Climate Alarmists Finally Admit The Debate Is Not Over

ChoCoChips SG

kyoto protocol oso no usa right

how come this one cannot do the same with china?

angel7030 SG

WISHING ALL A MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!

Stevenson101 SG

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/22/copenhagen-climate-change-mark-lynas

another perspective to the detailed happenings in the summit

I have read that, and

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/21/copenhagen-failure-us-senate-vested-interests as well

That's why i believe while we like to think the Western free press is a neutral and critical observer it is no longer the case. I have also read and watch the videos by HongKong and China observers as well.

They brought up the most important point that if you calculate the emissions of the Western World since just after the Second World War, it pales besides anything that China is capable of.

I am not surprised at this outcome however, the recent Financial Crisis has hurt the Western World(USA and UK really) a great deal and they frankly have no desire to commit to anything that would hurt their interest. Far better it be that they impose unreasonable demands on China then blame China for sabotaging Coperhagen.

80% emissions cut by 2050 but no similar demands on the USA which is stil the biggest emitter per capita?

Do not forget that the very system of the USA means that one man don't get to call the shots. Obama can commit to all the cuts he wants but as long as the Senate does not agree Obama's not going to do jack. They can easily drag their feet to 2012 and back a President that's more obedient.

The Americans have built their vaulted freedom off the backs of the developing world, now that the developing world has started to bite back they are now complaining it is a global conspiracy to rob them of their freedom. Well, that's a laugh.

The irritating part of this whole global warming fiasco is that the cuts would only affect the world of 2050 and beyond. It is happening on a timescale that the average human brain is just not trained or equipped to handle. Global warming also isn't a blanket warming of the entire world, it's far more complex than that

Kuali Baba SG

I have read that, and

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/21/copenhagen-failure-us-senate-vested-interests as well

They brought up the most important point that if you calculate the emissions of the Western World since just after the Second World War, it pales besides anything that China is capable of.

80% emissions cut by 2050 but no similar demands on the USA which is stil the biggest emitter per capita?

In the end, everyone who gives a damn is unhappy that the finger-pointing among nations continued, although no-one is surprised. We're just screwing ourselves by not rising above that and making a concerted effort.

Stevenson101 SG

The problem is that the people that needs the most rising above are the ones that benefits the most from status quo.

It's just like us wanting the PAP ministers to understand the difficulties of a family who earns in a month what they earn in a bloody day.

It's not helping the rumours flying around that the scientists are trying to scare us, the socialist attempt to take over the world , domination by the world government..etc

Arapahoe SG

I guess you are asking if you come late for the buffet and the food are gone does it means that the early birds got to pay for those being late?

I think the failure in Copen reflect more on the flaws in these negociation and the disconnection between the scientific community on the un-correlation between political Economies vs Climate Change. Rather than the correlation between Economics development thru Human activities that resulted in Climate Change.

There are plenty of chart and peak projections going around and Carbon coeficient on Oil,Gas and Coal. plus coeficient varies from countries to countries. Nevertheless it is difficult to pin point at what level will attain what level of desirable outcome vs undesirable outcome....

sgdiehard SG

I guess you are asking if you come late for the buffet and the food are gone does it means that the early birds got to pay for those being late?

The state of global climate did not just happen today because some countries started developing. It began when the developed countries started their development years ago.

I guess the more appropriate anology is to say that the elder sons of the family used up all the fortune of their father, and expect the younger sons who have just started to work to prevent the family from going bankrupt.

or, the early birds ate up the buffet and expect the late comers to pay the bill.

or, some have to pay the arrears, while others have to pay in advance.

may be the biggest realization in copen is that the US and other developed nations are not calling the shot anymore.

Arapahoe SG

The state of global climate did not just happen today because some countries started developing. It began when the developed countries started their development years ago.

or, the early birds ate up the buffet and expect the late comers to pay the bill.

or, some have to pay the arrears, while others have to pay in advance.

may be the biggest realization in copen is that the US and other developed nations are not calling the shot anymore.

I think the global community have no illusion about Chinese equation in Copen. I just think that if the negociator bring about this mentality of Early Birds vs Late comers. The self defeating being bully by the West is not going to work together to solve world solution.

As such i said the scientific community is disconnected to the political process particularly with China that is obssesed with growth for the objective of retaining power.

To put carbon emmission on the frontline is probably not going to be achieving any result. Is almost as good as saying you EAT but Cut down the Farting.

I think the focus should be expanding Forest growth and reduce population. While provide incentive for alternative or renewal energy compare to fosil fuel of course this would tick off the Arabs but someone got to give in....

Carbon Coeficient for Coal has the higherest among all, It is between 24 - 26 depend on the Coal process. While Fosil fuel takes about 20 and nature gas is about 17.

freedomclub SG

Okies, here comes part 2.

Wait. Ok i had a look at the link you posted. It was written on 28 Nov 2009.

I see BBC had an article http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8370282.stm

That was published on Friday 20 Nov 2009. In the article it said the files were leaked on Thursday.

On CNN it seems their first response was 25 Nov. While i don't know why CNN would release it after 6 days, your claim that BBC delayed the release for a month don't seemed to be accurate

Fox News, it seems was actually faster than CNN.

You know the funny thing is? The man actually believed in global warming.

He disagrees with how Coperhagen is going to deal with it, but he believes in man made global warming.

So can you be consistent here? Do you disagree with the man made global warming or you disagree with how we're dealing with it?

Now, we don't know what's coming out of coperhagen. What Washington wants Washington may not neccessarily get.

In case you haven't been paying attention, the direction of the world is no longer decided by just America.

No , but i'm realistic enough to believe they would act if their own interest was going to be threatened. Not really good business if alot of your Third World labour are going to be suffering from drought/flooding/hurricanes yes?

Believing that government and corporations are inherently selfish seems to be a lot less naive than believing that they're inherently evil.

Now see here, i don't make my opinions solely based on what America's doing.

I look at what China and India are doing because they would be the worst hit if quotas on carbon dioxide emissions are implemented.

They are both developing countries and are highly dependant on cheap coal energy to power their economies. If they have to give that up, they give up the economy growth and accompanying social stability. The number of the lower classes that would be affected from the carbon cuts probably outnumber the whole of America.

And see here, unlike America and India China's leadership comprises mostly of trained engineers so they would probably understand the hard Maths of global warming personally far more than the politicans of any country. Whether they respect human rights or not is a different can of worms.

They, who are so dependant on coal fired power plants are willing to commit to 40-45 cuts on carbon intensity (based on 2005 levels).

Europe, short of the UK are also committed to emission cuts. It seems the biggest portions of global warming unbelievers reside in America and the UK. Now, i wonder why ?

Shows a lot on what they think of global warming, isn't it ?

You know, i think you would make a great journalist at Fox News.You're very good at making me mean something that i don't.

No one's stupid enough to say no to the TVP if it was evenly remotely viable or realistic. No one's going to say i don't want freedom.

However, much like everything in life everything has a price.

If the TVP's first place to build one of their fancy new society in rural Africa for the tribal Africans, with the West providing the labourers i would gladly sign up. I bet that's not what the planners had in mind with their fancy dream.

Oh sure, say no to global government.

Continue to let the USA do whatever they want, after all their citizens seemed to know what's best for the rest of the world wouldn't they ?

There's no inherently good or evil in a global government, you used that phrase as if it's supposed to imply anything by itself.

First of all, I apologise for taking such a ridiculously long time to reply.

Ok, I'm willing to assume that those involved in Climategate had no sinister motives, even if it shows a prejudice on part of AGW scientists, that may influence how the debate is being presented.

My point in bringing up James Hanson was to show that even someone who believed that human activity is causing climate change, he also realises the futility and corruption inherent in a so-called solution of "cap and trade", which is being implemented across the developed world.

As I've stated many times, I'm all for protecting the environment and promoting green technology, but that's different than being in support of another financial scam.

Right now, for the sake of not getting into more arguments, I'll state: I agree with you that human activity is causing the climate to change in negative ways. But are the methods being pushed by the corporate and national elites going to effectively solve this problem? Washington's solution wasn't any good, but Copenhagen didn't show us anything better.

If anything, Copenhagen just told us what we already knew but many didn't want to believe. Governments, international institutions etc don't really have a genuine interest in promoting the interests of the ordinary people and the environment. They're there to preserve and promote the interests of the establishment.

It'll be a similar state of affairs should global governance comes into being. Considering the how much the corporate-governmental (fascist) relationship has developed through the decades, I can only think of an increasingly large fist that epitomises Acton's warning that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

By now, you should be aware of the double standards flouting around at Copenhagen after the so-called Danish text was leaked:

"...

