world

Climate summit opens with boost from U.S.

73 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

73 Comments
Login to comment

It's pretty awesome to see not just India, but China and America at the negotiating table.

This would have been absolutely unthinkable only 2 short years ago when the Climate Denier In Chief George Bush was running America into the ground.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi, why do you still believe climate change is caused by humans?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge,

look up the word science. Its a good one.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge; Great post buddy!

Man made climate change has been exposed by reputable scientists asa myth. President Bush knew this fact as did his qualified advisers.

Obama is making a mockery of the American people, by threatening our future growth with false propehcies of doom about climate chage. This conference is for money making puropses and for bad leaders to make political gain at the expenese of regular folk.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SushiSake:

" It's pretty awesome to see not just India, but China and America at the negotiating table. "

LOL! China and India have already said that they are not going to partake in any self-destructive "cap and trade" scheme, so it is up to the brainwashed USers and Europeans to go ahead with more Cape and trade and similar "move jobs to China/India" schemes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi, why do you still believe climate change is caused by humans?

Sarge, why do you believe that humans can, in a few generations, take the result of hundreds of millions of years of oil and coal formation underground and spew it into the atmosphere and pretend that it won't have any impact on climate? Is it a lack of simple common sense on your part?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge - "Sushi, why do you still believe climate change is caused by humans?"

Because I refuse to believe bunk claims from climate change deniers.

Sarge, the world's population has nearly quadrupled in only 100 years.

Our planet's environment is essentially a closed system (only radiation gets in or out).

More people = more pollution = more emitted gases.

Obviously there is a lot more to it than that, but that's a primer.

Here's some reasons I believe the planet is warming:

I have absorbed - not fact-free rhetoric from conservative talk show hosts and what passes as "news" on certain TV channels in the States, but Nasa images that clearly show the polar ice caps are shrinking.

The Great Barrier Reef and other major coral reefs - in particular in the Pacific ocean - are bleaching. Coral bleaching only occurs when ocean temperatures rise.

There have been increasing numbers of sightings of polar bear cannibalism - including mothers killing their own cubs for food - believed due to the fact that polar ice caps are shrinking and the bears are having to swim farther for food.

Major glaciers - including those in the Himalayas that are feeding the major rivers such as the Yangzee, Yellow, etc. - are melting faster than ever. According to what you and I learnt in college, ice only melts when temperatures increase.

But there are climate change deniers out there who would argue with me about that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

DickMorris says "This conference is for money making puropses...."

But DickMorris will not - of course - be able to explain how. :-)

I wish I believed in fairies and 'voices in my head' like some climate change deniers do.

I'd be a prime candidate for a top job in the GOP if I did. :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WillB - "LOL! China and India have already said that they are not going to partake in any self-destructive "cap and trade" scheme,"

[Psssst! Don't tell WillB that there's going to be 110 heads of state and government attending and that 192 nations have been in negotiations for over 2 years for this meeting. It might make him/her think that this meeting is actually being taken seriously by governments of nearly every nation on the planet.]

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SushiSake3; You choose to mock those of us with traditional values, but you fail to make the case, is man made warming a fact? The answer is no it aint mister!

The Liberal elite have firends in high places in the "eco industry" who will win big time from policies made at these type of conferences. The loser will be the average guy, whos wallet will have less money due to increased eco taxes to pay millionare crackpot eco "experts".

I don`t want more of my hard earned taxes going into the pocket of charlatans who fake data to perpetuate the man made global warming myth.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yep, according to the Climate Change Deniers, 192 nations have ALL been sucker-punched by Al Gore and His Gang of Scientists who are making money at the expense of everyone by pushing "climate change hysteria."

lol!!! :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The next thing the Climate Change Deniers will want us to believe is that while the glaciers and polar ice caps are melting faster than ever, the planet is actually cooling.

Wait - they already have spun that one.

Do the Laws of Physics suddenly stop applying when you sign up as a conservative in the States? lol!! :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

DickMorris - "The Liberal elite have firends in high places in the "eco industry" who will win big time from policies made at these type of conferences."

How? Please name names.

Also, do you realise you are saying that the GOP elite appear to have completely missed the boat to profit from climate change "hysteria"?

Are they really that stupid?

OK, sorry, that's just a dumb question....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SushiSake3; The Republicans are honest, have integrity and do not wish to profit from these false claims by Liberal nutjobs.

Obama has low morals and zero integrity, he will do Aanything that he can to make profit for his buddies, stay in power and hoodwink Americans.

