developing countries. It is a fundamental reworking of the UN balance of obligations. It is to be superimposed without discussion on the talks”.

[seraosha]

"Do as we say, not as we do."

This hasn't, in my opinion, been very effective when "developed" countries try it on "undeveloped" countries.

[Eye]

The house of cards is falling around the AGW fanatics.
They have free *** service at least.

[2495]

Said it before, and will say it again: This is nothing but a power grab and a tool of control by a few over the masses. Best con job ever devised - panic the people into thinking we have a short time before we all drown / boil alive, and add that only high taxes and poor standards of living can fix it.

:roll:

It was hotter in the north of Scotland 3000 years ago when they grew crops freely on the Orkney isles and the entire solar system is going through a heating phase from the sun out to pluto.

Sup up people, your Fool aid is here.

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/8969/foolaid.jpg

[Noons86]

Good to know we can keep on using fossil fuels, and no longer have to spend on filters anymore. And I think I'll buy a big estate in the Amazon too.

p-)

[2495]

Good to know we can keep on using fossil fuels, and no longer have to spend on filters anymore. And I think I'll buy a big estate in the Amazon too.

p-)


Looking after the planet is not the same as these unhinged liars using fake data to scare the living hell out of people and bleed them dry with uber taxes and steal small countries rights away from them.

Care for our planet, yes. Lie, cheat and steal? Time to break out some hemp neck warmers for the guilty methinks if this crap carries on.

[Noons86]

I'm still not convinced of a conspiracy. I have a very low tolerance for conspiracy theories.

There have been plenty of very good explanations for what has been going on, and explanations for the e-mails in question. There's only one problem: those explanations come from climate scientists, who are all part of the conspiracy, and therefore not to be trusted.

That's one of the many reasons why conspiracy theories can never be disproven: anyone knowledgeable about the subject at hand has already been bought out and is lying.

[Eye]

It was hotter in the north of Scotland 3000 years ago when they grew crops freely on the Orkney isles and the entire solar system is going through a heating phase from the sun out to pluto.


Greenland was really green about one thousand years ago and had quite big population. There was bishopric until XIV c. After that they had global cooling and unfortunately there wasn't any kind of Al Gore who could have stopped it.

[Wimbly]

I'm still not convinced of a conspiracy. I have a very low tolerance for conspiracy theories.

There have been plenty of very good explanations for what has been going on, and explanations for the e-mails in question. There's only one problem: those explanations come from climate scientists, who are all part of the conspiracy, and therefore not to be trusted.

That's one of the many reasons why conspiracy theories can never be disproven: anyone knowledgeable about the subject at hand has already been bought out and is lying.

How exactly is this a "conspiracy theory"? This is about scientists who don't agree with the so called consensus being shut out. It seems like some people call it a "conspiracy theory", as a way to avoid having to actually answer for bad science and manipulated data.

I've not heard any good explanations about what this data was being manipulated or why the cover up. I've only heard known lap dogs in the media summarily dismissing it and increasing the scare mongering.

[Panchito12]

"Environmentalism is the new communism, a system of elite command-and-control that kills prosperity and should similarly be condemned to the ash heap of history."

--Vaclav Klaus
President, Czech Republic

[USMCRTop]

"Environmentalism is the new communism, a system of elite command-and-control that kills prosperity and should similarly be condemned to the ash heap of history."

--Vaclav Klaus
President, Czech Republic

Never saw that one before-agree with it inna way

[bono]

I'm still not convinced of a conspiracy. I have a very low tolerance for conspiracy theories.

There have been plenty of very good explanations for what has been going on, and explanations for the e-mails in question. There's only one problem: those explanations come from climate scientists, who are all part of the conspiracy, and therefore not to be trusted.

That's one of the many reasons why conspiracy theories can never be disproven: anyone knowledgeable about the subject at hand has already been bought out and is lying.

Do you buy KoolAid in barrels is it the weekly tanker refill?

[bono]

AlGore says most recent hacked CRU email is MORE THAN 10 YEARS OLD (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_gore_falsifies_the_record) even though the emails are dated Thu, 07 Mar 1996 14:41:07 GMT through to Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:17:44 GMT.

Superultragenius saver of the earth slayer of carbon dioxide previously said that the earth's core temperature is millions of degrees.

[Alpheus]

Looks like the Aussies have also be "hiding the decline".
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/
A long read, but a very good article.

[Noons86]

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html


Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails

The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light over the past two weeks. Experts at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) have concluded that while the emails "do raise some valid concerns about scientific integrity, they do not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised."
UCS's analysis of the emails and the debate surrounding them aims to correct popular misconceptions about what the emails say, put them in scientific context and explain the importance of scientific integrity.
Media outlets are getting the story wrong. These emails don't demonstrate anything wrong with global warming data. (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html#Some_news_organizations_have_misreported)
Scientists didn't "trick" anyone or "hide" anything (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html#University_of_East_Anglia_Climatic_Resea).
Scientists are talking about understanding our climate, not hiding anything. (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html#In_another_email_Kevin_Trenberth_a_clima)
Some emails raise valid scientific concerns, but don't undermine the science. (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html#Some_emails_do_raise_valid_scientific_in)
Science must be viewed in context to be properly understood. (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html#Science_must_be_viewed_in_context_to_be_)
Groups misrepresenting these emails are overplaying their hand, demonstrating their desperation. (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html#The_fact_that_groups_opposing_action_on_)
The timing of releasing the stolen emails is suspicious. (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html#The_timing_of_the_publication_of_these_e)
Scientists are as human as anybody else. (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html#Scientists_are_human)


Some news organizations have misreported critical aspects of the stolen email story. There is no evidence scientists did anything with temperature data they weren't already doing openly in peer-reviewed papers.
At this time, there is no evidence that scientists "fudged," "manipulated" or "manufactured" data. These unsupported claims, based on taking the emails out of context, are being promoted by long-time anti-science opponents of climate change legislation. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the University of East Anglia and Penn State University are separately looking into the contents of the stolen emails to assess these claims.


While the emails do raise some valid concerns about scientific integrity, the email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate.
University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit Director Phil Jones wasn't "hiding" anything that wasn't already being openly discussed in scientific papers. He was using a "trick"—a technique—published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.


This email exchange from 1999 seems to refer to scientists examining past climate data and communicating with one another about it. In particular, Jones is talking about how scientists compare temperature data from thermometers with temperature data derived from tree rings. Comparing that data allows scientists to derive past temperature data for several centuries before accurate thermometer measurements were available. The global average surface temperature since 1880 is based on thermometer and satellite temperature measurements.


The "trick" is actually a technique (in other words, a "trick of the trade") used in a peer-reviewed, academic science journal article (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v392/n6678/full/392779a0.html) published in 1998. "Hiding the decline," another phrase that has received much attention, refers to another technique used in another academic science journal article (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6668/abs/391678a0.html). In any case, no one was tricking anyone or hiding anything. Rather, this email exchange shows scientists communicating about different ways to look at the same data that were being discussed at the time in the peer-reviewed literature. Later the same data were discussed at length in a 2007 IPCC report.


In some parts of the world, tree rings are a good substitute for temperature record. Trees form a ring of new growth every growing season. Generally, warmer temperatures produce thicker tree rings, while colder temperatures produce thinner ones. Other factors, such as precipitation, soil properties, and the tree's age also can affect tree ring growth.
The "trick," which was used in a paper published in 1998 in the science journal Nature, is to combine the older tree ring data with thermometer data. Combining the two data sets can be difficult, and scientists are always interested in new ways to make temperature records more accurate.


Tree rings are a largely consistent source of data for the past 2,000 years. But since the 1960s, scientists have noticed there are a handful of tree species in certain areas that appear to indicate temperatures that are warmer or colder than we actually know they are from direct thermometer measurement at weather stations.


