whats this global waarming thing then?

[Rog]

true ........or just another ploy to get money out of us?

i .............................am not sure and i would like to see your comments if you don't mind.....

[Deckard]

If you mean whether global warming is down to human activity, I'm also undecided - I've never got round to examining even the most basic evidence closely enough. Even then, there's bound to be a limit to what a layperson such as myself can grasp.

It's curious that, lately, there seem to be those who now doubt even the premise of the question - that the ice caps are melting and the sea-levels are rising at all (or that it's that unusual if they are). I always assumed we could at least safely agree on that much, and the only question was over mankind's contribution to it all?

I often read that the vast majority of the world's climate scientists are largely in agreement, not only on the question of overall warming, but also the likely correlation between it and rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Scientists can be wrong of course, they're not fool-proof, but when I consider that apparent level of scientific expertise and consensus alongside the political and corporate vested interests of the anti-camp (which is unquestionably more ignorant of the scientific data, but some of whose members have very deep pockets) – I'm inclined to side rather more with the former than the latter.

There are of course vested interests and a few deep pockets in the climate change "movement" too, and I don't doubt that the environmental movement has its fair share of tree-huggers marching without much of a clue as to the evidence. But surely not to the same degree.

So in summary - if I had to step off the fence right now, it would NOT be to the side currently screeching "it's all a sham". For now, I will sit tight and hope that those more in-the-know will prevail. (I suppose we shouldn't count on it though)

[Strangelet]

I'm not a big fan of what's happening in Copenhagen, and I'm looking more and more dimly at the role politicians are playing in this issue. At some point, the politicizing of climate change research will cause only further damage to the environmental cause and its objectives if things continue down this path.

[Deckard]

Tomorrow: Fifty-six papers, one editorial (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/06/papers-copenhagen-leader)

The editorial: 'Fourteen days to seal history's judgment on this generation' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/06/copenhagen-editorial)

[Strangelet]

western countries developed the nuclear weapon, spurred on by a race with Germany.

western countries landed on the moon, spurred on by a race with the soviets.

i don't see any solutions being spurred on in copenhagen, just overly expensive suits, private jets and free blow jobs.

[bryantm3]

the way i view it is that whether climate change is due to our own doing or it is a fact of nature, it is a good incentive to get us to start taking care of our environment. i live in the atlanta area, where we have code orange smog alerts for nearly half the year, and during august it's difficult to breathe outside. the fact of the matter is that we have a duty to take care of the creation God has made for us, and we need to start now whether or not we're going to get kicked in the butt by mother nature. the big debate is how to deal with it. what i propose is tax breaks for auto companies that convert at least 50% of their product to electric, hydrogen, solar, and water powered vehicles. this is just an idea, and could use much more research. this and the cap and trade tax i think would be very good, but i also think we need more efforts on the individual in society: possibly making recycling easier by making recycle delivery service available in many more areas, etc.

[Deckard]

"The "Climategate" row took centre stage on the opening day of the Copenhagen climate summit today as the world's leading oil exporter intervened to question the scientific consensus on man-made global warming."

Saudis leap on 'Climategate' to question warming
(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6947199.ece)
The Saudis, eh? No shit...

[Sean]

It just sounds to me like the fundamental issue of climate change is still in full effect, but that there are some scientists out there who have undermined the known facts by withholding or lying about some of the details. This is the same reason I get on the case of people like Michael Moore and the like. You can be out promoting the noblest of causes, but when your methods include dishonesty like this, your cause becomes secondary to the scandal.

That being said, it's just a basic fact that we as a species need to start finding a way for our existence on this planet to be balanced with our environment and global ecosystems. Regardless of whether or not climate change specifically is man-made, we're simply ravaging the entire earth to the extent that in the neighborhood of 3 species go completely extinct every hour of every day. That's around 72 species per day, and over 26,000 per year. This inevitably wreaks havoc with the ecosystems these species played a role in - ecosystems that often include us - and creates a domino effect that we have to stop. Like the recent, alarmingly sharp drop in bee populations - an insect that literally provides human beings with one out of every three bites of food we ever eat! And at the same time, we're draining the planet of it's finite supply of natural resources. So even if climate change isn't our fault (though it likely is, at least in part), we still need to start making environmentally conscious changes to how we live. If we don't, then the planet will be destroyed by us through climate change, or deforestation, or overfishing, or overfarming, or pollution that poisons all the other life we depend on to survive.

I mean for crying out loud, mankind has evolved with the ability to conceptualize on a level that no other species can even come close to matching. Why the hell do the bulk of us refuse to use this unique trait to our fullest advantage?

[Deckard]

If we don't....
I've pretty much concluded: we won't!

We've shown enormous ingenuity on all manner of things in our history, but I honestly don't think humanity yet possesses the collective will to solve problems on this (apparent) scale. Managing ozone layer depletion was about our limit.

And you're right to broaden the topic, and highlight all the species being destroyed. Ultimately, we'll bag the big one: our own.