As an independent i find Obama`s manmade global warming claims a good reason not to vote Democrat.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Maybe I'll believe in climate change (funny how the term "global warming" went away went the average temperatures failed to rise over the last decade) when its proponents began acting in their personal lives like it is a threat. The Copenhagen climate summit participants are flying in over 140 private jets and will be ferried around in over 1200 limousines. A couple of weeks ago Al Gore was in my city to promote his latest book and he arrived at the venue - in a convoy of SUV's!

Now we know that the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia has been falsifying its research and actively suppressing data that challenges the dominant paradigm of the new environmental religion. But it may be too late from stopping the politicians and inviduals profitting from the climate change scare from spending trillions of dollars that would be better spent improving the lives of billions of people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

DickMorris - "The Liberal elite have firends in high places in the "eco industry" who will win big time from policies made at these type of conferences."

How? Please name names.

The first carbon billionaire Albert Gore. You know, man who buys carbon offsets for his affluent lifestyle from the carbon credit company he owns funded by his father's shares in Occidental Petroleum.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve

-You are looking at 400 parts per million CO2 -that's seems like a fair number to me. I don't understand all the fear mongering among these billionaire and trillionaire bankers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Less CO2 release means less carbon burning which means less oil consumption which means that net oil importers(like the US) have less wealth migration to oil producing contries. It would be in the best interest of net importing countries to fully embrace carbon cutting technologies, so thier economies will not be so greatly effected by oil prices. A $130~ a barrel for crude oil was part of what started the current recession.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Climate change is a natural occurrence and solar radiation likely has a far larger effect than CO2 AGW proponents admit. Furthermore, as the global temperature trend downwards, ice growth in the Antarctic has outpace ice melting.

"Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica. [...] Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.

A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded." http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/revealed-antarctic-ice-growing/story-e6frg6no-1225700046908

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cars are getting more efficient and heaven forbid some are even electric now. Solar panels, biodigesters, ethanol = less people are buying oil and maybe even less in the future -- this is not good for the rich that own these industries.

People are growing more of their own food or looking to organic farmers = you are "stealing" money from the rich and their embedded companies.

=People are not acting like the slaves Gov (Federal Reserve bankers) want them to be. =You must be taxed for your "bad" behavior. =CO2 Gov control and eventually sunlight control taxes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

this last decade was the warmest ever recorded by science (again, for the coal company toadies look up the word). The claims by the wingers are like those that believe the earth is flat. Its flat as far as they can see I guess. If you listen to fox news everyday along with the drug addict ont he radio then I guess the republicans cannot see global warming either.

They are simply repeating the propaganda of the coal industry, like mindless robots. Meanwhile the earth is obviously melting at unprecidented rates as anyone with a clear mind can understand.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Climate changing down some degrees is here to stay, unfortunately. Governments from Europe, US and Northern Asia are reluctant to take action because, besides the money aspect, citizens from these regions are not feeling the change personally. After all, what's the difference of having 50 cm of snow 20 years ago and 25 now?, there's snow anyway. And what with winter days a little warmer? It's good, we can play outside more comfortably. The whole problem is that countries from warmer regions are becoming ever warmer. If you don't believe that, talk to Australians, Brazilians or spend some time in Thailand, Cambodia, South Africa. You will hear how they are feeling the sun warmer in their skin. And that winters are shorter and warmer - when there's a winter to be noticed.

Anyway, this climate conference came too late. Of course it's necessary to have it. But they needed to have a parallel conferecen to this one: what technologies are available, or that can be created, to stop or minimize Earth's exposure to UV and infrared rays which are causing this warming? Talk about SF here...there are even ideas of launching a giant umbrella-panel which would block these rays in ionosphere. It may sound silly, but that's the only way out of the current situation: stop pollution and find ways to fix the current warm trend.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

it depends on what you consider "science." -If falsifying data is considered science you are indeed correct. However many look forward to the time when England can grow grapes and have vineyards again (was it really so long ago?).

I am positive global warming and positive CO2. -Let's go for it!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Whether the scientists are right or wrong, if there is a manmade global warming or not, or if its still gonna be big business interests that are dictating things, its still important to actually get things done that is good for environment. Fact is, that most of the politicians are supported by industrial capitalists, but besides that, there are also many consumer groups and environmentalist groups and NGOs that are working on getting different agendas through.