"Hiding the decline" in this email refers to omitting data from some Siberian trees after 1960. This omission was openly discussed in the latest climate science update in 2007 from the IPCC, so it is not "hidden" at all.
Why Siberian trees? In the Yamal region of Siberia, there is a small set of trees with rings that are thinner than expected after 1960 when compared with actual thermometer measurements there. Scientists are still trying to figure out why these trees are outliers. Some analyses have left out the data from these trees after 1960 and have used thermometer temperatures instead.


Techniques like this help scientists reconstruct past climate temperature records based on the best available data.
In another email, Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, wrote that systems for observing short-term annual climate variation are inadequate and complained: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can't…. Our observing system is inadequate."
Scientists have high confidence about global temperature trends over recent decades because those observations are based on a massive amount of data. That's why we can say with certainty that over the past several decades, the Earth has warmed. We can also say with certainty that continuing to overload the atmosphere with carbon dioxide will cause it to warm further.


But scientists are still trying to understand how the climate shifts in the short term, on a year-to-year basis for instance. In this email, Trenberth is bemoaning the lack of monitoring equipment in the ocean and atmosphere around the world that would give scientists more information to help understand exactly how short-term climate variation happens. In particular, he references 2008, which was cooler than scientists expected, but still among the 10 warmest years since instrumental records began.


The sentiments in Trenberth's private email reflect his public communication. Trenberth talked about this same issue in a scientific paper in 2009 (http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2009/11/energydiagnostics09final.pdf) (pdf), in which he addresses this exact question.
Some emails do raise valid scientific integrity concerns, but they do not undermine the science.


Some emails relating to avoiding freedom of information requests and keeping articles out of journals or assessments rightfully raise concerns about scientific integrity. In all cases, scientists should always be as open as possible with their data and methods. Transparency is critical for accountability on all sides. For his part, Phil Jones claims he didn't delete any email messages in response to freedom of information requests. If he did, that conduct would be unacceptable. But to date, there is no evidence that any emails were deleted.


Science must be viewed in context to be understood. When one places the emails in context, they don't amount to much—and as noted above, they do not undermine climate data or research. Likewise, it is important to understand the scientific integrity claims against the scientists in context.
Regardless of whether the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit staff complied with freedom of information requests, their data is still rigorous and matches the three other independent temperature data sets at NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Japanese Meteorological Society.


Much has been made about emails regarding a certain paper that some scientists did not think should have been published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. These emails focus on a paper on solar variability in the climate over time. It was published in a peer-reviewed journal called Climate Research, but under unusual circumstances. Half of the editorial board of Climate Research resigned in protest against what they felt was a failure of the peer review process. The paper, which argued that current warming was unexceptional, was disputed by scientists whose work was cited in the paper. Many subsequent publications set the record straight, which demonstrates how the peer review process over time tends to correct such lapses. Scientists later discovered that the paper was funded by the American Petroleum Institute.


In a later e-mail, Phil Jones references two other (http://www.ottokinne.de/articles/cr2004/26/c026p159.pdf) papers (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v423/n6939/abs/nature01675.html) he didn't hold in high esteem. "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"


Yet, the papers in question made it into the IPCC report, indicating that no restrictions on their incorporation were made. The IPCC process contains hundreds of authors and reviewers, with an exacting and transparent review process. .

[vryhpyammoadded]

It doesn’t matter what the science says, but what billions of people in democratically elected, republican governments desire and I read that a hell of a lot of people are saying slow down managerial elite, we want all the facts before we give up our wealth and liberties to you over this issue especially now what with these rough economic times when our money doesn’t go as far.

Same goes for the international community as nations with questions are feeling the CO2 managerial elite/mass media FUD steamroller coming down on them.

People do not like being pushed around and forced to sign onto agreements they still have questions over.

If the elite continue to cram this down people’s throats and even manage to get it set, signed on paper, there will be severe political repercussions for them later on in the long run. They’re pissing off a lot of people, putting them into corners and over the line pulling this crap. You simply do not dictate to Republics this way and not suffer consequences.

[HellToupee]

Problem is none of those billions of voters will understand the facts, or simply consider everyone who's an expert in the field in on the conspiracy, because its simply easier for an individual to ignore such a huge problem beyond their control.

Only facts are is co2 is a greenhouse gas, and we are reintroducing billions of tonnes of it every year that was removed from the natural cycle hundreds millions of years ago. Tho IMO i think we will hit peak oil issues before climate ones.

[T3ngu]

Let start by saying, is that the internet is not always correct. When considering this debate, one must consider publications from recognised bodies, not those with a agenda to push. I use the more rabid environmental groups as an example.


Do you buy KoolAid in barrels is it the weekly tanker refill?
What is your expertise in this area again? You were the one crying people pointing the conspiracy theory finger last week, you seem to live in a glass house.

You still have not provided a list of qualifications which a number of people have asked for. If your so worried, send them to a mod for verification.

AUSTRALIA has recorded its hottest six months ever and is well on track to have the second hottest year since records began, the Bureau of Meteorology said.
The World Meteorological Organisation's (http://www.wmo.int/pages/index_en.html) annual climate statement released at Copenhagen found temperatures in 2009 reached 0.44C above the 1961-1990 annual average. "The decade 2000-2009 is very likely to be the warmest on record," WMO secretary general Michel Jarraud told reporters at the Copenhagen climate summit late yesterday, Australian time.

Australia was singled out for its wild weather in 2009.

"Australia had the third-warmest year on record with three exceptional heatwaves," Mr Jarraud said. The WMO report said the heatwaves happened in January/February, when the hot weather contributed to the disastrous Victorian bushfires, in August and again in November. The presence of El Nino conditions underway in the Pacific saw near-record rises in sea surface temperatures and most parts of Australia experienced an exceptionally mild winter.

Maximum temperatures were also well above the national average, with 3.2C above normal, the largest ever recorded in any month. Dr David Jones, head of climate analysis at the Bureau of Meteorology's national climate centre, said one of the biggest impacts in the last year had been the absence of cold, with a massive decline in sea ice in the Arctic.

"The last six months have been the warmest six months on record for Australia," Dr Jones said. "We expect 2009 will be either the second warmest year on record for Australia or the third warmest." He said the results were not surprising.

"Every decade's been getting warmer for the last 70 years. "Clearly climate change hasn't stopped, global warming hasn't stopped." The outlook for the summer is consistent, Dr Jones said, with warm daytime conditions in north-east Australia forecast to continue. http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/s...47-952,00.html (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26462647-952,00.html)


Said it before, and will say it again: This is nothing but a power grab and a tool of control by a few over the masses. Best con job ever devised - panic the people into thinking we have a short time before we all drown / boil alive, and add that only high taxes and poor standards of living can fix it.

:roll:

It was hotter in the north of Scotland 3000 years ago when they grew crops freely on the Orkney isles and the entire solar system is going through a heating phase from the sun out to pluto.

Sup up people, your Fool aid is here.


You are more of an expert that those with actual qualifications working in the field how?

I agree, that many people are going to make money from this, and that should be stopped, but at the end of the day, the magnitude of emissions from an increasing human populations is simply not sustainable. Go and read a few airshed studies, and look at industrial areas (i.e. containing refineries, power stations etc) where the amount of pollution going into the airshed is beyond what the atmosphere can handle.

WRT standard of living, how is having more efficient technology harmful? It will save you dollars, again, with cars, more fuel efficiency, how is this going to hurt you?


Problem is none of those billions of voters will understand the facts, or simply consider everyone who's an expert in the field in on the conspiracy, because its simply easier for an individual to ignore such a huge problem beyond their control.

Only facts are is co2 is a greenhouse gas, and we are reintroducing billions of tonnes of it every year that was removed from the natural cycle hundreds millions of years ago. Tho IMO i think we will hit peak oil issues before climate ones.
Well put. If peak oil were not a reality, the oil shale deposits would not be in the focus of many.


