Whats the real purpose of The climate meeting in Copenhagen

[taabru45]

Are we being led from the frying pan to the fire, if this is true we deserve to know....This isn't intended as a political posts...lets find out what the real agenda is, and if this speech reflects what is coming out of Copenhagen....Very important to watch this to be alert and stop losing any more control of our own lives.... P L E A S E...Steffan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddQvhdCyhe4

 

[Frosty]

I am as entertained by a conspiracy theory as much as the next guitar player, but he lost me when he assumed that we accept his premise: "...for there is no problem with the climate...". A creative tack for a naysayer, though, I'll give him that!

Thanks for the pointer, Steffan.

 

[capnjuan]

Hi Steffan; I respect your concern for the subject but sometimes the most vocal opponents of ... well ... almost anything ... they have to be looked at closely.

Who Lord Monckton is: "Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (born 14 February 1952) is a British politician, business consultant, policy adviser, writer, columnist, inventor and hereditary peer .... More recently, he has attracted controversy for his public opposition to the mainstream scientific consensus on climate change." Further: "Monckton is critical of the theory of anthropogenic (we're doing it) causes for climate change and the stated scope of it, which he regards as a controversy catalyzed by "the need of the international left for a new flag to rally round" following the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989." Translated; if someone thinks we are jeopardizing the world's climate, then they are a Communist.

Monckton on AIDS:

"In an article for The American Spectator entitled "AIDS: A British View",[39] written for the January 1987 issue of The American Spectator, he argued that "there is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month ... all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently." This is what the Nazis did to everyone who didn't meet their standards; homosexuals, Jews, the mentally infirm, the Liberal opposition in the 1930s ... they rounded them up.

Monckton as politician:

"Monckton has referred to himself as a "peer of the House of Lords" but is not a member of that body.[5] Monckton was an unsuccessful candidate for a Conservative seat in the House of Lords in a March 2007 by-election caused by the death of Lord Mowbray and Stourton. He received no votes in the election". Hmm ... strong showing.

 

[taabru45]

Thanks C.J. Never hurts to shine light into the darkness....As you know, I just wish there was full disclosure on a bunch of issure....so we would indeed have more control over our own life and choices...In this case the messenger may be a jerk, but what's going on behind those closed doors? .regards Steffan

 

[Qvart]

Whats the real purpose of The climate meeting in Copenhagen

A study of how global warming will lead to more scantily-clad Danish women?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[capnjuan]

Thanks C.J. Never hurts to shine light into the darkness....As you know, I just wish there was full disclosure on a bunch of issure....so we would indeed have more control over our own life and choices...In this case the messenger may be a jerk, but what's going on behind those closed doors? .regards Steffan

Hi Steffan; I don't know what they're doing ... I really don't. Assuming Mr. Monckton is right, then we are all going to hell in a handbasket anyway; that is, why bail out the boat since, after all, it's going to sink anyway. Unfortunately both sides have done a better job of discrediting the other side than they have selling their side ... leaving nobody to trust. In pre-war Germany, the nazis said that a vote for the socialists was a vote the communists ... the socialists said that a vote for the nazis was a vote for the communists ... and the communists said that a vote for the socialists was a vote for the nazis. I say: 'Anyone care for mayo on their turd sandwich?' :evil: :wink:

 

[john_kidder]

Whats the real purpose of The climate meeting in Copenhagen

A study of how global warming will lead to more scantily-clad Danish women?

My (Norwegian) daughter is there now, so the conference has served to attract at least one beautiful woman.

The purpose of the conference is obvious: leaders have a positive duty to act in the face of humanity's first common and world-wide crisis. They are gathered in Copenhagen in search of a strategy to mitigate as much as possible the continuing warming of the globe and to prepare for the hardship that is certain now to befall millions of people no matter what is done at this late stage.

The conspiracy theories and blame for various "others" so casually tossed around by an ever-diminishing band of noisy naysayers are neither interesting nor amusing. The self-interested parties engaged in the campaign against climate science are like the late unlamented tobacco lobbyists - their voice too will shrink to the vanishing point just as that of the tobacco "doctors" has. And the quicker the better. Lead, follow, or get out of the bloody way.

And to see all this as a plot directed against the United States, or against "capitalism", is astonishing, amazing narcissism. There are 6.8 billion people on the planet; 300 million of whom live in the USA. And the "free market" of all-knowing sovereign consumers acting in their own interest has always been a myth, never a reality. Sorry, West, but it's absurd to imagine so much energy directed against so few.

If we had personal advisors, doctors for example, who expressed such a strong common diagnosis as the world's climate scientists, most of us would listen to them. The others, I guess, are perfectly free to take their individual bodies to the faith healers.

But there's much more than simple personal risk here - this is (yes, it actually is) a risk for all of humanity and many other species as well. So of course religion enters at times like this: there are profound moral and ethical principles at stake. I'd like to think that I could walk as Christ or the Buddha might have advised had they been here now - compassion first, concern always for the poorest and least powerful, and fellow-feeling with all other sentient beings.