Still, mustn't grumble. :) On the positive side, the earth will probably survive for another 4-5 billion years after we're gone, with or without new species evolving to our level of intelligence.

Actually, that may not be such a good thing after all...

[Rog]

some good posts! i agree with Sean in the main.
One thing i reckon for sure, it will be us who pay the price while the rich, politicians, bono, sting and the like crusade by 1st class air travel or private jet.......

[Strangelet]

this is *exactly* what i've been on about.


Yet the first week of this summit is being dominated by the representatives of the rich countries trying to lace the deal with Enron-style accounting tricks that will give the impression of cuts, without the reality. It's essential to understand these shenanigans this week, so we can understand the reality of the deal that will be announced with great razzmatazz next week.
Most of the tricks centre around a quirk in the system: a rich country can "cut" its emissions without actually releasing fewer greenhouse gases. How? It can simply pay a poor country to emit less than it otherwise would have. In theory it sounds okay: we all have the same atmosphere, so who cares where the cuts come from?
But a system where emissions cuts can be sold among countries introduces extreme complexity into the system. It quickly (and deliberately) becomes so technical that nobody can follow it – no concerned citizen, no journalist, and barely even full-time environmental groups. You can see if your government is building more coal power stations, or airports, or motorways. You can't see if the cuts they have "bought" halfway round the world are happening – especially when they are based on projections of increases that would have happened, in theory, if your government hadn't stumped up the cash.
A study by the University of Stanford found that most of the projects that are being funded as "cuts" either don't exist, don't work, or would have happened anyway. Yet this isn't a small side-dish to the deal: it's the main course. For example, under proposals from the US, the country with by far the highest per capita emissions in the world wouldn't need to cut its own gas by a single exhaust pipe until 2026, insisting it'll simply pay for these shadow-projects instead.


http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-leaders-of-the-rich-world-are-enacting-a-giant-fraud-1837963.html


Of course if you are against Copenhagen you are a corporate roader, according to some well meaning, misty eyed enviro groups, reinforced by the masturbatorial spin that will come out of this conference.

You're just not going to get there from here, not with these assholes (that includes Obama)

[Deckard]

Oh boy I didn't realise it was as shitty as this.

[Deckard]

You know what? I've only just learned that AGW stands for the very opposite of what I thought it stood for. Which probably explains why various articles and comments on global warming were sounding so self-contradictory.

Time for me to read up a little more, I think :o :rolleyes:

[Strangelet]

the futility of copenhagen is starting to sink in.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/15/naomi-klein-the-copenhage_n_392962.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/15/naomi-klein-the-copenhage_n_392962.html)

"..no real solutions on the table"

As much as they are assholes, you can't just change the politcal players or tell the existing players to just try harder.

If a patient has a dying heart, do you ask a committee of lawyers to strategize a solution? In the same respect why do you leave it up to policy wankers to fix technological problems?

dead horse flogging continues...

[Rog]

I do believe that it will end with an agreement.......and nothing will really change. I wonder what Sarah palin says.............

From Sarah Palin’s Facebook page:

Mr. President: Boycott Copenhagen; Investigate Your Climate Change “Experts”

The president’s decision to attend the international climate conference in Copenhagen needs to be reconsidered in light of the unfolding Climategate scandal. The leaked e-mails involved in Climategate expose the unscientific behavior of leading climate scientists who deliberately destroyed records to block information requests, manipulated data to “hide the decline” in global temperatures, and conspired to silence the critics of man-made global warming. I support Senator James Inhofe’s call for a full investigation into this scandal. Because it involves many of the same personalities and entities behind the Copenhagen conference, Climategate calls into question many of the proposals being pushed there, including anything that would lead to a cap and tax plan.

Policy should be based on sound science, not snake oil. I took a stand against such snake oil science when I sued the federal government over its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the fact that the polar bear population has increased. I’ve never denied the reality of climate change; in fact, I was the first governor to create a subcabinet position to deal specifically with the issue. I saw the impact of changing weather patterns firsthand while serving as governor of our only Arctic state. But while we recognize the effects of changing water levels, erosion patterns, and glacial ice melt, we cannot primarily blame man’s activities for the earth’s cyclical weather changes. The drastic economic measures being pushed by dogmatic environmentalists won’t change the weather, but will dramatically change our economy for the worse.

Policy decisions require real science and real solutions, not junk science and doomsday scare tactics pushed by an environmental priesthood that capitalizes on the public’s worry and makes them feel that owning an SUV is a “sin” against the planet. In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to “restore science to its rightful place.” Boycotting Copenhagen while this scandal is thoroughly investigated would send a strong message that the United States government will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices. Saying no to Copenhagen and cap and tax are first steps in “restoring science to its rightful place.”

- Sarah Palin

:D

[Rog]

i'll kill that bastard snake oil salesman who told me it was a new green fuel..........

[Sean]

I do believe that it will end with an agreement.......and nothing will really change. I wonder what Sarah palin says.............