It doesn’t matter what the science says, but what billions of people in democratically elected, republican governments desire and I read that a hell of a lot of people are saying slow down managerial elite, we want all the facts before we give up our wealth and liberties to you over this issue especially now what with these rough economic times when our money doesn’t go as far.

..... You simply do not dictate to Republics this way and not suffer consequences.

vryhpyammoadded is correct in that democratic countries don't like being dictated to. However, using Australia as an example, the current federal government clearly went to the polls with a mandate of ratifying the kyoto protocol, as did Barack Obama, who along a similar vein clearly used climate change as a part of his platform. Both were voted in, not out. Yes, other topics may have swayed the vote, but it would appear that people want change, just not rapid change.

The rapid change, in a time where money is tight, does not win anyone friends.

Helltoupe clearly said it, billions of tonnes of stored CO2 being put back in the atmosphere along with other pollutants simply isn't a good thing.

[brainplay]

The Union of Concerned Scientists' team of international policy experts and scientists are working to build an effective, strong climate treaty at the COP15 summit in Copenhagen, December 7 to 18, 2009.

Sort of like ACORN reviewing the video tapes of itself and declaring them OK. Why would they go against their own agenda?

Take in mind these are the same douchebags tried to kill the missile defense programs. They also run a PAC who's goal is to stop any and all nuclear power plant building or development.

Once again, they have an agenda. Their credibility to review the matter is in question.


Some emails do raise valid scientific integrity concerns, but they do not undermine the science.

How does one go about saying that when the integrity in question is due to suppressing and undermining the science?

[11 Bravo]

Let start by saying............
The rapid change, in a time where money is tight, does not win anyone friends..........

.

And let us end by saying that change for changes sake (money/power ) is bullsh*t and can only further control of everyones everyday life with this unproven biased junk science called glbal bologna.

[brainplay]

What is your expertise in this area again? You were the one crying people pointing the conspiracy theory finger last week, you seem to live in a glass house.

You still have not provided a list of qualifications which a number of people have asked for. If your so worried, send them to a mod for verification.

No one here has the qualifications you're asking for. This includes a large number of people who contribute to the IPCC. Unless you're claiming military service you don't vet your resume to a mod to appease someone in a debate.


You are more of an expert that those with actual qualifications working in the field how?

As mentioned before the "experts" vary in scope. From economists to actual climate scientists. But the body of information that is generated by the IPCC is produced by a much much much smaller number of people. The full amount of raw data available publicly is limited on their own website to the report itself. That almost reeks of cherry picking. No one but them are doing the reviewing of the MASSIVE amount of data because no one else has the budget.


I agree, that many people are going to make money from this, and that should be stopped, but at the end of the day, the magnitude of emissions from an increasing human populations is simply not sustainable. Go and read a few airshed studies, and look at industrial areas (i.e. containing refineries, power stations etc) where the amount of pollution going into the airshed is beyond what the atmosphere can handle.

Pollution is real. Becoming efficient at filtering that is a good thing. Its not the same as Co2. Apples and oranges. There is no efficiency effort when dealing with Co2. Only limiting and regulating it. I'm all for stopping acid rain, hard pollutants, and micro particulate agents from entering the atmosphere. That's not the same for whats being proposed.


WRT standard of living, how is having more efficient technology harmful? It will save you dollars, again, with cars, more fuel efficiency, how is this going to hurt you?

There's a difference between accepting a more efficient standard of living or being told you're going to accept it whether you like it or not. That is where this is going. Do as your told, its for "the children", or else.



Well put. If peak oil were not a reality, the oil shale deposits would not be in the focus of many.

Peak oil has always been a worry and at the constant growth rate of many developing nations it might hit in our lifetime. Oil shale has been looked at for decades now and is nothing new. Shale like other fossil fuels have just out of reach of being "cost efficient" but new technology is making it a reality.




vryhpyammoadded is correct in that democratic countries don't like being dictated to. However, using Australia as an example, the current federal government clearly went to the polls with a mandate of ratifying the kyoto protocol, as did Barack Obama, who along a similar vein clearly used climate change as a part of his platform. Both were voted in, not out. Yes, other topics may have swayed the vote, but it would appear that people want change, just not rapid change.

People wanted someone other than Bush. That was a huge part of his campaign. No one realized the depth that something like this can reach into their lives.

[gosciu555]

"Environmentalism is the new communism, a system of elite command-and-control that kills prosperity and should similarly be condemned to the ash heap of history."

--Vaclav Klaus
President, Czech Republic

Here's a few more for ya:

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme


“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our
economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”
– Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies


“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”
– Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund


“Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”

– Professor Maurice King


“We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.”
– David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!


“Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to
discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”
– Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute


“The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
– Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation


“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University


“Our insatiable drive to rummage deep beneath the surface of the earth is a willful expansion
of our dysfunctional civilization into Nature.”
– Al Gore, Earth in the Balance


“The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.”
– Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview


“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”
-Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!




A lot this stuff is an oblique type of warfare against developing nations trying to prevent them from developing as well as trying to define people as some of cancer. Its an insane type of anti-human oligarchical ideology. The same people came up with the completely discredited idea of "The Population Bomb" that never happened. Even if people somehow care about the environment or whatever, the way forward is throught technology and development not this BS.

[T3ngu]

The concept of regulating the human population is ridiculous. Those who claim that it should occur live in a dream world.

The concept we must work towards is sustainability, that is develop the world and maintain a standard of living which essentially leaves the world the same for our children as we found it.

If sustainability comes through technology development and development in general, great.

[bono]

Let start by saying, is that the internet is not always correct. When considering this debate, one must consider publications from recognised bodies, not those with a agenda to push. I use the more rabid environmental groups as an example.


What is your expertise in this area again? You were the one crying people pointing the conspiracy theory finger last week, you seem to live in a glass house.

You still have not provided a list of qualifications which a number of people have asked for. If your so worried, send them to a mod for verification.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/s...47-952,00.html (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26462647-952,00.html)


You are more of an expert that those with actual qualifications working in the field how?

I agree, that many people are going to make money from this, and that should be stopped, but at the end of the day, the magnitude of emissions from an increasing human populations is simply not sustainable. Go and read a few airshed studies, and look at industrial areas (i.e. containing refineries, power stations etc) where the amount of pollution going into the airshed is beyond what the atmosphere can handle.

WRT standard of living, how is having more efficient technology harmful? It will save you dollars, again, with cars, more fuel efficiency, how is this going to hurt you?


Well put. If peak oil were not a reality, the oil shale deposits would not be in the focus of many.



vryhpyammoadded is correct in that democratic countries don't like being dictated to. However, using Australia as an example, the current federal government clearly went to the polls with a mandate of ratifying the kyoto protocol, as did Barack Obama, who along a similar vein clearly used climate change as a part of his platform. Both were voted in, not out. Yes, other topics may have swayed the vote, but it would appear that people want change, just not rapid change.

The rapid change, in a time where money is tight, does not win anyone friends.

Helltoupe clearly said it, billions of tonnes of stored CO2 being put back in the atmosphere along with other pollutants simply isn't a good thing.

I don't need a certificate from you or anyone else about who I am or what I know. Quit trolling.

I understand how scientific process works, thats more than enough for me to make judgments regarding what is right or wrong with CRU. All you have done so far is hijack threads to tell everyone on this forum that you were a project leader on a whoooo $2.5 MILLION!!!!!!!!! project. Point taken.Everyone is gasping!!!!! Go ahead and put that in your avatar and stop annoying everyone else. No one cares. And before starting a discussion next time on scientific process first go buy a Karl Popper work, try reading it and then come back. Till then you are just a novice.

[BafuD]

Pfft lies I say, climate change is just a lie in my eyes, Earth is reinstalling itself, like we install games or start a new hobby or something like that, we're MAYBE fastening the change, who really knows in the end.

But that I know for sure EU is rotten now totally because of the Lissabon treaty.