And as a citizen of Copenhagen, im delighted to see how many different groups are in town. Through couchsurfing.org i even receive loads of requests from individuals attending the climate conference, or just people who want to make a difference. Even if the results from the conference might be limited, its a joy to see that people take an active interest in this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Badsey. Sure it could be fun and interesting to have England, Denmark and Sweden as the next wine producing nations, but also consider that is small island nations like Fiji gets flooded because of global warming, or natural disasters destroy livelihoods of many people, then we have a totally different problem with refugees and such. And many countries already have hard restrictions on accepting refugees

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Do the Laws of Physics suddenly stop applying when you sign up as a conservative in the States? lol!! :-)

No, apparently its when you drink the liberal koolaid. All the data showing a long term cooling trend, even your own scientists, who were falsifying data, acknowledged this, as they were concerned about covering this up in their own data. Hence the fudging of data to make it appear as if the warming trend was still occurring.

I've said it on another thread as well. But there are really only about 3 types of people who still believe in AGW anymore. Those with an axe to grind, be it political, or otherwise. Those who stand to profit from it, be it Al Gore, the many politicians, or scientists who get money for supporting it. And then there is the 3rd type. The gullible fools. So Zurc, I put you in the first category. But you might fall into the 3rd as well.

When a theories biggest proponents are forced to admit they fudged, and made up data. Deleting anything that didn't fit their paradigm, it completely discredits the theory. Time to start working on something that fits reality. Hmm, maybe global cooling would work. It worked for awhile until a warming trend started. Why not go back to that for the next scare tactic. Or maybe bring back the Ozone scare. That worked for a dozen years or so too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Peter the Great made the observation centuries ago that there are people in any society who must be dragged, kicking and screaming, to modernity. Whether it is medical care, Keynesian economics, alternative energy, or climate change, new ideas go against the grain of wooden minds.

The US is a bastion of ignorance. The interests of auto companies wedded to quick profits, fossil fuel extraction industries situated in Republican dominated states, and other political realities make it very expedient to hide one's head in the sand and deny a preponderance of evidence that is mounting daily: greenhouse gases are warming our environment. But how can we expect the American people to believe THAT when they don't believe in moon landings, evolution, or interest rates?

It is just too bad. I am not going to worry about it too much. The rest of the world will just have to pick up the slack for the lazy, sloppy, wasteful, and willfully ignorant Americans. They are already a decade or more behind other nations in terms of recycling and waste reduction. What an odd race that we pay attention to the laggards. I remember when the US was a leader. Lately, it seems to be spending its time creating a lot of problems for other people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hmmm.. the Climate Change Deniers might like to spare a little time to chat with the PM of Tuvalu, who I met in Tokyo 2 years ago, and ask how things are going on his sinking islands.

I'd like to be a fly on the wall watching the Climate Change Deniers try to spout their line that 'the Earth is cooling' :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

5speedracer - The rest of the world will just have to pick up the slack for the lazy, sloppy, wasteful, and willfully ignorant Americans."

Good point. Interestingly, it's the same group of intellectual American lightweights who believed in george bush's phantom WMDs who also believe the Earth is cooling.

Meanwhile, the majority of the rest of the world - in both cases - is right. Even the French! :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

When a theories biggest proponents are forced to admit they fudged, and made up data. Deleting anything that didn't fit their paradigm, it completely discredits the theory.

That is such a stupid and dishonest portrayal of the reality of what happened it's almost funny.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Climate Change Liars might want to show us some proof that climate change is caused by humans.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just because a segment of scientists chose to lie does not necessarily invalidate the other rest of the data. Unless they are all lying. We'll see.

As scientists, that's abhorrent. Already trained to be skeptical of any evidence (if anyone had said that DNA is a double-helix decades ago, skeptical of that too before more evidence to support). Last thing we need are fabricators. Just present the experiment results and let peer review take its course.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Please be positive about all this. Its going to force you to buy a few things and that's good for me! I don't care if you believe it or not!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think Climategate is going to turn out to be a major tactical screw-up by the denialists. Much better to sit in the shadows and whisper rumors to stir up doubts than come out in the open and expose yourself with hysterical hyperbole and an incredibly naive view on how the world actually works. Stuff like "Big business is going to profit from this, it's a boondoggle!!!!" How old are these people anyways, two years old? I got news for them, there isn't much in the world that isn't a boondoggle, that exists so that people with access to money can get more of it. Or did half the world's manufacturing move to China, because that is really, really good for society? I'm also really fond of the argument that man-made global warming can't be happening because man is really, really tiny and the earth is really, really big. That one is great.

The bottom line is that the politics and Luddite attitudes are just a sideshow. The important point is that it is scientifically impossible to prove that man-made global warming is NOT happening. That is a scientific fact. That means the possibility exists, and a lack of proof that it is happening doesn't eliminate that possibility and risk, and the fact that that risk has to be dealt with. Anybody who doesn't get that gets nothing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OK Sarge. I think no amount of proof is going to be enough for you, but here is something that is pretty robust. Forget the last five years. Pretend that it does not exist.