So I'm not going to "debate" this here any more. I'll use my tiny energy to write to politicians and to talk with young people about the sort of planet they expect to inherit. And I will agitate along with the rest of the conspirators for countries and industries to act as quickly as possible, with as much energy as possible, to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. It's the least and the most I can do.


Signing off now,
John

 

[killdeer43]

Kudos to you, John!

Thanks for the fresh air, :wink:
Joe

 

[teleharmonium]

I have to say, raising a subject from an initial position of questioning the motives and honesty of other people is not likely to lead to a productive discussion. I mean, if the reader applies that same very high degree of skepticism and cynicism in the OP to the concerns raised in that post, they wouldn't have any reason whatsoever to accept that stance any more than the one being criticized, right ?

It's sort of like saying "don't believe what anybody says". If I take that advice, then I consequently can't believe it's good advice !

It's hard to make a positive case for something and easy to make a negative one. Most every positive argument can be countered with a negative one, but that does not necessarily make them of equal value.

The value of an argument comes from the reasoning and examples behind it and the credibility of the person making it based on their past actions and their qualifications in whatever field it is in. On this topic, one side has a massive amount of data that has been duly peer reviewed and examined in countless ways as it evolved over decades by many people with authoritative expertise on the subject. The other side, frankly, relies largely on emotional appeals to anti elitism, and paranoia, claiming to be a grass roots phenomenon but in fact often being bankrolled by corporate interests which are at least as elite and more wealthy and powerful than the favored targets of that side of the debate.

Seriously, many times I've seen critics think their view prevails when they are comparing a thesis by numerous degreed climate scientists to statements by a certain retired meteorologist (aka weatherman), or by random joes that think their current local weather is a valid way to measure global climate change. I don't want to sound condescending, but anyone that does not understand that the major concerns of global warming are the associated rise in sea levels, what it does to ocean currents, and the consequences of change in those currents, needs to do some reading and learn the basics before presuming to tell other people that they are wrong. Even if you're a skeptic, skepticism without understanding what that skepticism is being applied to is just not valuable to anyone. And hey, maybe some of that initial skepticism will be mitigated by knowledge and background. It happens !


Here's a clip in which Monckton makes it clear he's got enough rope:
http://www.youtube.com/v/21SCR2yyET...xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1

 

[FNG]

Damn....it's friggin cold here in Florida.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why the icebergs all broke loose from Antarctica in 1931.

 

[JerryR]

Whats the real purpose of The climate meeting in Copenhagen

A study of how global warming will lead to more scantily-clad Danish women?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I don't call that scanty

 

[capnjuan]

Hi Mark; we just went through a Climate/Weather .... eh ... discussion here a couple of weeks ago. My post was aimed at trying to hold down what is at best a contentious issue in an environment - this one - that wasn't built for the purpose. Setting the facts aside for the moment, people have strong feelings on the issue and, as was recently demonstrated, offers of proof by one side were just met by denial or rebuttal from the other. During the recent airing, nobody from LTG surfaced with reliable climatological bona fides ... and, with all due respect, I notice you didn't offer yours up.

For it's limited value, I agree with you but it's also a fact that if a periodic run-up in global temperatures is happening while we are pumping unconscionably large amounts of C02 into the atmosphere, if 20 or so LTG scientists were standing on the moon, I don't think it would be any easier to distinguish causation from there than it is for lay people to make that same distinction from here. I also think Monckton's a quack but you're right, that doesn't prove anything either. Respectfully, John

 

[teleharmonium]

Hi Mark; we just went through a Climate/Weather .... eh ... discussion here a couple of weeks ago. My post was aimed at trying to hold down what is at best a contentious issue in an environment - this one - that wasn't built for the purpose. Setting the facts aside for the moment, people have strong feelings on the issue and, as was recently demonstrated, offers of proof by one side were just met by denial or rebuttal from the other. During the recent airing, nobody from LTG surfaced with reliable climatological bona fides ... and, with all due respect, I notice you didn't offer yours up.

Hey John

I'm no climatologist and wouldn't present myself as an authority on the subject. (Or any other subject except for record collecting maybe.) But a degree is not a prerequisite for making the logical argument that evidence that has been broadly collected and scrutinized by people who know what they are talking about, beats presumptive cynicism and irrelevant class-based arguments. I understand that people can prefer or choose the latter for themselves; but those just aren't coming from logic, they come from something else. In my world reasonable people have a serious responsibility to point that out, in the sad state of affairs where is has become necessary to do so.

I tend to agree that this forum wasn't built for such a discussion, nonetheless, if they are tolerated and the discussions are started, I'm the type to contribute, especially if the topic interests me and/or the posts appear to have an imbalance. I would happily support a ban on political and religous topics, if we go that route, but if we don't, we don't.