[vryhpyammoadded]

Problem is none of those billions of voters will understand the facts, or simply consider everyone who's an expert in the field in on the conspiracy, because its simply easier for an individual to ignore such a huge problem beyond their control.


Only facts are is co2 is a greenhouse gas, and we are reintroducing billions of tonnes of it every year that was removed from the natural cycle hundreds millions of years ago. Tho IMO i think we will hit peak oil issues before climate ones.

That is not the problem…

The facts “ARE” irrelevant because the dissenters don’t give a damn about them. The resistance to global CO2 regulation has nothing to do with the validity of the science, it’s all about governments not perceived as representing their needs correctly, with integrity by following Republican values of respect for the dissenting voice and not by having politicians, interest groups, the media and a horde of frenzied zealots ramming their junk down everyone’s throats. This is the perception that’s stiffening resistance. If someone suspects he is being rushed into something, conned out of his hard earned wealth, he will scream bloody murder that it stops.

What I’m getting at is that the anti CO2 mafia needs to cool its jets, ease up on the frenzied push and drop back to a slower pace of education and stop coming off as some con job which is how it’s being perceived by a lot of people especially what with all controversy contrived or not.

My warning was that man made global warming, weather its real or not, will be a meaningless issue should the proponents of CO2 push too hard breaking governments in the eyes of the dissenting voters.

It is this all or nothing, damn the other team, partisan politics that will lead to huge troubles in the near future that will make US health care, climate change, etc... look minusucle by comparison.

T3ngu

I agree but… There’s much more to the American voting issue going on. You are technically correct that Obama and the Democrats platform did include a CO2 regulation factor and seeing they easily control the government, are legally allowed to initiate such law/regulation. There is a problem though. The US election system is broken or more to the point, the US voters are, as only a small plurality carried the Dems into power leaving a near equal number hard against and almost as many fence sitters undecided. Obama and the Dem’s may technically, legally have their mandate but spiritually they are far short of the mark.

Now I am a strong believer in “You Snooze, You Lose” and find the fence sitters migrating over to the anti CO2 regulation side idiots for not acting when they had their vote. They’ve earned their chance to learn from the pain they will receive in the wallet but the Dem’s having the seats in the house to legally pass this legislation had better think before they sign. In doing so will mark them for removal and depending on how bad the laws hit people in the wallet and if they can’t spin away the blame, this will turn into a major hit on perceived federal government integrity, something they are sorely lacking right now.

People don’t believe me but I still say the US is too brittle for all these major changes being so harshly forced onto people’s lives. I don’t think it can survive them and strongly suggest the managerial elite ease up a little and seek comon interests which, THEY ARE NOT DOING! No matter what the propagandists are claiming. There is a scent of tyranny in the air and the sheep can smell it. This is not good.

By the way, I’ll clearly point it out for you pro/con climate change zealots again, and again, and again. Not once have I denied human influenced climate change nor do my comments claim it isn’t happening. I am discussing the political issues, not the scientific.

[Kilgor]

A lot this stuff is an oblique type of warfare against developing nations trying to prevent them from developing as well as trying to define people as some of cancer. Its an insane type of anti-human oligarchical ideology. The same people came up with the completely discredited idea of "The Population Bomb" that never happened. Even if people somehow care about the environment or whatever, the way forward is throught technology and development not this BS.

If you think you can have 9 billion people on this place with the standard of living a American or European has, your crazy. Not even 4 billion.

Whatever you think about global warming, the Earth's resources, water, fossil fuels, soils are already being stretched to the limit with the status quo.

Where is this "technology" you speak off. What has happened in the last 30 years or so ?

[HellToupee]

The concept of regulating the human population is ridiculous. Those who claim that it should occur live in a dream world.

The concept we must work towards is sustainability, that is develop the world and maintain a standard of living which essentially leaves the world the same for our children as we found it.

If sustainability comes through technology development and development in general, great.

You can't have sustainability without population control, the planet can only support so many people, improvements in technology and resource efficiency can simply be canceled out by growth in population.

[T3ngu]

I don't need a certificate from you or anyone else about who I am or what I know. Quit trolling.

I understand how scientific process works, thats more than enough for me to make judgments regarding what is right or wrong with CRU. All you have done so far is hijack threads to tell everyone on this forum that you were a project leader on a whoooo $2.5 MILLION!!!!!!!!! project. Point taken.Everyone is gasping!!!!! Go ahead and put that in your avatar and stop annoying everyone else. No one cares. And before starting a discussion next time on scientific process first go buy a Karl Popper work, try reading it and then come back. Till then you are just a novice.

Trolling, lol how can i troll when i simply point out what you post. I disagree therefore i troll? And a novice, a book makes you an expert in scientific rigour? I understand how many things work but it does not mean i can make judgements on how the world works.

No, i never told people about the project, I simply stated that i had real world experience, you were the one bragging about working on a project that spent millions a day. The fact that i can attain such funding is an indication of how much i understand the scientific process, rather than sprouting opinions about which i have a vauge understanding.

As for Popper, popper argued that logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory. Further he argued that a single refutation is critical. If i read right, he argued that one thing proving something wrong proves that the experimental testing is all false. That is, one person saying something is wrong means that it is wrong. Or in this case, global warming is not happening, because we cannot see all examples of it. But by Poppers theory it can be falsified by observing once piece of evidence that shows it is happening. That is one piece of evidence can show something isn't happening. Like if its raining, and someone is inside, thus its not raining.

Further following Poppers theory, we should have ignored the fact that the earth is round, E=MC2 and Darwinian evolution as these were at odds with the scientific community when proposed. Popper can be looked at two ways, one in that global warming does not exist, but conversely that it does exist and because dissenters don't agree, therefore by default it does exist. Thus by your definition, Popper dictates that you are also wrong because i can see one piece of evidence which proves you wrong.

Is that what you meant? Or were you simply drawing on the word "falsified" and not understanding what he meant?





T3ngu

I agree but… There’s much more to the American voting issue going on. You are technically correct that Obama and the Democrats platform did include a CO2 regulation factor and seeing they easily control the government, are legally allowed to initiate such law/regulation. There is a problem though. The US election system is broken or more to the point, the US voters are, as only a small plurality carried the Dems into power leaving a near equal number hard against and almost as many fence sitters undecided. Obama and the Dem’s may technically, legally have their mandate but spiritually they are far short of the mark.

By the way, I’ll clearly point it out for you pro/con climate change zealots again, and again, and again. Not once have I denied human influenced climate change nor do my comments claim it isn’t happening. I am discussing the political issues, not the scientific.

vryhpyammoadded, sorry i didn't mean to draw too much from my reference to Obama, and acknowledge there were other factors in play.

As a general comment, id be more than happy happy to be proven wrong, and that global warming isn't happening, but by looking outside my window i know things are not the same they were 30 years ago, and temperatures are indeed rising. To most, 0.5 of a degree is not significant, but it is. Further, the weight of scientific data clearly supports the fact that it is.


You can't have sustainability without population control, the planet can only support so many people, improvements in technology and resource efficiency can simply be cancelled out by growth in population.


Good point.

[wildcat]

I am still waiting for some Scientist to prove to me CO2 a trace gas causes global warming, and it is mans fault. I am not denying global warming, I think it is part of a natural cycle, that the planet heats and cools. I do not buy Al Gores theory, it is very heavily based in a political movement, GW is just the tool to get it down.

I am also for less pollution, more sustainability.

I just do not buy that C02 has any impact, on the planet temp raising seeing there is so little of it. However I do believe the sun does have a large impact on the planets heating and cooling. I think what is happening, is Man has become more advanced and fails to recognize the cycles and changes in his own environment as being something that you have to adapt too.

If there was clear facts, with supporting data, that anybody to see that Man is the cause that the planet is heating up quicker, I don't thing there would be much argument. But with the political will seeing an opportunity to take advantage over the people in the name of GW seems to be more the motivation on why the facts are not so open.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Am I the only one on here that is excited about the prospect of CO2 allowance being turned into an instrument that you can trade.