We know from arctic ice cores and various other data how much CO2 was in the air 100, 500, 1000, 2000 years ago, etc. We can see when volcanoes erupted. We can see little mini ice ages etc. First of all, can you accept that as a record of climate? Could you agree that it roughly reflects the contents of gases in the atmosphere? Very educated and knowledgeable people accept the cores as a record. In fact, many believe it to be a precise record.

Just roughly speaking, the amount of CO2 shows a pretty well flat line up to the time of the Industrial Revolution, when it starts a very gradual upturn. In the last century, with the use of automobiles, it turns up sharply. That CO2 levels in the atmosphere are increasing is not disputable. The amount of energy that humans use has increased quite a lot, and that energy has come mostly from burning carbon as coal or oil. So it makes sense lots of ways.

The "Greenhouse Effect" by which gases such as CO2, methane, and others trap infrared radiation can be demonstrated and tested. It is not a theory that these gases have these characteristics related to infrared radiation. It is a fact.

What you seem to be questioning is the cause. How do we know that CO2 emissions are anthropogenic? Because we know that burning fossil fuels and forests releases carbon into the atmosphere and we can measure that. Humans do those things. We know that. We can measure that. We also know that oil and coal were not burning underground and releasing CO2 to the atmosphere before we dug it up. No. Humans extracted it and burned it to produce energy. It was in the papers. You probably heard about it.

The observations and our experience match our measurements. They confirm and are confirmed by the ice cores that I mentioned above.

Other people are questioning the result. For different reasons, the overall temperature of the earth might be hotter or colder TODAY. However, if you believe that the Greenhouse Effect is a mechanism that is true, it is impossible to dispute that more CO2 in the air will eventually lead to higher temperatures.

I consider that global warming is occurring. Most evidence seems to confirm it. Measurements are improving every day. Do humans produce greenhouse gases? Yes. Do greenhouse gases cause global warming? Yes. I have not seen a "silver bullet" changing the answers to those questions, ever.

People quibble and fill their arguments with Al Gore and politics. For me, it is ABC stuff. Saying that the weather is cold today changes nothing. Do you understand why? I am quite certain that Sarah Palin does not understand the chemistry and physics involved, so I question her judgment more than she does.

This is why I really wonder about America. How can Sarah Palin make people forget about elementary chemistry? How can TV evangelists make people deny what has happened to the PEPPER MOTH? Thomas Jefferson said that an informed electorate is necessary for democracy. He was worried about the first amendment. What he forgot was Matthew 13:13-16.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

-any possibility exists and that is the fear-monger problem.

So where do I place this CO2 meter on my face and how much is Gov gonna charge me. If I walk around with a plant on my head do I pay less?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh, for cryin' out loud, the climate's been a changin' on this here Earth for billions of years if not longer. If there is an all-out nuclear war and all humans are wiped out, the Earth's climate will continue to change. All we can do is deal with it. We can't stop it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge: No one is talking about 'stopping' it, but 'dealing with it', even as you admit we must, doesn't mean you dump a bucket of fuel on a fire to make it burn faster. The Climate Change Deniers think that if it's all natural we can continue to destroy the environment no holds barred, but that's not the case. By taking measures NOW we can help stem our acceleration of what's happening, and don't kid yourself into thinking that humans have NOTHING to do with what's going on in the environment. You may not care about your children or their children, sarge, but fortunately others do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Smith, no, unfortunately all these people in Copenhagen are indeed talking about stopping climate change by cutting CO2 emissions. Hey, I'm all for keeping our water and air clean, but gutting the world economy by cutting CO2 emissions in a fruitless attempt to stop climate change? I'm sorry, I can't go along with that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge,

way too simple a response, as usual. Why dont you limbaugh listeners try to prove that global warming is not real and manmade. Be like trying to prove the earth is flat.

Give it a try, just to amuse the thinking crowd.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

zurc - Way too simple a response, as usual. Why don't you try to prove that climate change is caused by humans? Give it a try, just to amuse the thinking crowd.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

this is funny watching righties and lefties battle it out. For the righties, there are going to be items that will save you LOTs of cash, For the lefties, there are going to be items that are going to be good for the environment.

Now, we all should speed up the process and start enforcing people to buy!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is true. Just like turning a car, to avoid something, a little change far ahead of time could make a big difference. Very small changes in US policy would have a huge impact on a global scale. The Maldives are pretty well screwed no matter what happens. Who cares, right? Turn on the air conditioner.

For myself, I am just glad that we know about the problem and that some nations are doing something about it. Sooner or later, we will all be believers. I intend to do my part.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge,

already been done decades ago. And today the EPA used science and law to enforce emissions control finally after the flat earth bush losers fought science for years on behalf of the coal companies.

