Someone was seriously drunk at the Associated Press to allow this bit of reality leak into the narrative
Next month’s climate summit in Copenhagen seeks to transform the way we run the planet, from the generation of energy, to the building of homes and cities, to the shaping of the landscape. It would also shift wealth from rich to poor countries in the process.
Income redistribution and control of everything, including your lives. These treaties and laws have never been about science, they are all about politics by people who think socialism and facism are great.
Success is a matter of definition. Two years ago, when negotiations began, delegates anticipated a full treaty would be signed in Copenhagen to succeed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which set emissions limits on 37 industrial countries. The U.S. rejected Kyoto because it imposed no obligations for China, India and other rapidly emerging economies.
Now the Danish hosts and the United Nations say it will be enough to nail down all the political elements, leaving the details, technical issues and legal language to be filled in over the following six months to a year.
Hmm, political details. Why are there political details if this is about science? What kind of political details? The type where the USA hands over a chunk of soverenty to the United Nations, gives even more of our money to the UN and 3rd world countries, and imposes draconian measures and restrictions of freedom on our people? Those kinds of political details?
Scientists say carbon emissions must level off by 2015 and then start to rapidly decline. Within 40 years, manmade emissions should be half what they were in 1990 — and 80-95 percent lower in the economically advanced countries — to avoid the worst scenarios of climate disasters.
Those numbers have been flying around in the press releases as of late, but, put it this way: you will have to reduce your lifestyle by 80-95 percent, and expect a your money to be half of what it is today.
Some other AGW scaremongering:
Climate change to hit water scarce Arab world hard (especially when the water is locked up in ice)
Planet approaching point of no return, experts warn (again?)
Is global warming unstoppable? (well, yes. Nature does what it wants. The idea in the article about building nuclear power plants is interesting, though.
Elsewhere:
- Gateway Pundit catches a lawsuit against NASA for failure to pony up AGW material requested in FOIA requests
- Newsbusters finds the readers at The Houston Chronicle beating up on a climate alarmist article
- AJ Strata questions a new report that says if we stop AGW, cancer will stop (sort of)
- Mark Steyn discusses “hide the decline”
- Transterrestrial Musings is calling ClimateGate “Climaquiddick.â€
Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU
You notice they say ‘The U.S. rejected Kyoto because it imposed no obligations for China, India and other rapidly emerging economies.’
While that MIGHT be true, what is very definitely true is that the Democrats, seeing how badly Kyoto would affect the economy when THEY were in charge, decided to not even vote to ratify, and then clintoon and algor sat on it for three years… until they could blame Bush for not signing onto it.
If I recall correctly, 97- zip vote against even considering it.
Since then, pollution levels from US production have dropped across the board. The Earth’s average temperature has fallen almost a full degree. CO2 is up 5% and no corresponding temperature increase. The sun went quiet in 2006 and has yet to get going again.
Teach, you may like this video… I suspect johnny will choke on it, though:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk
In terms of reducing carbon emissions by signatory countries, Kyoto was a miserable failure.
It wasn’t supposed to work. It was never designed to have any real effect on the environment. It would take 33 years of EVERY human on the planet living in caves, producing ZERO carbon dioxide emission to affect ONE degree Fahrenheit. ONE. The seven degrees the IPCC claims will take place will take over two hundred years of humans living like animals to change. NOTHING in Kyoto, Copenhagen, Cap and Scam, or any of these other ridiculous plans is designed to do ANYTHING other than suck up money and redistribute it under the auspices of the UN.
On money:
If you scroll down in the article, you’ll see an explanation for the “shifting wealth” comment. He states, rightly, that poor countries will be receiving funds to help “cope with” climate change, as they will see the worst effects, which will be largely due to the activities of the developed countries.
I also wanted to address your asinine comment about a reduction in “your lifestyle by 80-95 percent”:
I’ve explained countless times for you that when you “transform the way we run the planet”, including the “generation of energy”, we can live even better lifestyles as we do now, but at much less cost to the planet.
I agree with reasics last point.
GO NUCLEAR!
we have gone nuclear. we generate a sizable percentage of our energy via nuclear power. at some point, though, you end up with a waste problem. there are several other cleaner alternatives available to us now. these should be used in conjuction with nuclear power. why are you so opposed to wind or solar power, for instance?
Wind and solar are not currently economically feasible nor do they produce adequate power, even if ecologists and elite liberals DIDN’T fight every step of the development of wind farms, solar panel sites and the means for transmittal of the energy which is produced.