For it's limited value, I agree with you but it's also a fact that if a periodic run-up in global temperatures is happening while we are pumping unconscionably large amounts of C02 into the atmosphere, if 20 or so LTG scientists were standing on the moon, I don't think it would be any easier to distinguish causation from there than it is for lay people to make that same distinction from here.

The question of causality is often seized on by critics, however, it's kind of a tangent as far as what our next move needs to be. Whatever the cause, we are in the position of experiencing the consequences now and going forward.

That said, while I tend to think complex systems will have complex causes when they change, there is really no credible argument against the fact that CO2 levels have been rising; and they have done so in a way that makes perfect sense considering what happens when, for one example, you double the amount of methane in the atmosphere in only about 250 years (as we have). How this happened is not mysterious and how the methane breaks down to water and CO2 is likewise no mystery, yet, many times I've heard skepticism about these basics. My point being, if you had to retake and pass high school chemistry before buying into a conspiracy theory on this subject, there would be a lot fewer critics.

 

[FNG]

I just breathed out some CO2. I tried not to. The EPA is now pounding on my door...gotta go.


:lol:


Edit...I slipped a five spot under the door. They went away. Said something about coming back tomorrow for another fiver.

 

[AlohaJoe]

First, I have no climatological bona fides, but It doesn't take a climatologist to know that nobody but flat-earth types are still arguing about whether there is climate change or not. That verdict is in.

The continuing disagreement is over who is at fault, humans or nature. I'm sure we can argue that one all day (let's not), but if there are things we can do to limit the damage caused by changes in global climate that will mitigate human suffering why wouldn't we do it?

So, do we start bailing or not? Some will be too lazy to do their share of the bailing, and some will be too cheap to pony up their share of the cost of buckets, but if the boat goes down it's a very long way to the next island.

 

[AlohaJoe]

I just breathed out some CO2. I tried not to. The EPA is now pounding on my door...gotta go. :lol:
Edit...I slipped a five spot under the door. They went away. Said something about coming back tomorrow for another fiver.

Tell them you were standing under a tree and you cancelled each other out. :lol:

 

[Scratch]

Easy answer: Kill off the cattle and moose. When 'scientists' sail to Copenhagen, I'll take em seriously. When all Gore speaks for nothing vs. 6K per minute on the speaking circuit, I'll pay more attention. Till then, I'll revert to my 60s roots and protest against the established scientific cultural elite.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... study.html

Many highly respected university scientists shake their heads in disgust at what 'the in science crowd' claims as 'proof'. Believe what you will:

 

[Frosty]

I just breathed out some CO2...

I note the laughing emoticon appended to this statement. But there really are people out there making similarly silly statements as though they were somehow intellectually refuting a scientific consensus.

there is really no credible argument against the fact that CO2 levels have been rising;

Indeed. And rising notably faster since the advent of the industrial age than any other time in human history. Or so I have read.

BTW, very interesting interview with Bill McKibben on Speaking of Faith this week.

Ok - I really don't want to fall into this non debate again. Over and out!

 

[FNG]

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) (2001) dismisses the view
that solar activity has a meaningful influence
on global climate.

http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs ... er2707.pdf

Solar activity doesn't have an affect on climate? Well....bust my buttons.

It seems like lots of people would like to review the data to conduct scientific research on the conclusions of the IPCC. Say what? They destroyed their base data sample? They manipulated their computer model code to shift results to their position?

Why would they do that? I'm just a dumb country boy, but that smells like methane.

And I bet Graham's wife wishes they made those methane collection bags for humans.

 

[teleharmonium]

When 'scientists' sail to Copenhagen, I'll take em seriously.

Like I said, reactionary, emotion based anti elitism. It's not about the scientists - a scientist taking a plane flight makes no more exhaust than anyone else doing same - their job is not to be some sort of example of a perfect human being in regards to the political aspects of their work; their job is to understand and document observable events according to established principles. Basically what you're saying is that they aren't being good politicians and spokespeople; to which I reply, they aren't being politicians or spokespersons at all.

When all Gore speaks for nothing vs. 6K per minute on the speaking circuit, I'll pay more attention.

When GW critics cease to be bankrolled by multi billion dollar corporations through shell organizations designed to hide their origins, I'll pay more attention.

Many highly respected university scientists shake their heads in disgust at what 'the in science crowd' claims as 'proof'.

Many ? Actually, not so many at all, particularly compared to those who accept the consensus, who are overwhelming in number; and of those that have voiced some criticisms, that does not necessarily mean they reject all of it, or that their concerns weren't subsequently addressed by additional research and repeat testing of published findings. That's the way science works; when you publish, you do so with enough information that your work and its findings can be repeated by another scientist. If it can't be repeated - and scientists love to be the ones to prove other scientists wrong, so they do this all the time - the work falls down under peer review. This is why the science that survives this process has the integrity that it has, whether you understand this or not.