Since you cannot reply to the question with science of any sort you can give up on this one. Or not and continue to look, you know, immature.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Climate Change Liars might want to show us some proof that climate change is caused by humans.

too bad we don't have record data before the industrial revolution. as everyone know the temperature record stat from 1888. however since we got the record going, it show nothing but only the rising temperature. so that the climate cooling/mini-ice-age are out of the table for me. and the 5 years cooling climate also a joke and ignorance argument since people has already explained it for many year about the unusual warm years, its pattern and the effect after that.

we are getting hotter. that is one think i know for sure.

as for this on going warming weather has been cause or partly cause by human or not, i think it depend on each individual.

as to me, if this hype can help we jump start a new technology, new way that help us live less depend on OIL? i am all for it.

smart people will find a way to make money anyway. i don't care who make money, i will be more than happen to see we leave oil as the major energy source and get rid of the evil OPET.

who want to stay with the old dirty oil depended technology, i don't care and i hope you enjoy being the muslim dominated OPET's slave.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

happen > happy

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Doubt it's gonna destroy the global economy (maybe some segments but not all). People will find a way (look at skipthesong). Gotta trust capitalistic values and people's entrepreneurship.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Doubt it's gonna destroy the global economy (maybe some segments but not all). People will find a way (look at skipthesong). Gotta trust capitalistic values and people's entrepreneurship.

But you seem to be forgetting, that Capitalism is Evil. It must be destroyed. We humans can only be permitted to live under a socialist, or dictatorial regime.

I do find this thread rather amusing. You have people like Speedracer, who seems a more moderate, reasoned voice in insisting that the sky is falling, then you have Zurc, who is completely hysterical ranting and raving, completely ignorant of science, or reality, and unwilling to invest the time and energy to learn. And yet most of the people who still want to believe in the hysteria and hype, that unless we act now and cut humanities share of emitted CO2 from 3.6%, to something like 3.4%, the earth is DOoooooomed! The planet will become uninhabitable. (See the now long discredited hockey stick graph)

Good news today for all you GWH (Thats global warming Hysterics) The EPA has decided breathing is hazardous to your health. You'd better all stop breathing, to make the world a better place for the rest of us.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

GJDailleult

" The important point is that it is scientifically impossible to prove that man-made global warming is NOT happening. That is a scientific fact. "

It is also scientifically impossible to prove that the world was NOT created by the Invisible Spaghetti Monster.

The point is that until now, science was in the business of proving that things exist, not that things don´t exist. And that scientific debate should be open, and not carried out like a religious crusade. Sheesh!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"too bad we don't have record data before the industrial revolution. as everyone know the temperature record stat from 1888. however since we got the record going"

And see, this is just me, but I will trust data from an ice core more than I would trust some clerk looking at a thermometer in Greenwich England. To me, the temperature record is not nearly as important as the CO2 record. Go ahead and talk everyone about whether this year is warm or not. In the end, that debate will leave everyone crying over spilt milk. We have been building up CO2, methane, and other gases very quickly and the temperature looks like it is increasing.

Greenhouse gases are what we can manage, so we should pay attention to that.

Look at Sarge's reaction:

"All we can do is deal with it. We can't stop it."

That is the typical reaction of someone who is looking at a thermometer for proof. He will not be convinced until he is a baked apple. See how the logic is backward? The reasoning is that "the effect is not clear, so the mechanism must be wrong." Scientists are more likely to say "the mechanism is proven, are the effects clear?" Test after test after test supports that global warming is occurring. Throw out the odd fudged study, or sloppy contribution, and look around. Every positive result validates the mechanism, which can be proven in a laboratory. And the results are stacking up around the globe. Scientists accept global warming as REAL not because they are gullible and smug, but because they already KNOW the mechanism and the CO2 data. All they are doing now is recording the disaster and reminding people of the mechanism.

Realize that a study showing that this year was cold, which it wasn't, would not refute the mechanism. It would only raise questions about the pattern for this one single year. I would love to see a study showing that humans do not cause CO2 emissions or that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Such studies do not exist.

Certainly not everyone has to agree with this. Some people believe the earth is flat, some people believe that gravity does not exist, but for policy and navigation and baseball, science has provided useful answers for society. Science can solve this problem, but I wonder if people can.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Climate Summit will FAIL due vast differences among the member countries...and that's natural, you can not have uniform weather conditions all over the globe...those who made money by talking about global warming is ok...but no chance for new campaigners.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the temperature record is not nearly as important as the CO2 record.