From Sarah Palin’s Facebook page:

Mr. President: Boycott Copenhagen; Investigate Your Climate Change “Experts”

The president’s decision to attend the international climate conference in Copenhagen needs to be reconsidered in light of the unfolding Climategate scandal. The leaked e-mails involved in Climategate expose the unscientific behavior of leading climate scientists who deliberately destroyed records to block information requests, manipulated data to “hide the decline” in global temperatures, and conspired to silence the critics of man-made global warming. I support Senator James Inhofe’s call for a full investigation into this scandal. Because it involves many of the same personalities and entities behind the Copenhagen conference, Climategate calls into question many of the proposals being pushed there, including anything that would lead to a cap and tax plan.

Policy should be based on sound science, not snake oil. I took a stand against such snake oil science when I sued the federal government over its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the fact that the polar bear population has increased. I’ve never denied the reality of climate change; in fact, I was the first governor to create a subcabinet position to deal specifically with the issue. I saw the impact of changing weather patterns firsthand while serving as governor of our only Arctic state. But while we recognize the effects of changing water levels, erosion patterns, and glacial ice melt, we cannot primarily blame man’s activities for the earth’s cyclical weather changes. The drastic economic measures being pushed by dogmatic environmentalists won’t change the weather, but will dramatically change our economy for the worse.

Policy decisions require real science and real solutions, not junk science and doomsday scare tactics pushed by an environmental priesthood that capitalizes on the public’s worry and makes them feel that owning an SUV is a “sin” against the planet. In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to “restore science to its rightful place.” Boycotting Copenhagen while this scandal is thoroughly investigated would send a strong message that the United States government will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices. Saying no to Copenhagen and cap and tax are first steps in “restoring science to its rightful place.”

- Sarah Palin

:DSo then she supports an investigation into the "climategate" scandal to determine if there's been inappropriate behavior, and if so, who perpetrated it. But apparently, she also thinks we should assume the full guilt of the entire scientific community that's been involved with climate change research in the meantime?

I'm not sure she understands the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

[Rog]

that's because she's thick as pigshit;)

[Deckard]

Daily Express: FAIL

http://i50.tinypic.com/21oala8.jpg

The Express is treated on an equal footing with other 'news'papers in this country by nightly reviews of the press and so on. This is considered a "middle market" title - halfway between quality broadsheets and red-top tabloids.

Don't you despair...

[Rog]

Daily Express: FAIL

. This is considered a "middle market" title - halfway between quality broadsheets and red-top tabloids.

half way between my arse cheeks more like.......wait a moment, it aint even fit to wipe my arse on;)

the snow is a government cover up over the killing of the people's princess blah blah blah

[Deckard]

the snow is a government cover up over the killing of the people's princess blah blah blah
LOL (I only just twigged the relevance of your reference to her :D )

[Rog]

you know it!:D

....i am veru drunk tonight......:eek:

[Sean]

Daily Express: FAIL

http://i50.tinypic.com/21oala8.jpg

The Express is treated on an equal footing with other 'news'papers in this country by nightly reviews of the press and so on. This is considered a "middle market" title - halfway between quality broadsheets and red-top tabloids.

Don't you despair...It's maddening when ignorant people oversimplify what is clearly a complex issue. "If it's called 'global warmin', then why's it snowin' so damn much?!? Heaw heaw heaw!" But then again, I guess it's also just one more way to easily identify the folks we need to keep a watchful eye on.

[Deckard]

UN climate body admits 'mistake' on Himalayan glaciers (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8468358.stm)

Tag cloud - climate change denier styleee...


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The vice-chairman of the UN's climate science panel admits that it made a mistake in asserting that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) included the date in its 2007 assessment of climate impacts. A number of scientists have recently disputed the 2035 figure, and Jean-Pascal van Ypersele told BBC News that it was an error. But he said it did not change the broad picture of man-made climate change. The issue, which BBC News first reported on 05 December, has reverberated around climate websites in recent days. Some commentators maintain that taken together with the contents of e-mails stolen last year from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, it undermines the credibility of climate science.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In all seriousness though:

"I don't see how one mistake in a 3,000-page report can damage the credibility of the overall report," he said.

"Some people will attempt to use it to damage the credibility of the IPCC; but if we can uncover it, and explain it and change it, it should strengthen the IPCC's credibility, showing that we are ready to learn from our mistakes."

Oh you bet they will. :rolleyes:

[Strawman]

'Climate change' has always happened and always will.....predominantly due to solar activity - such as solar flares. This is a very interesting topic and explains a number of things that happen in our solar system and of-course on the earth. I read an article that Mars is actually going through climate change (mainly warming) at the moment due to an increase in solar flares.

One good thing that has come out of all this is a general increase in awareness of how important our natural environment is and the all importance of trees on this planet.

God Bless you all....

[bas_I_am]

it all ends in 2012. . . so burn the rainforest!