[wildcat]

Am I the only one on here that is excited about the prospect of CO2 allowance being turned into an instrument that you can trade.

you could set up a manufacturing company that make nothing but money. you could trade all your CO2 to real companies so they can continue to pollute while you make nothing but the money which you get from them, is that not what Al Gore is doing?

[Kilgor]

Am I the only one on here that is excited about the prospect of CO2 allowance being turned into an instrument that you can trade.

The great irony is that sections of the left and right are coming together to denounce this whole scheme is the economic con job it is.

It will do nothing for environmental causes and only seek to make a even small section of the of the population far richer.

This is why rapists like Goldman Sachs are just drooling over cap and trade.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

The Thames River, Baltic Sea, Hudson River and The Bosphorus used to freeze and ice up in winter. Iceland at one time was cut off due to forming of an ice sheet around the island.

I say. When was the last time any of these events occured?

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

The great irony is that sections of the left and right are coming together to denounce this whole scheme is the economic con job it is.

It will do nothing for environmental causes and only seek to make a even small section of the of the population far richer.

This is why rapists like Goldman Sachs are just drooling over cap and trade.Yep a lot of folk are getting excited about cap and trade my mate in particular who works for a large energy consultancy is pretty optimistic
about the potential of offsetting and carbon trading and his firm are already getting a lot of work in the carbon offsetting field.

[Eye]

The Thames River, Baltic Sea, Hudson River and The Bosphorus used to freeze and ice up in winter. Iceland at one time was cut off due to forming of an ice sheet around the island.

I say. When was the last time any of these events occured?
But before that Greenland was realy green and plantations of grapes were wide spread in such country like Poland. There was much warmer in Xc. than today.

[MaverickCowboy]

Are you to tell me.....

That some of the members on here support this, con job of a treaty and legislation because of its economic restrictions it would place on the U.S and E.U. population and economy because, "our way of life is not sustainable?" are you to also tell me you support population control? Restrictions like they do in china? Are you also to tell me you support these organizations that see as the fall of the United States and the industrialized world as a solution to the "Crisis" not only to your climate change fascism but economic issues and sustainability? You're shutting out any opposing thoughts. What's wrong with you people? Are we to shackle ourselves to an ideology and self deconstruct our standard of living? how many people have to die because of an idea , ideology? you people are pushing this climate change bull**** on people and the very extreme portions of your members even talk about thinning the population. Yet you belong to the same mass of people who denounce religion because of lack of "proof" yet most of this climate change is only presented in so called science and research that is barked at us with no one to check and balance their rhetoric. Really... how much different is "Climate Change" and your preachers than any of the extreme religious fanatics you denounce yourselves?


Eviremental protection has been hijacked but militaristic fascist's just like Christianity back in its time. People must conform to this way of thinking or they will be taken care of. gotten rid of, or better yet. McCarthyism but with Climate change. All this crap is leading down a very bad path.

[intelligenzija]

Are you to tell me.....

That some of the members on here support this, con job of a treaty and legislation because of its economic restrictions it would place on the U.S and E.U. population and economy because, "our way of life is not sustainable?" are you to also tell me you support population control? Restrictions like they do in china? Are you also to tell me you support these organizations that see as the fall of the United States and the industrialized world as a solution to the "Crisis" not only to your climate change fascism but economic issues and sustainability. You're shutting out any opposing thoughts. What's wrong with you people? Are we to shackle ourself to an ideology and self deconstruct our standard of living? how many people have to die because of an idea , ideology? you people are pushing this climate change bull**** on people and the very extreme portions of your members even talk about thinning the population. Yet you belong to the same mass of people who denounce religion because of lack of "proof" yet most of this climate change is only presented in so called science and research that is barked at us with no one to check and balance their rhetoric. Really... how much different is "Climate Change" and you're preachers than any of the extreme religious fanatics you denounce yourselves?

I agree with you 100%

in German childern's tv they aired a show where a family with last name "Knecht" (servant) agreed to live one week by keeping their CO2 emissions below a certain level. It was hilarious. The children couldn't buy fruits because they were from Asia (too far away thus high CO2 emissions) and in the evening they even switched off the light and used candles to save CO2 and so on.. from time to time the climate/energy commissioner came by and checked everything.
They brainwash the people on a very early stage already.

[budgie]

The great irony is that sections of the left and right are coming together to denounce this whole scheme is the economic con job it is.

It will do nothing for environmental causes and only seek to make a even small section of the of the population far richer.

This is why rapists like Goldman Sachs are just drooling over cap and trade.

I agree. Cap and trade shifts the problem around but won't necessarily encourage firms to reduce emissions. This shouldn't be considered a left right issue. If it won't effectively reduce pollution it's a waste of effort.

[HellToupee]

Are you to tell me.....

That some of the members on here support this, con job of a treaty and legislation because of its economic restrictions it would place on the U.S and E.U. population and economy because, "our way of life is not sustainable?" are you to also tell me you support population control? Restrictions like they do in china? Are you also to tell me you support these organizations that see as the fall of the United States and the industrialized world as a solution to the "Crisis" not only to your climate change fascism but economic issues and sustainability? You're shutting out any opposing thoughts. What's wrong with you people? Are we to shackle ourselves to an ideology and self deconstruct our standard of living? how many people have to die because of an idea , ideology? you people are pushing this climate change bull**** on people and the very extreme portions of your members even talk about thinning the population. Yet you belong to the same mass of people who denounce religion because of lack of "proof" yet most of this climate change is only presented in so called science and research that is barked at us with no one to check and balance their rhetoric. Really... how much different is "Climate Change" and your preachers than any of the extreme religious fanatics you denounce yourselves?


Eviremental protection has been hijacked but militaristic fascist's just like Christianity back in its time. People must conform to this way of thinking or they will be taken care of. gotten rid of, or better yet. McCarthyism but with Climate change. All this crap is leading down a very bad path.

Sustainability is an ideology of survival, its not wanting fall of the USA, its the opposite because without efforts into making our standard of living sustainable we all fall.

We see this in animals, with growth unchecked they grow untill they consume the food in their environment then starve.

[HellToupee]

I agree. Cap and trade shifts the problem around but won't necessarily encourage firms to reduce emissions. This shouldn't be considered a left right issue. If it won't effectively reduce pollution it's a waste of effort.

Well TBH it does, if firms don't want to reduce emissions they have to buy credits, so then theres money in creating carbon sinks which , like forrests, already govt proposals here to cash in on that by creating more forrests.

[budgie]

Oh bugger yeah forgot that. But since the GOP insists global warming isn't happening it's all unnnecessary right?

[MaverickCowboy]

Sustainability is an ideology of survival, its not wanting fall of the USA, its the opposite because without efforts into making our standard of living sustainable we all fall.

We see this in animals, with growth unchecked they grow untill they consume the food in their environment then starve.

completely missed what i said.

these freaks want us to become vegetarians, stop driving cars, and overcharge us for electricity and control our "carbon" credits. its Orwellian and you know it. i wont stand for it.

[MaverickCowboy]

Well TBH it does, if firms don't want to reduce emissions they have to buy credits, so then theres money in creating carbon sinks which , like forrests, already govt proposals here to cash in on that by creating more forrests.

Then they squeese money out of electric companies. then they have to squeeze it out of us. charging us more for power =less money we get to have= artificially expensive living= more poverty=less goods

itll make everything prohibitively expensive and destroy the economy.

[HellToupee]

completely missed what i said.

these freaks want us to become vegetarians, stop driving cars, and overcharge us for electricity and control our "carbon" credits. its Orwellian and you know it. i wont stand for it.

These freaks are a minority, most are simply normal people who want a future for generations to follow.


Then they squeese money out of electric companies. then they have to squeeze it out of us. charging us more for power =less money we get to have= artificially expensive living= more poverty=less goods

itll make everything prohibitively expensive and destroy the economy.