To me all things should be considered. and from what I know correcting the global tempter doesn’t use only “thermometer in Greenwich England.” I don’t think today scientist correct and read only data from ice core. People correct and record it with many methods, many ways, land, ice, air, ocean, but the global cooling folk still won’t believe it anyway. They don’t have proof or anything back up much, they just simply ignorance.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ignorance is bliss and thankfully the Earth and Sun doesn't listen to all these nutters. If the Earth wants to let out a big CO2 belch -who are we to say you can't do that. If the Sun wants to emit a little more UV or Gamma it should be able to do that also.

These Progressives/Socialists/Marxists/Leninists/Stalinists/Libs need to learn that you can not just try to control/destroy everything.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That is the typical reaction of someone who is looking at a thermometer for proof. He will not be convinced until he is a baked apple. See how the logic is backward? The reasoning is that "the effect is not clear, so the mechanism must be wrong." Scientists are more likely to say "the mechanism is proven, are the effects clear?" Test after test after test supports that global warming is occurring. Throw out the odd fudged study, or sloppy contribution, and look around. Every positive result validates the mechanism, which can be proven in a laboratory. And the results are stacking up around the globe. Scientists accept global warming as REAL not because they are gullible and smug, but because they already KNOW the mechanism and the CO2 data. All they are doing now is recording the disaster and reminding people of the mechanism.

Right, they know that climate change, and global warming is occurring. In fact few would deny this. Though many point out, that the models calling for the temperature to keep going up and up, until the planet becomes uninhabitable, ie the hockey stick. The original scare tactic used by this crowd, until proven a lie. That this whole thing is nonsense. There is no evidence to support this.

Here is the hysterics argument in a nutshell. The climate is changing, ooh, mankind must be responsible.

Despite no evidence of this, mankind must be upsetting the 'equilibrium'. Who cares if CO2 levels were much higher in the past. Throw that aside. Who cares if there have been warm periods in the past, it all started with the industrial revolution. Anyone who points out the obvious, that the emperor has no clothes, is a denier, and must be ridiculed or suppressed.

Here is the reality. Humans are responsible for less then 4% of the total CO2 emissions every year. Thats it. Thats with the global warming folks own data. Actually, I believe the figure was 3.6%, but its been awhile since I read that article. Assuming the 3.6% figure is correct, what the copenhagen people want to do, is cut that to something like 3.4%. How much will that impact the environment? What effect will it have? The answer, again according to their own models, is nothing. The temperature will still spike, ala hockey stick, and we're all doooomed! Oh but we should act now, or else.

Here is the other side of the coin. Apart from a few people who have invested in carbon credits scheme, and governments, for whom more regulation and taxes is always a good thing, this will kill the economy. Companies will go under, people will lose their jobs. And 10 years from now, the planet will still be doomed. If we act now, we can prevent the <insert threatened behavior here>. Must spend more money, hold conference on subject. We get this, because as has been proven over and over, if you throw money at a subject, scientists come flocking. And as long as there are grants to be had, we will still be getting scare tactics. Its been happening for years. Going well back into the 60s when the eco nut revolution first started. Back then though, it was a good thing. Who isn't in favor of clean air and water. Now though, its more nebulous. We've mostly cleaned up our environment. Stopped the obvious pollution. So these people still chasing grants, come out with ever more elaborate scares. Be it Ice Ages, Ozone Holes, or Global Warming.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And yet no proof despite the above posters long-winded arguments. Not one shred of evidence whatsoever, whereas this summit is opening, with the US taking the lead (for a refreshing breath of fresh air), with all sorts of documents facts backing up global warming and the fact that things are increasing EXPONENTIALLY, and due to... wait for it... humanity.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The warmening? Dont believe in it anymore. The Mail changed my mind. It was all a big fraud.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

wow, haven't seen this much arguing since Bush's WMD's which were never proved to be there, yet never proved to not have ever existing.... This is good. Just movement like this makes me happy. I don't care which side of the isle you are on. This is all good news. I hope this becomes the longest thread in JT's history.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Despite no evidence of this, mankind must be upsetting the 'equilibrium'. Who cares "

Yeah. See. You don't get it. Human and property destruction will be on a scale that has not been recorded in human history. I am amazed that you can write the words NO EVIDENCE. That is truly what I meant by Matthew 11:13.

"Here is the reality. Humans are responsible for less then 4% of the total CO2 emissions every year. Thats it"

Even if that were true, if you consider that humans are also destroying forests, the world's ability to fix that carbon is decreasing. If you also consider that the 4% per year represents a cumulative problem, it is a huge influence. Huge. 4% extra CO2 in a coca cola would make you spit it out from the carbonic acid. 4% compounded over about 16 years is DOUBLE. You know that right? That ain't Wall Street math.