While we await the fine tuning of solar and wind power sources etc, we need to use coal and nuclear, oil and natural gas in the cleanest ways we know how. And we sure know how; have improved our technology in those areas immensely. There is no reason we can’t tap into the resources we have and stop arguing about it. Every other country has far worse methods of retrieval and delivery than we have, and yet now some are allowed to drill just off our shores as fast as they can. At least if we do it, we can be reasonably assured it will not result in a spill and worse.
HORSE SHIT.
Going green, all this stupid eco-nazi crap they want us to do, isn’t going to do a DAMN THING but separate money from the earners and hand it to the layabouts, and hand sovereignty over to the Eurotrash.
20 percent of our energy use is NOT a sizable amount. It’s laughable. Here we have a clean and efficient energy, the cleanest and most efficient known to Man, and yet there is a moritorium on building new plants. Even FRANCE, the Euroweenie capitol of the world, uses more…about 75% of their energy is nuclear. AND they’ve managed to reduce the amount of waste produced by developing a means to reuse the spent rods. But out tree-hugging owl snugglers refuse to allow such a thing here, thanks largely to a bunch of left-wing propaganda and scare tactics…the same kind of scare tactics they’re using to shove AGW down our throats. The science is certainly settled on that one, isn’t it?
Two big reasons these third-world countries are a century behind us is 1: their own corrupt governments, abetted by the corrupt UN, and 2: the left’s refusal to allow them to use the current tools available to lift themselves out of poverty, because they’d be using GASP! fossil fuels.
And it seems we have this multi-billion dollar storage facility in Yucca mountain that was specifically designed to take nuclear waste. Gee, what happened to that? Oh yes, the DEMOCRATS KILLED IT, but only after taking the money from taxpayers to build the damn thing.
Third world needs help? We need to produce cleaner energy? First thing we need to do is NEVER vote a liberal into office.
Climategate has now expanded to New Zealand. See Watts Up With That for details.
So, every time some quack denialist group “questions” science with their nonsense, it becomes a controversy?
You sound like you are more interested in a certain point of view than actual science, Reasic.
lol. Teach, Teach, Teach…
“Actual science” comes from actual scientists, who are doing actual scientific research, not from non-scientists who simply make public statements, with no scientific backing whatsoever.
Reasic, so then you are agreeing with us. Your “actual” scientists have been caught faking data, not behavior one should expect OR CONDONE from an “actual” scientist. Their statements, therefore, have NOT been based on “actual” science, but rather an AGENDA, which we “quack denialists” have been saying for YEARS.
Just like John Ryan, you aren’t remotely interested in the “actual” science. You are not interested in an “actual” honest debate. You, like the rest of the AGW crowd, are pushing ideology. Those naughty FACTS, they just get in the way. They aren’t matching the message. So rather than adjust your message, you adjust the facts themselves. Time for you guys to pack up your clown shoes and your big red squeaky noses and let the grown ups deal with it.
tfmo,
my point was that you deniers have no climate research to back up your arguments. your arguments are largely the result of non-scientists, doing overly simplistic calculations that do not reflect the complexities of our climate, and this new zealand farce is a great example.
TFMo- great comments!
The truth is, AGW is the religion of environmentalists, and if they get their way, we will all become slaves to that religion!
Happy Thanksgiving to Teach and all Pirate posters, John and Reasic too!
Thanks, Trish! Happy Fatbird Feast!
More Thanksgiving fun at JBYP, straight from the O-val Office!
happy thanksgiving to you all too.
Really. Lord Monckton, science advisor to Margaret Thatcher has no data. The founder of the Weather Channel and the several THOUSAND scientist planning to sue Gore for fraud have no data. Richard Linzen, the Alfred piece professor of planetary and atmospheric sciences at MIT, who just submitted the results of TWENTY YEARS of data gathering an analysis that show that AGW is a farce, has no data.
Meanwhile, your side has FALSIFIED data, as proven by THEIR OWN WORDS. And we’re just supposed to trust these same people, who have been caught lying, when they tell us that they haven’t? Even Monbiot, a HUGE fan of AGW, is calling for heads. He, at least, is having a normal sane reaction. He feels betrayed. He feels he’s been lied to, that the basis for his chosen crusade is now shown to be rooted in fraud.
But again, you’ve drank too deeply of the Kool-aid. You’ve got your Soros/Obama/Gore-approved talking points, that’s all you need. Boy, that science is SOOOOOOO settled, innit?