Power/energy is going to rise even without cap and trade, better to preempt the potential crisis before it happens and on our terms.

As we saw in 2007/8 energy prices can skyrocket in a short space of time, where as it takes many decades to reduce dependence on fossil fuels

[Wimbly]

Oh bugger yeah forgot that. But since the GOP insists global warming isn't happening it's all unnnecessary right?

I'm pretty sure most in the GOP don't have a problem with climate change. They just don't beleive we're causing it, or that we need to give governments more power and control over people in order to stop it.

[MaverickCowboy]

These freaks are a minority, most are simply normal people who want a future for generations to follow.



Power/energy is going to rise even without cap and trade, better to preempt the potential crisis before it happens and on our terms.

As we saw in 2007/8 energy prices can skyrocket in a short space of time, where as it takes many decades to reduce dependence on fossil fuels

No. cap and trade will destroy economies and throw us into a depression and make a money pyramid scheme out of climate change bs. hell. make Madoff president of the world why don't you.

[grasulas]

I`m not a scientist I can not tell what is causing this climate change but this doesn’t mean is not happening, I see the signs all over the place and I will be an ignorant to say is not happening. Maybe is a natural cycle or maybe not, maybe we are causing this, we have allot of geeks telling is “our way of leaving” that make the planet one big green house. Will not be the first time when man shows his ignorant and selfish nature, we all know how destructive and insensible we can be with other spices or there environments when it comes to our benefit .

We will always find reasons to trick our self’s that we have to keep our standard of life because is natural, is the way we suppose to leave and because those who tell us different are extremists who try to change “our way of life”. I don’t deny that we have a group of interest who use this climate change to impose more taxes and more rules in there benefits but lets not lie our self’s saying that nothing is happening with mother nature.

[Jiggy]

No. cap and trade will destroy economies and throw us into a depression.

we'll probably be heading into one regardless.

[vryhpyammoadded]

Am I the only one on here that is excited about the prospect of CO2 allowance being turned into an instrument that you can trade.
It may surprise a few people who think they know me but I also find the “earlier” cap and trade models of handling onerous materials a good idea. I grew up with rivers that would burn you if you touched them and rocks that would occasionally spontaneously ignite, nicotine sky’s, highways used as trash cans, trees turning brown and lakes going sterile from acid rain and was more than happy to support the problems being managed in ways more in tune with private and smart regulatory action than rackets to funnel money into depleted federal coffers.

What I’m all fired up about is how the elite, specifically American, are leveraging CO2’s FUD not primarily to clean up and regulate said compounds but more as an indirect revenue source for their failing, corrupt federal nanny racket state and that because this is the underlying truth of their legislation “in my opinion”, it is against the fundamental values of the majority of the national culture and therefore, must not be rushed, crammed through, spun and conned like it has been until the people can have their chance for an actual, not technical, i.e. legal, fair say in the legislations construction.

This Federal government getting its cut of this system effectively taxes the population by taking a managerial elite surcharge off the trading. Now you socialist folk may be fine with this but us more traditional Americans cannot stand for it. It crosses the philosophical line of too much government taking license with our liberties. Normal Americans do not like unfair, rent seeking and monopolistic business behaviors and find it disgusting when out Federal government plays auctioneer to an effectively rigged cartel of players who will pass their expenses down to us as the government rakes in the dough.

This is an increasingly common theme in US legislation and why I call for the elite to ease up lest they break something and deepen the US budgetary/economic death spiral. The proper way to keep the Fed funded is through honest taxation and fiscal policy debated on the HILL, not the creation of immortal, monopolistic bureaucratic rackets that effectively rent seek, automatically coercing ever mounting fractions of our hard earned wealth.

I know roughly 70% of the world’s governments operate in this system a political philosophy 180’ about from near half the US voting population, that the idea of more centralized, stronger federal power greatly appeals to US managerial elite and that foreign powers desire treaty arrangements they feel comfortable with but to foist such culturally incompatible legislation using the iron fist in the velvet glove because the world runs this way and rake in trillions of easy de facto tax revenue is sheer stupidity and I would say unconstitutional. It’s the lazy management, leadership (responsibility) lacking shuffle into tyranny and how Republics DIE.

US legislators should look to previous plans that have worked in spirit with the national culture and not practice new methods of conning money out of the US citizen to fund a fatally flawed, corrupt, lazy and growingly incompetent US managerial elite bleeding the national largess and economy like some opened, gushing artery. Fvcking Vampires, I can’t stand them.

If I had the god power I’d be tempted to wipe them all, slowly, painfully, off the face of the planet so good people could have a chance to breathe again and recover but that’s a useless dream because the people wouldn’t have the opportunity to learn from these stupid mistakes they are making.

2Sheds you're wrong. Don’t give me the giant robo tyrant package, I'm too tempted to press the button and cackle with glee. p-)

[cbreedon]

Never saw that one before-agree with it inna way

they are clalled Watermelons... green on the outside red on the inside :)

[MaverickCowboy]

These freaks are a minority, most are simply normal people who want a future for generations to follow.



Power/energy is going to rise even without cap and trade, better to preempt the potential crisis before it happens and on our terms.

As we saw in 2007/8 energy prices can skyrocket in a short space of time, where as it takes many decades to reduce dependence on fossil fuels


These freaks are NOT a goddamned minority. they are the ones writing the goddamned legislation. Power will rise, but not as much has under cap and trade.

This will make a government monopoly on who can produce anything and be anextra tax on business. doesnt do ANYTHING.


in your logic. its going to get bad anyway, so lets throw more money and control at the government. good idea. i rather have the money in my pocket for food rather than carbon credit for my electricity provider.

[budgie]

I'm pretty sure most in the GOP don't have a problem with climate change. They just don't beleive we're causing it, or that we need to give governments more power and control over people in order to stop it.

Tell you what: let's all pretend - as a small minority of industry-funded scientists do - that climate change is natural or non-existent. Then we can all bury our heads in the sand wait fifty years and see what the world looks like. In the meantime even if the climate doesn't change pollution WILL skyrocket.

Why? Because big business doesn't want to take the hard economic steps to clean up their shyte. Your kids will all have respiratory disease and mercury poisoning but hey, look! The world's temperatures are only a couple of degrees warmer! Rush was right!!!!

Now I'm not saying that a big govt, carbon credit approach is the solution, but it's solutions people need to be debating, not the existence of the problem. Even the world's biggest polluting nations acknowledge the problem. The jury is not still out on global warming and only a small, yet economically powerful minority disagrees.

[HellToupee]

These freaks are NOT a goddamned minority. they are the ones writing the goddamned legislation. Power will rise, but not as much has under cap and trade.

Yes thats why its now illegal to eat meat... o wait.



This will make a government monopoly on who can produce anything and be anextra tax on business. doesnt do ANYTHING.

in your logic. its going to get bad anyway, so lets throw more money and control at the government. good idea. i rather have the money in my pocket for food rather than carbon credit for my electricity provider.

I would rather have my country remain stable than money that would be useless in any real energy crysis. I don't think things are going to get bad, just more expensive but if theres no effort to prepare in advance then bad becomes a real possibility.

Whole point of carbon trading is to allow more money to go directly towards solutions bypassing government, if it was about government wanting more money they would simply directly tax your emmissions.

[MaverickCowboy]

if it was about government wanting more money they would simply directly tax your emmissions.

That what Cap and Trade legislation would do. It would tax businesses for their Energy consumption and homes for electricity they use which they are already being charged for. its a energy consumption tax on everyone.

[Irbis]

The facts “ARE” irrelevant because the dissenters don’t give a damn about them. The resistance to global CO2 regulation has nothing to do with the validity of the science, it’s all about governments not perceived as representing their needs correctly, with integrity by following Republican values of respect for the dissenting voice and not by having politicians, interest groups, the media and a horde of frenzied zealots ramming their junk down everyone’s throats. This is the perception that’s stiffening resistance. If someone suspects he is being rushed into something, conned out of his hard earned wealth, he will scream bloody murder that it stops.