"its been awhile since I read that article."

I'll bet. After that your post gets hysterical. I am amazed that you just cannot crack a book and figure it out yourself. Everything is a conspiracy and an agenda with you. Educate yourself with something other than Rush Limbaugh and "an article", and you can probably reach your own conclusions. Go get a chemistry textbook. Do an experiment. Try to accept the facts WITHOUT the agenda first and then see if the facts support an agenda. Argue AGAINST yourself to get some objectivity.

I will go on to confess that I publicly professed up until 10 years ago that I thought global warming was carp. My take was that all of the temperature measurement instruments were located suspiciously close to urban centers, and that explained it. I was wrong. Satellite data, ice cores, and mounds and mounds of data paint the picture clearly. The mechanism is indisputable. The results are becoming increasingly clear. At some point people have to look at what is happening and act. Charles Lindbergh just thought Hitler was a nice guy. Vietnam was a winnable war. Joe McCarthy really had the interests of Americans at heart. At some point, it becomes clear that things have to change. I reached that point about 10 years ago and started making baby steps to make a difference. I don't like Al Gore and I don't think that the EPA declaration of greenhouse gases as dangerous like PCBs or chlorine is all that cool... but... I don't see anything else getting people's attention. Things have to change.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skip: "yet never proved to not have ever existing..."

Oh god.... skip, are you serious? "Never proven to have not existED"? Please do tell me how you prove something never exists. If I point to a table and say there is no coffee cup, are you going to ask me to prove it? I canNOT believe that in this day and age people are STILL asking for proof that the WMDs 'did not exist'. Unbelievable.

But if you REALLY want to use it for this thread, aside from talking about how you personally profit from people buying, do you have a point? There is indeed a chance it will become the longest thread of the day because, a) there's no much else; b) there are still so many people in denial they will do anything to sidetrack and change the topic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh god.... skip, are you serious? "Never proven to have not existED"? Please do tell me how you prove something never exists." Hold up, hasn't that been the argument? You say prove the scientists wrong and the others are saying prove them right. Look, you have two sides in this argument, and then there is me in the middle. I don't need to prove it either way, just trying to make a buck and why shouldn't I? Yes, I do have a point, those that are not down with this can now at least know there is something positive they can do unlike you who is grilling the those who don't belive in it. Stop playing that hand ball court talk. Look at some of the posts going back and forth. This is almost the same argument. You say its true, and they say its not and both camps are saying "prove it" and then we got posts taking pages and pages of explanation. And by using the same argument that there is and there isn't WMD, neither camp proved who was wrong except evidence was not found or could it be that it was never really looked for? Anyway, if you don't like me trying to add a bit of profitable positiveness, you can simply pass it up. Notice how many times I can on here today? You are going to see a lot of posters and billboards going up, you are going to see staff getting trained, all because of this today. The entire argument +or- works in my and those with me's favor. You are whole beginning gripe with me today is basically those on the other side's argument is true about those like you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skip: Dude, it's not the 'same argument' as WMDs AT ALL, any more than it's the same as anything with two sides. Hell, why not argue it's the same as saying god doesn't exist because there's no proof he does, or he does exist because there's no proof he does not. Catch my drift? There is NOTHING at all relevant to the argument with WMDs except that there are two sides, and that's generally the same with every facet of life from you arguing with a girlfriend/boyfriend to two sides warring with each other.

Go ahead and make all the money you want off something -- that was never my problem with your 'argument'. My problem was you bringing in, as you often do, completely unrelated arguments and saying they are valid when they are not.

"You are whole beginning gripe with me today is basically those on the other side's argument is true about those like you."

huh?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"We've mostly cleaned up our environment. Stopped the obvious pollution"

Molenir must live in a region of Switzerland away from any photochemical smog and has perhaps never travelled. Snap out of it. Barring the odd diagram that may or may not be exactly right, the overwhelming weight of evidence points to humanity continuing to make the situation worse. Low lying areas are already in trouble.

The only way to get irrefutable proof that the evidence is or isnt conclusive, is to wait and observe the results. Of course by then it'll be too late.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If global warming didnt exist we would have to create it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If global warming didnt exist we would have to create it." damn right - that's called capitalism!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Honestly, the Climate Change Deniers - it's like the Flat Earthers have discovered a time machine.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Deniers need to be rounded up.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

These Progressives/Socialists/Marxists/Leninists/Stalinists/Libs need to learn that you can not just try to control/destroy everything.

Nice head in the sand escapism from the Regressive/Teabaggers/Palinista/Faithbased/Loser/Republican types. Make believe problems like who is attacking Christmas are important, real problems that put civilization at risk are too complicated for the right.

