whats this global waarming thing then?

[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...d-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

[Strangelet]

the futility of copenhagen is starting to sink in.

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

[Rog]

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

[Sean]

Originally Posted by 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

So 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



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]

Originally Posted by Deckard

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