What I’m getting at is that the anti CO2 mafia needs to cool its jets, ease up on the frenzied push and drop back to a slower pace of education and stop coming off as some con job which is how it’s being perceived by a lot of people especially what with all controversy contrived or not.

So, your response to burning forest is to educate people around it, divide them into neat squads, train them for six months, draw reasonable plan of equipment procurement, then... Oh, wait. Forest burned a year ago :roll:

You know, vaccines (and mass vaccinations) also produced (at first) arguments from idiots who replaced knowledge with superstitions - until new generations grew accustomed to it just working. Ditto for transplantations, transfusions, washing hands, railroads, cars, electricity - always idiots who knew the least were screaming the most.

And you know what I find most amusing? So called "independent thinkers" don't even notice that they simply repeat arguments from Fox-like media, from Bush-like politicians, generally, from sources tied to industry. You know, people who have vital interest of covering their own ass, only. The same people who (with rabid resolution) tried to convince of that smoking is really harmless, that lead in the fuel won't make any lasting damages, that Ford Pinto minus 0.10$ (too expensive) cover is the safest car on the road...

Really, just look on the modern fishing nets that have "windows" through which trapped dolphin or sea turtle can escape - in Canada, they're left open. In US, many idiot fishermen tie them with wire (our dumb government won't change the way we are fishing!), then dump drowned animals overboard (to avoid huge fines), removing the wire only in port to fool inspectors. All to catch ~2% more fish. All while US Gov does the right thing and embargoes countries without such nets, sadly not looking inward.

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

All hail sustainable approach of independent men who know better than those god-damned scienties how they should work! Responsible 4 evah! :roll:


That what Cap and Trade legislation would do. It would tax businesses for their Energy consumption and homes for electricity they use which they are already being charged for. its a energy consumption tax on everyone.

No, it is a simple incentive to make industry produce more from given unit of energy.

Which, somehow (Oh NoEs!11!!1!) is evil, right? :bash:


But before that Greenland was realy green and plantations of grapes were wide spread in such country like Poland. There was much warmer in Xc. than today.

Sigh. Can you google before you repeat something that is nothing but a lie already debunked millions of times? Hell, I feel generous, I'll do that for you:

http://wo.blox.pl/2009/10/Chce-globalnego-ocieplenia.html
http://doskonaleszare.blox.pl/html

In Polish, even, to make this easier for you p-)


That some of the members on here support this, con job of a treaty and legislation because of its economic restrictions it would place on the U.S and E.U. population and economy because, "our way of life is not sustainable?" are you to also tell me you support population control? Restrictions like they do in china? Are you also to tell me you support these organizations that see as the fall of the United States and the industrialized world as a solution to the "Crisis" not only to your climate change fascism but economic issues and sustainability? You're shutting out any opposing thoughts. What's wrong with you people? Are we to shackle ourselves to an ideology and self deconstruct our standard of living?

Says someone who doesn't follow ideology of hiding his head in the sand instead of listening to people who know what they're talking about :roll:

And I'm not talking about politicians now.

And yes, Einstein, current economy is not sustainable. With oil peak, over-mining, overfishing, pollution, we will barely be able to maintai the current style of living. Add population growth and the whole industry will detonate from crisis that will make the one from 2008 look like firecracker.

Shall I remind you what happened to the price of pretty much all resources when China wanted to make that 2008 show? They still have 1/12 of US GNP per person. Bring China to the living level of US, and they (one country) will need 85% of planet's resources to fuel that - sustainable, indeed. :bash:

If not for restrictions you pointed, their economy would have collapsed long ago.

***

And 0.02$ from me - I find amusing how all these "learned" people still use "Global Warming" tag coined by sensationalist press, while scientists long since moves to "Climate Change", to combat idiotic notion that it will be simple temperature rise. It won't be. And sorry, even if opponents were right, and it was caused by sun (it isn't - sun is responsible for, at most, 0.5 c shifts at a time) - the correct response would be to try to maintain balance, and certainly not to contribute to the problem even more. Life on Earth isn't a given - it can be (given correct circumstances) kicked out of balance, in both sides. Several times, our planet nearly froze completely, or was turned into hellish hellhole like Venus. That was when the planet was much younger, sun brighter, resources for life more abundant - thus, allowing for rapid atmosphere changes. We are duplicating this right now, only with industry, and on a bit smaller scale, but we can still throw the world off balance.

And don't tell me hungry stores about planet "resetting itself" - if it will be thrown off balance, it won't happen. For example, Snowball, frozen Earth covered with ice will trap most of greenhouse gases in said ice, while being excellent heat reflector - or, similarly, warming globe will destroy ice caps, warming the planet even more, while releasing greenhouse gases from thawing permafrost, fueling the process even more.

Don't believe me? Don't believe the CO2 is greenhouse gas? Go, read about Venus then, as that planet was once earthlike, and explain why it is now much hotter than Mercury (which is much closer to Sun), and what forms mayority of Venus atmosphere.

I bet they had GoP and Fox, too, along with "independent thinkers" p-)

Yes, so far we've been very lucky. I don't say that such scenario will happen - all I'm saying is, the planet doesn't have any magic cleaning powers, 95% of scientists agree that we are causing the climate change, and cleaning anything is always much more expensive and difficult than not polluting in the first place. How ignorant can someone who picks th option of saving 1$ now simply to have his children pay 50$ (or grandchildren 500$) in the future be? :roll:

And the saddest thing of all is, as these people spewing venom about conspiracy never actually bothered to check what was described by scientists as "trick", they cannot point to a single email describing any sort of truth covering, profit-gaining conspiracy, and instead repeat their Fox-implanted slogans that never touched any kind of scientific criticism. Apparently, shouting slogans is easier than actually reading and formulating informed opinion - and yet, these people keep shouting that they will make better decisions than scientists - just like "wire" fishermen. Oh, and these shouts wouldn't be complete without obligatory "Lisbon UE is evul!1!!1", of course p-)

[MaverickCowboy]

Then you know what? I'm gonna start collecting Ammunition, food, Diesel and supplies for the upcoming food shortage and purchasing goods and food restrictions enacted by your climate change bull****.

[vryhpyammoadded]

K, I’ll say it one last time… Why not, it only takes 5 min of my time.

It’s always about politics first before the science. Here’s why.

If one doesn’t follow Republican governmental ideals to the spirit, respecting the dissenting minority opinion, said minority will get very pissed off allowing for terrible potential outcomes more immediate and than your eco nightmare in the distant future. Then again the depopulation and economic reduction would accomplish your goals somewhat anyway.

They’ll make your goose stepping ecocommiefascists making threats a deal; when your commissariat buddies come knocking at the Kulaks neighborhood doors expecting easy wealth confiscation, they can feel free to attempt to defend themselves. Then later as they send the army, some Kulaks will burn the means of production poison the land and come armed, in secret, among you to spread death and terror because that’s all the minority really has available to fight with once you’ve taken the government, the army, shut them out and disenfranchised them with intent to loot their lives.

Do you get it now? Cool your jets, ease up, be patient, there really is plenty of time to lead people the proper way through this and avoid bloodshed. Right now your sort is pushing too hard and building up hatred.

[MaverickCowboy]

K, I’ll say it one last time… Why not, it only takes 5 min of my time.

It’s always about politics first before the science. Here’s why.

If one doesn’t follow Republican governmental ideals to the spirit, respecting the dissenting minority opinion, said minority will get very pissed off allowing for terrible potential outcomes more immediate and than your eco nightmare in the distant future. Then again the depopulation and economic reduction would accomplish your goals somewhat anyway.