No, Monckton is not a climate scientist, and has done no climate research. The “founder” of the Weather Channel (John Coleman) is a meteorologist, not a climate scientist. Yes, there is a difference. And by the way, he should first talk to the American Meteorological Society, whose official stance is in agreement with AGW. Do you have a list of the “several thousand scientists” who are planning to “sue” Al Gore? Every other list of “scientists” that I’ve seen from skeptics has turned out to be full of engineers, economists, laypersons, errors, and falsifications.
The only person in your list who qualifies as a climate scientists is Lindzen. He is one of a hand full of climate scientists, along with Spencer, Baliunas, and Soon, who are making names for themselves by concocting various alternative explanations for recent warming. Now, I actually think this is good for science. It is a good thing that there are people trying to question the status quo. However, for it to become widely accepted as scientific theory, the idea must be tested successfully through rigorous research and documentation. This is where many of the skeptical scientists have fallen short. Lindzen’s Iris hypothesis has been proven wrong by several research efforts. Cosmix ray flux/cloud formation and negative cloud feedback hypotheses have so far met the same fate. This doesn’t matter to people like you, though, because you don’t question the validity of the statements made. You don’t make an effort to understand the science behind the allegations. Someone disagrees with the concensus, so you regurgitate their talking points, sight unseen. No questions asked. Brilliant.
You and I both know that the only people falsifying data are the skeptics. That’s the only way one can cause such a public dissent about science. Actual scientists put years and years of work into their research, which gets published in highly respectable scientific journals, which you never read, and then some quack does a few overly simplistic calculations in Microsoft Excel and posts it to the internet, and you’re hooked. You keep your non-scientific babble. It may convince you, but it doesn’t trump ACTUAL SCIENCE.
Monbiot has not agreed that AGW is fraud. On the contrary, he said:
What Monbiot did not address was that there was missing context for each of the statements in question in these emails. These are discussed in scientific context here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
and here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/
Again, you’ve assumed things about me. I don’t agree with AGW because of Soros, Obama, or Gore. I haven’t even seen “An Inconvenient Truth”. I simply follow the scientific research on the subject.
You know, it’s really sad what you people have bought into. You claim that I’m drinking kool-aid, when you’re the ones who believe the lies and deceptions of the skeptics. They’ve managed to call into question the motives and ethics of the experts in this field (the actual climate scientists), by claiming that they are in it for the money, since they need hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding in order to do their research. However, all the while, you seem to overlook the fact that Exxon alone stands to gain billions by delaying any proposed climate legislation. Your side has a much greater motive for cooking the books. And the sad part is that if you knew enough about the subject, and had any desire to objectively search for the truth, you’d compare the two sides’ claims against each other, rather than just simply drinking the kool-aid from one side. Yes, I’m convinced, but it’s because I’ve objectively compared the two sides’ arguments, and found the scientists to be more credible.
What’s the last scientific paper you even skimmed, much less tried to analyze, TFMO? That’s what I thought. Please quit listening to politicians and non-scientists, and talking about something that you don’t understand. Either make an effort to understand it, or quit, because you’ll only come out looking foolish in the end.
I tend to trust Lord Monckton a lot more than Al Gore, Reasic. And yet somehow Monckton is, by your estimation, less an authority on the subject. Unsurprising.
Another problem you eco-nazis can’t seem to grasp is that CONSENSUS does not equal FACT. Just a few hundred years ago, the CONSENSUS was that the world was flat and at the center of the universe. Consensus and peer-review are dodges; there is no consensus based on actual data, and the peer-review doesn’t stand scrutiny when the only “peers” allowed to review the data are the same “peers” that have an investment in pushing the agenda, facts be damned. In one of the various leaked e-mails, one scientist states that he will not provide the data to another scientist because he feels that person only sought to find error. Well, duh. That is precisely why scientists are supposed to show their work to others, TO HELP FIND ERRORS. Ask a hundred people who has the best college football team, and you will get various answers. Ask only the cheerleaders and football players at one college, and you will have your “peer-review” and “consensus.”
And strangely, all the sites you offer as “proof” are lefty sites. What a shock to find AGW-supporting sites supporting AGW.
You say you’ve compared the data from both sides and found the “scientists” more credible…the same scientists who have themselves provided the proof that they fudged the numbers and committed fraud.
So Exxon standing to make money by impeding Cap and Trade is bad, but GE pushing Cap and Trade and standing to make even more is okay. Of course it is.
My side has more to gain from cooking the books…and yet it’s YOUR side that has been caught doing so. Hm.