The agreement, leaked to the Guardian, is a departure from the Kyoto protocol's principle that rich nations, which have emitted the bulk of the CO2, should take on firm and binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, while poorer nations were not compelled to act. The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions.

The document was described last night by one senior diplomat as "a very dangerous document for developing countries. It is a fundamental reworking of the UN balance of obligations. It is to be superimposed without discussion on the talks".

A confidential analysis of the text by developing countries also seen by the Guardian shows deep unease over details of the text. In particular, it is understood to:

• Force developing countries to agree to specific emission cuts and measures that were not part of the original UN agreement;

• Divide poor countries further by creating a new category of developing countries called "the most vulnerable";

• Weaken the UN's role in handling climate finance;

• Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes.

Developing countries that have seen the text are understood to be furious that it is being promoted by rich countries without their knowledge and without discussion in the negotiations.

..."

Coming back to Hanson's warning about a cap and trade system, I don't see how we can solve the problem with the same kind of thinking that created it. Already in Europe, where there are several systems of this kind, the introduction of a financial scheme where the subject is the ecological survival of our planet, corruption and profit naturally have enveloped whatever well-meaning intentions, if any, behind the plan.

"Carbon trading fraudsters may have accounted for up to 90pc of all market activity in some European countries, with criminals pocketing an estimated €5bn (£4.5bn) mainly in Britain, France, Spain, Denmark and Holland, according to Europol, the European law enforcement agency.

...

Are you familiar with the Story of Stuff? I vaguely remember recommending it to you. The same people have now come up with The Story of Cap and Trade, which does a great job in explaining a supposedly complex system, and exposes it as the corporate scam as it is. I strongly hope that you as well as anyone reading this takes the time to watch their presentation.

If the elites were genuinely serious about solving "climate change", it could easily be accomplished without the creation of another bubble to burst for huge profits. After all, if we transcend this great abyss called politics, everything becomes a technical matter. From super-efficient solar cells to an array in Space that the Japanese are working on to existing renewables available from geothermal to wave, wind and current, not to mention the potential that could be developed from Thorium, the so-called new Uranium, energy could be limitless and clean.

But wait... under existing conditions, even the above, which sounds great is going to have its negative impacts.

"Some of the greenest technologies of the age, from electric cars wind turbines, are made possible by an unusual group of elements called rare earths. The world’s dependence on these substances is rising fast. to efficient light bulbs to very large

Just one problem: These elements come almost entirely from China, from some of the most environmentally damaging mines in the country, in an industry dominated by criminal gangs.

..."

- Earth-Friendly Elements, Mined Destructively

That's just what our social structure produces. When profit takes precedence over the human and environmental concerns, when we are more concerned over politics and ideologies than a scientific approach to solving our problems, which is really what has propelled human progress, you'll get the similar problems occuring again and again. The argument that wars, poverty, corruption and human suffering in general are caused by human nature is rather narrow-minded when you consider that throughout history, we have been bound by similar established structures, most prominently, a monetary system or some other forms of exchange.

To end on a poetic note, consider this Cree Indian prophecy:

"Only after the last tree's cut, And the last river poisoned; Only after the last fish is caught, Will you find that money cannot be eaten."

freedomclub SG

As such i said the scientific community is disconnected to the political process particularly with China that is obssesed with growth for the objective of retaining power.

To put carbon emmission on the frontline is probably not going to be achieving any result. Is almost as good as saying you EAT but Cut down the Farting.

Carbon Coeficient for Coal has the higherest among all, It is between 24 - 26 depend on the Coal process. While Fosil fuel takes about 20 and nature gas is about 17.

The problem is more of a fundamental one. When you have a society whose direction is profit, power aquisition and preserving the status quo, only solutions that contribute to the above three are considered by the establishment. In this case, for carbon trading, the solution doesn't solve the problem a bit, but aggravates it though it allows a group of people to reap millions off it.

We can either have a society whose social direction is towards profit and power or a society that is geared towards preserving and promoting the human and environmental well-being; but not both.

Arapahoe SG

We can either have a society whose social direction is towards profit and power or a society that is geared towards preserving and promoting the human and environmental well-being; but not both.

Agreed carbon trading probably derive from the concept of Externalities...where one country pay off another country to stop pumping carbon. Such that human activities that leads to carbon emmission and others remains the intact.

In a way the downturn of the US may be a good sign as the slow growth lead to reduction in productions globally. But in Geology time frame is just a needle drop in the ocean.

Stevenson101 SG

First of all, I apologise for taking such a ridiculously long time to reply.

Ok, I'm willing to assume that those involved in Climategate had no sinister motives, even if it shows a prejudice on part of AGW scientists, that may influence how the debate is being presented.

As I've stated many times, I'm all for protecting the environment and promoting green technology, but that's different than being in support of another financial scam.

By now, you should be aware of the double standards flouting around at Copenhagen after the so-called Danish text was leaked:

"...

A confidential analysis of the text by developing countries also seen by the Guardian shows deep unease over details of the text. In particular, it is understood to:

• Force developing countries to agree to specific emission cuts and measures that were not part of the original UN agreement;

• Divide poor countries further by creating a new category of developing countries called "the most vulnerable";

• Weaken the UN's role in handling climate finance;

• Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes.

Developing countries that have seen the text are understood to be furious that it is being promoted by rich countries without their knowledge and without discussion in the negotiations.

..."

...

But wait... under existing conditions, even the above, which sounds great is going to have its negative impacts.

Just one problem: These elements come almost entirely from China, from some of the most environmentally damaging mines in the country, in an industry dominated by criminal gangs.

..."

- Earth-Friendly Elements, Mined Destructively

To end on a poetic note, consider this Cree Indian prophecy:

"Only after the last tree's cut, And the last river poisoned; Only after the last fish is caught, Will you find that money cannot be eaten."

Frankly i loathe to get involved with this discussion again. There is a massive difference in manipulating the truth to benefit yourself and taking advantage of the fact to benefit yourself.

Firstly, the Medival Warming Period and the Little Ice Age are both facts that i read from wikipedia and from books that i've bought. There were no attempts to blanket these facts, something you ought to have tried yourself before blindly accepting the opinion of people you don't know personally.

Regarding your link, there is little information on how much that is deleted are real articles or nonsensical/repeated posts like that of knnbpcb's.

I have already knew about the Medival Warming Period and Little Ice Age, they have no connection with the current global warming and climate change. I fail to see why there must be a connection between them.

Why do you think such unreasonable terms were brought up? Because they knew that we, the minor nobility of the world refuse to give up even a portion of our comfortable lifestyles to benefit the truly improverished.

How could we be minor nobility you would think? We enjoy the natural resources that come from these improverished countries do we not ? Don't we prop up dictators in their country so we can be guranteed a steady supply? Everyone in this forum including you and me benefit from the activities of the global elites that we enjoy scraps from their tables is better than the nothing and beating the truly poor have to suffer.

Would you have given up your comfortable lifestyle if the true solution was really given? No! You would be kicking and screaming as you are dragged from the table scraps, bemoaning the global elite nobles and cursing the poor for making you give up what you have to them.

The Danish have no illusion of what the people of the developed countries really want, despite their noble protests at Coperhagen and outcry on the Internet. They figured half a solution is better than none.

Do you seriously think that if these new technologies were so easily developed and implemented that the global elites would not have abandoned their troublesome dictators in the Middle East and their annoying population?

You never bothered to research on these new technologies that you brought up. If you had you would have realised the limitations they have because you don't want reality to shatter your understanding of the world.

The Truth of it is that we would never accept downgrading on our lifestyles without protest. We would rather invent a monolithic organisation or Satan and blame it on them than think we contributed to the problem as well. We have seen the Gates of Heaven, and we would only accept forward not backwards! And screw the faceless poor under the flooring that we have to step over to go forward!

I have no disagreement with your final paragraph.But it is an emotional argument at best, ignoring the facts and reality of the matter.

Finally i would just like to ask.

Ok, what if some global elites realise that wow, global warming would really hurt profits, i might actually have to pay more for services and products if there are wide spread floods, famines and droughts occuring over the world. If there is a smaller human population, it naturally means i have to pay more for stuff and i can't threaten a country that i would outsource my factories if they don't comply with my demands.

Some of them decides to put money into green technology(for profits naturally) and decides to give funding to scientists to help better understanding global warming and educate people about it.

But their efforts are accused of attempting to scare people about global warming and there would be people like you trying to say that it isn't happening but that elites are trying to rip them off.

And your efforts would be used by the elites that want to maintain status quo and continue partying.

Your problem is that you can only see Good and Evil. There is no such thing as the lesser evil and the greater evil in your world view.

« Previous Page