They’ll make your goose stepping ecocommiefascists making threats a deal; when your commissariat buddies come knocking at the Kulaks neighborhood doors expecting easy wealth confiscation, they can feel free to attempt to defend themselves. Then later as they send the army, some Kulaks will burn the means of production poison the land and come armed, in secret, among you to spread death and terror because that’s all the minority really has available to fight with once you’ve taken the government, the army, shut them out and disenfranchised them with intent to loot their lives.

Do you get it now? Cool your jets, ease up, be patient, there really is plenty of time to lead people the proper way through this and avoid bloodshed. Right now your sort is pushing too hard and building up hatred.

who are you directing this to?

[seraosha]

who are you directing this to?

The new guy that sounds like he's a sophmore in college, Irbis.

[vryhpyammoadded]

who are you directing this to?
Was aimed at the nimrod Irbis. I missed pasting a line denoting that.

[HellToupee]

Then you know what? I'm gonna start collecting Ammunition, food, Diesel and supplies for the upcoming food shortage and purchasing goods and food restrictions enacted by your climate change bull****.

Dont break the dependance on our limited fossil fuels in time and i would be worried by more than just a food shortage.

[Kutuzov]

Dont break the dependance on our limited fossil fuels in time and i would be worried by more than just a food shortage.

Yes don't forget not to breathe or you will kill the planet :)

http://www.youtube.com/v/M1YH2t1nZzc&feature=rec-r2-2r-3-HM

[Horizon]

What is the secret of Soylent Green?

[brainplay]

You know, vaccines (and mass vaccinations) also produced (at first) arguments from idiots who replaced knowledge with superstitions - until new generations grew accustomed to it just working. Ditto for transplantations, transfusions, washing hands, railroads, cars, electricity - always idiots who knew the least were screaming the most.

False on all accounts. Vaccines when first introduced still had a decent chance (by our standards) of infecting the person it was trying to immunize thus leading to general fear of the things. Much of the rest you mentioned was also a case of economics not voodoo.


And you know what I find most amusing? So called "independent thinkers" don't even notice that they simply repeat arguments from Fox-like media, from Bush-like politicians, generally, from sources tied to industry. You know, people who have vital interest of covering their own ass, only. The same people who (with rabid resolution) tried to convince of that smoking is really harmless, that lead in the fuel won't make any lasting damages, that Ford Pinto minus 0.10$ (too expensive) cover is the safest car on the road...

I find it amusing that psuedo intellectuals repeat arguments from MSMBC media and Reid/Boxer like politicians generally from sources tied to the industry and those looking to start their own. The same people tried to convince us that second hand smoke kills babies on sight (chances of second hand smoke causing cancer to open air bystanders is less than 1%), the ozone hole in the antarctic will melt the ice caps and doom us all (seasonal), or that shifting to all bio-disel will have no real consequences and only benefits.


Really, just look on the modern fishing nets that have "windows" through which trapped dolphin or sea turtle can escape - in Canada, they're left open. In US, many idiot fishermen tie them with wire (our dumb government won't change the way we are fishing!), then dump drowned animals overboard (to avoid huge fines), removing the wire only in port to fool inspectors. All to catch ~2% more fish. All while US Gov does the right thing and embargoes countries without such nets, sadly not looking inward.

I'm sorry, but self-flagation is bad mmkay. The fishermen who wire their nets shut aren't regulated by nationality. What they do and what you're doing now is douchebaggery.


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

All hail sustainable approach of independent men who know better than those god-damned scienties how they should work! Responsible 4 evah! :roll:

TEDs were first developed in the 1970s by a fisherman called Sinkey Boone, seeking to reduce his by-catch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/By-catch).

Independent men with innovative ideas who saw a need and a market. Oh damn that free market idea.


No, it is a simple incentive to make industry produce more from given unit of energy. Which, somehow (Oh NoEs!11!!1!) is evil, right?

Cap and trade does not promote efficiency. The necessity to reduce Co2 emissions can actually decrease efficiency on a large scale and increase the need for more energy in both electrical and mechanical forms. Nor does it address REAL pollution issues such as heavy metal particle emissions nor sulfide byproducts. It does move the problem and allows for a new sub-industry to form. Ironically Marx would roll in his grave if he saw Cap and Trade.


Says someone who doesn't follow ideology of hiding his head in the sand instead of listening to people who know what they're talking about :roll:

And I'm not talking about politicians now.

In short, they know better than everyone else so shut up or else? I believe you just confirmed his post with that paragraph. OBEY.


And 0.02$ from me - I find amusing how all these "learned" people still use "Global Warming" tag coined by sensationalist press, while scientists long since moves to "Climate Change", to combat idiotic notion that it will be simple temperature rise.

No, Global Warming is the main focus of the IPCC and other "climate change" specialists out there. All other aspects take a sideline unless they support the notion of Global Warming. Hence the structure of the IPCC reports with the temperature as the main focus and the economic impacts as the follow up.



And don't tell me hungry stores about planet "resetting itself" - if it will be thrown off balance, it won't happen. For example, Snowball, frozen Earth covered with ice will trap most of greenhouse gases in said ice, while being excellent heat reflector - or, similarly, warming globe will destroy ice caps, warming the planet even more, while releasing greenhouse gases from thawing permafrost, fueling the process even more.

You actually have more to worry about from the water to air saturation and cloud accumulation than from the Co2. Water collects heat at several levels above Co2 and a rapid thawing would cover the planet in mist. This is how a GREENHOUSE works. Just saying...


Don't believe me? Don't believe the CO2 is greenhouse gas? Go, read about Venus then, as that planet was once earthlike, and explain why it is now much hotter than Mercury (which is much closer to Sun), and what forms mayority of Venus atmosphere.
I bet they had GoP and Fox, too, along with "independent thinkers" p-)


No water, biomass, and a surface air pressure 92x that of earth vs. no atmosphere. Yeah, that's a great comparison... :roll: I see they don't teach scientific method in high school anymore.




Yes, so far we've been very lucky. I don't say that such scenario will happen - all I'm saying is, the planet doesn't have any magic cleaning powers, 95% of scientists agree that we are causing the climate change, and cleaning anything is always much more expensive and difficult than not polluting in the first place.

The 95% get thrown around by the IPCC but can never be quantified. Then when thousands of scientists go on the record as opposing the views they're call "wingnuts" or "industry lapdogs" especially when the credibility of the IPCC report compilation group is called into question or god forbid...review.

False about the cleaning issue. Cleaning is never a valid point since those same scientists refuse to "tamper with the atmosphere" based on ethics. Carbon filters, oversized Co2 scrubbers, and gaseous conversion systems are always shot down since their effect is "unknown" and might hurt the atmosphere. Ironically they aren't willing to apply the same "science" to cleaning as they do for anything else.


How ignorant can someone who picks th option of saving 1$ now simply to have his children pay 50$ (or grandchildren 500$) in the future be? :roll:

Its for "teh children"! Play the race card while you're at it.


And the saddest thing of all is, as these people spewing venom about conspiracy never actually bothered to check what was described by scientists as "trick", they cannot point to a single email describing any sort of truth covering, profit-gaining conspiracy, and instead repeat their Fox-implanted slogans that never touched any kind of scientific criticism. Apparently, shouting slogans is easier than actually reading and formulating informed opinion - and yet, these people keep shouting that they will make better decisions than scientists - just like "wire" fishermen. Oh, and these shouts wouldn't be complete without obligatory "Lisbon UE is evul!1!!1", of course p-)

This part of your post is the most ironic of everything else. People spewing venom? Have you seen some of the responses by "the other side". Must not count. It must only apply to those people "tied to the industry". Exxon will send me a check for posting this. I'm spending the money I collect from them to go on either a baby seal clubbing safari or a Russian "hunt the pirate" cruise. Leaning towards the baby seal safari since the Russians will probably try to serve borscht or some of their soups. I'm not a beat or cabbage fan.

[silentpartner]

http://www.youtube.com/v/stij8sUybx0

Well worth watching.