And yet you seem to think ~I~ am the one looking foolish? Wow.
What’s the last scientific paper you even skimmed, much less tried to analyze, TFMO? That’s what I thought. Well, this is what you get for thinking, Reasic. Most of the books I own on the subject were written by people who once did drink the Kool-aid, but changed their stance when the “proof” didn’t add up. And as AGW is something of a hobby of mine, I’ve read quite a bit of the papers as they become available on line. One article that I cite quite often is from a scientist who does still believe in AGW, but believes (for good reason) that all these so-called fixes like Kyoto will not do a damn thing to affect the environment, but will assuredly drain economies and make it impossible to implement real and needed changes should any of the gloom and doom predictions come to pass.
Kinda sucks when even the people on YOUR side disagree that the “science” is settled, hm?
Again, you are pushing an agenda. You are less concerned with the facts than you are with the touchy feel-goodiness of “doing something.” You liberals are so desperate for a cause, you’ve invented one out of thin air.
TFMo,
I didn’t compare Monckton to Gore. I said he was not a climate scientist, and has done NO research on the subject. Earlier, you were talking about “actual” science, which I said your side didn’t have, and you brought up Monckton’s name, who is NOT a climate scientist. He has not conducted research on his own, and his arguments are not based on any “actual” scientific findings.
No, the consensus opinion of people does NOT equal fact. I agree with you on that. However, I will say that the consensus that exists within the major scientific publications DOES provide a very strong indicator that warming is caused mostly by man. Your example of the world being flat or at the center of the universe is not analogous. For example, the theory of a geocentric solar system was largely accepted for religious reasons. When this was challenged by science with the theory of a heliocentric solar system, the Church stepped in to prevent that view from taking hold. Besides, neither of those views had NEAR the amount of scientific data to back them up.
Yes, I’ve provided you an opposing view from RealClimate. Where do you think it would come from? Did you read them, or simply avoid them, based on the sound reasoning that they are eeevil and libruhl?
You idiots always do this with any small crack you can find in the wall. You take one bit of misinformation, take it out of context, and then blow it up into a huge conspiracy, which supposedly derails all of the decades of research that has been done to date. I guess I’d try year after year to make that same argument over and over too, if I didn’t have science on my side. Hey, here’s an idea! Why don’t any of you skeptics do your own research to explain your ideas, instead of just mindlessly blabbering that “it’s the Sun”? Maybe more people would take you seriously if you could prove it in a scientific manner. What most of you retards don’t even understand is that even your skeptical scientists still agree that greenhouse gases cause warming. They simply disagree on the extent of the warming, or the overall role of feedback mechanisms.
Yep, you do. No one on my side has “cooked the books”. You only think they have, because you don’t understand the scientific research, and you blindly drink the kool-aid from the conservative talking heads on the subject. Show me one research paper that is false and why. This ought to be interesting…
1. That’s an ARTICLE, not a scientific paper.
2. How is it that you provided me with an example of a scientist who “does still believe in AGW”, but then claim that people on my side “disagree that the science is settled”? The science determines what has caused warming. Kyoto was a political compromise between the world’s countries to try to fix the problem. If anything, your example works in my favor.
So, to sum it up, it sounds like you didn’t even read the RealClimate posts, because you didn’t bring up any specific claim within them to debunk. You also provided no specific scientific papers that you’ve read. Once more, you’re all hot air — all talking points, and no sound reasoning to back them up. Hey, how about the IPCC reports? Have you at least looked through those? It might help you at least understand the basics of what you’re talking about. Honestly, it doesn’t hurt to read the opposing side’s arguments. If your arguments are superior, you should be able to easily find counter arguments with which to debunk them.
Dang. I’m noticing a trend here. Every time you deniers are pressed for scientific evidence of your talking points, you choke. Could it be that your arguments are not grounded in science, but rather are simply political in nature?
No, Reasic, we just have lives (it was after all, a holiday weekend!) and don’t need to spend our lives twisting facts and evading real science to further an agenda, as your precious AGW crowd of academics and politicians all do. Our only need is to stop said agenda that will destroy lives and whole nations if Green-weanies get their way.
The IPCC reports are not scientific, they are agenda driven.
Now get a life, and leave the work to the real scientists who are about to tear down this climate controversy wall once and for all.
Thank God for the UK Telegraph and other publications who are at least holding AGW alarmists feet to the fire.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6678469/Climategate-University-of-East-Anglia-U-turn-in-climate-change-row.html