Just keep looking for WMD in Iraq, that is more your speed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Here is the reality. Humans are responsible for less then 4% of the total CO2 emissions every year. Thats it. Thats with the global warming folks own data.

Here is the stupidity and/or sheer ignorance that is practically admitted to by the writer:

While it is true that the level of emissions from human activity may be only 4% of total, the earth has adapted to absorb and handle the other 96%-97% through its natural processes. (It has done this for many, many centuries.) What cannot be absorbed -- i.e. the excess due to human activity -- lingers in the atmosphere. It is just as simple and as common sense as that. Alas, some people just can't seem to grasp it.

Take a bank account or bond that accrues at 4% compound interest and that would be a similar comparision to what human activity is doing to the level of CO2 each and every year for the past 4 decades and from here on out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir, you speak too much sense. It's pointless in this crowd.

Honestly, the Climate Change Deniers - it's like the Flat Earthers have discovered a time machine.

I don't think most people are denying climate change. Rather it's your type's use of the term. Of course there is climate change - there has been since time began. And I think many of us don't even dispute that humankind has definitely had an impact - and not for the better - on the environment. I'm all for saying this should be lessened and that we need a more harmonic relationship with our planet. But to come out and say that we must take severe action immediately or the world is going to end in a decade or so, or at least be immensely less inhabitable(and yes, I've heard many loonies predicting such a time frame).

But the caveat is that not all scientists agree that there is even much of an issue (and I'm talking reputable scientists and not just kooks). The views expressed in the scientific community are as varied as day and night.

The point: How many times have we been hit with predictions of disaster of epic proportions? In the 70's the Africanized 'killer' bees were supposed to make most of the southern half of the U.S. uninhabitable by the early to mid 1980's - and they were 'unstoppable'. In 1999 billions of dollars were spent because all of the computer scientists - 'experts' in their fields - predicted that when the clocks changed to the year 2000 all hell was going to break loose and society as we know it would end. Massive freaking out and as the clock struck - nothing happened. Present day - notable scientists and good ole Al Gore say the world is ending because of our pollution. So now we're supposed to take it all as gospel, spend trillions to effectively fight windmills and still good old mother nature is going to do what she was going to do anyway.

I agree with going green. Let's try to make our footprint as light as possible. Let's find a great, sustainable source of energy to replace oil and tell the ME to go @#$% itself. I recycle and grow food in a community garden. But don't feed me the whole chicken little thing and expect me to buy it all. Science can prove anything if you bend it that way becuase you think that's what will/should happen.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir, you speak too much sense. It's pointless in this crowd.

Heh, thank you for that compliment. I think most people agree that pollution is bad. I said before, that everyone is in favor of cleaner air and water. Where I grew up, my parents used to talk about this Steel Mill that would put out tons of black smoke every day. When I was growing up, it was rare to see black smoke coming out of those huge smokestacks, and instead it was normally white smoke, and that not nearly very often. Thats why I mean when I said we've mostly cleaned up our environment. Admittedly I grew up in the states, and environmental regulations are tougher then in say Brazil or China.

My most recent post exposing yabits and speedracers arguements as nonsense was deleted. I don't feel like going and rehashing all the evidence, so I'll simply say, that the whole banking scheme thing, is silly. Not the way the earths systems work. Research it on your own if you like. CO2 levels have been much higher then they are presently. No run away greenhouse effect. In that same deleted post, I pointed out the obvious correlation between AGW hysterics, and religion. Both of whom are claiming that unless you act now, the world is doomed, or in the case of religion, its your soul. We must act on blind faith.

I find this constant hysteria, to be depressing. I understand its human nature to jump on the bandwagon, but its disheartening that so many people are gullible enough to believe it, time and time again. Murcury in childhood shots, global warming, ozone holes, ice ages, y2k, we must panic the world, or we won't get rating/money/attention. Sad

Moderator: Please note that your post was deleted because you were impolite to another reader, and that when you post insulting remarks, it is you who loses credibility. Keep the discussion civil at all times.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Nice head in the sand escapism from the Regressive/Teabaggers/Palinista/Faithbased/Loser/Republican types. "

Now that is what I call a rebuttal.Nice work, zurcronium-san.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Can there perhaps be a different moniker thought up rather than 'teabaggers'? I'm sure the joke was intended, but the mental image I get from a group of nasty old guys doing this is just too disturbing to my senses. Thanks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Liberal radio talk show host Leslie Marshall just called Al Gore a hysteric on this subject.

I was leanin' toward a polite 'unwell' but I'll take what I can get.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites