Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after 'Danish text' leak

[easycougar]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text

 

[BenIsForRon]

As it should be. There was a guy on NPR this morning, he believes in AGW, but he said this whole Copenhagen thing is a scam. It's going to be based solely on politics and economics. And of course, the big dogs are going to try to take more territory.

 

[phill4paul]

Sinister.

 

[dannno]

This is a great example of how the elite pretend to attempt to setup what they frame as a fair agreement between the well connected and the poor and then sidelining the entire process and turning it into a mechanism for the elite to become even more wealthy and of course give them much more control.

Anybody ever hear of the band "Guyana Punchline" ?? Great band.. terrible recording..

YouTube - guyana punch line

 

[dannno]

As it should be. There was a guy on NPR this morning, he believes in AGW, but he said this whole Copenhagen thing is a scam. It's going to be based solely on politics and economics. And of course, the big dogs are going to try to take more territory.

So why can't you admit to yourself that MMGW is a scam??

 

[BenIsForRon]

The science isn't a scam. Hundreds of institutions back it up with research, forget about East Anglia. Governments will take advantage of real problems for their own gain, like with world hunger. Oil for food was a great scam for governments to pretend like they were helping the less fortunate while at the same time gaining more wealth.

So yeah, I agree with you guys that Copenhagen is a scam, I just don't think the concept of AGW is a scam.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

absolutely delicious!

sit back, grab some popcorn and watch the fireworks!

I found this interesting...

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.

hmmm...
As well 15,000 delegates and officials, 5,000 journalists and 98 world leaders

the eleven-day conference, including the participants' travel, will create a total of 41,000 tonnes of "carbon dioxide equivalent"

See where I'm going with this?

rounding - 14000 CO2 tons / 20000 ppl = 0.7 tons/person / 11 days = 0.06363 tons per person per day.

now developing world: 1.44 tons / 365 = 0.003045 tons per person per day
developed world: 2.67 dons / 365 = 0.007315 tons per person per day

This climate change conference sure has one MASSIVE carbon footprint!

So each person there is producing about 18 times the allowed developing world carbon allowance and about 9 times the developed world carbon allowance!

What incredible HYPOCRISY!

Oh, and the numbers get worse if you don't count the 5,000 reporters like I did.

-t

 

[Krugerrand]

The part I don't get is why we can't assume that the "email hacker" was not simply a "whistle blower."

 

[phill4paul]

So yeah, I agree with you guys that Copenhagen is a scam, I just don't think the concept of AGW is a scam.

To each his own. For my own part when they can accurately predict the weather each day for a particular local for 365 days then I'll believe that they can see a larger picture 50 years from now. As it stands I can get three different predictions from three different sources and my weather "rock" is the only thing correct 100% of the time.

 

[Cowlesy]

To me, the more sinister aspect of this means a re-jigger'ing of the agreement could lead to BHO actually signing something next week that still locks in a global framework on which to build.

 

[Carole]

Yet again the medial warming era is forgotten/shoved aside/ ignored/hidden/marginalized.

Sounds like what they did to RP during the primaries.

I have no patience for those who follow the religion of AGW like sheeple. Sorry, this is just a complete tyrannical grab for world power to give our sovereignty to the World Bank and make us pay, and pay, and pay for our developmental sins.

Please wake up. CO2 is NOT a pollutant-not a greenhouse gas. The world NEEDS CO2. The trees and other plants need it to produce the O2 that we breathe.

The oceans and volcanoes produce nearly 100 percent of the world's CO2. Humans produce a miniscule fraction of CO2. Not even enough to think about. It cannot be "controlled" and the world is not warming. It is natural to have climate change. The CO2 is taken up during the "growing" period from Spring to Fall. Ask any farmer. The sun heats the earth. The CO2 does not correlate with temperature change. Al Gore is a snake oil salesman who is now almost a billionaire by his scamming of global warming.

Polar bears are plentiful. Male bears often eat their own young if the mother does not protect them. They are not cannibalizing due to ice melt. Polar bears can swim for sixty miles. They like to lie on the ice. They will eat other mother polar bears' young also in order to drive them into heat again and reproduce again. This is all a natural cycle of nature.

I repeat global warming and AGW are scams.

 

[idirtify]

Yet again the medial warming era is forgotten/shoved aside/ ignored/hidden/marginalized.

Sounds like what they did to RP during the primaries.

I have no patience for those who follow the religion of AGW like sheeple. Sorry, this is just a complete tyrannical grab for world power to give our sovereignty to the World Bank and make us pay, and pay, and pay for our developmental sins.

Please wake up. CO2 is NOT a pollutant-not a greenhouse gas. The world NEEDS CO2. The trees and other plants need it to produce the O2 that we breathe.

The oceans and volcanoes produce nearly 100 percent of the world's CO2. Humans produce a miniscule fraction of CO2. Not even enough to think about. It cannot be "controlled" and the world is not warming. It is natural to have climate change. The CO2 is taken up during the "growing" period from Spring to Fall. Ask any farmer. The sun heats the earth. The CO2 does not correlate with temperature change. Al Gore is a snake oil salesman who is now almost a billionaire by his scamming of global warming.

Polar bears are plentiful. Male bears often eat their own young if the mother does not protect them. They are not cannibalizing due to ice melt. Polar bears can swim for sixty miles. They like to lie on the ice. They will eat other mother polar bears' young also in order to drive them into heat again and reproduce again. This is all a natural cycle of nature.

I repeat global warming and AGW are scams.

Yesterday on CNN a warmist was showing a color map of world CO2 emissions. All the industrial nations/areas had redder shades around them, which was claimed to be CO2 concentrations. Reading your post, I now wonder if it was really true and suspect it was just an infrared map of heat output.

 

[BenIsForRon]

Yesterday on CNN a warmist was showing a color map of world CO2 emissions. All the industrial nations/areas had redder shades around them, which was claimed to be CO2 concentrations. Reading your post, I now wonder if it was really true and suspect it was just an infrared map of heat output.

Seriously dude, you should probably think before you post something like that. If CNN had just posted a heat image, all your favorite websites would be ripping them apart right now. And industry doesn't produce heat like that. Heat islands do, but only on small scales, not on a regional basis like you think you're seeing there.

Here's another viersion of the image, taken for the AIRS satellite. Take prevailing winds into account here.

 

[Original_Intent]

The science isn't a scam. Hundreds of institutions back it up with research, forget about East Anglia. Governments will take advantage of real problems for their own gain, like with world hunger. Oil for food was a great scam for governments to pretend like they were helping the less fortunate while at the same time gaining more wealth.

So yeah, I agree with you guys that Copenhagen is a scam, I just don't think the concept of AGW is a scam.

The science is a scam. The vast majority of those that have signed on are not even scientists, they are U.N. shills who are not climate experts at all.

Far more real climatologists scientists have refuted MMGW than those that have supported it. It is just that the elite controlled media does their best to supress that. MMGW is going to be the "flat earth" theory of coming centuries.

 

[tggroo7]

I'm confused. If the drafted agreement was going to "abandon the Kyoto Protocol" and "sideline the UN," wouldn't it have been a better thing than we had all thought?

 

[purplechoe]

 

[dannno]

So yeah, I agree with you guys that Copenhagen is a scam, I just don't think the concept of AGW is a scam.

Are you aware of the history of our climate from the last 1000 years? I don't understand how anybody in their right mind could look at the climate for the last 1,000 years and not see that what is happening today is completely normal. Medieval Warming period was warmer than it was today, from about 1000 AD to 1300 AD. Then we had a "little ice age" that just ended. Of course temperatures are coming up a little, we are coming out of a little ice age.

I don't know how people can believe that CO2, which plants LOVE, is a toxin. In fact, there are people who purchase CO2 and add extra amounts to their garden so that the plants grow better. This crap about toxicity is total BS, especially looking at the climate from the last 10 years. Temps have been falling. Obviously CO2 is NOT the main driver of temperatures in our climate. There is zero proof that it actually is.. Correlation does not equal causation!!

 

[easycougar]

 

[Original_Intent]

Seriously dude, you should probably think before you post something like that. If CNN had just posted a heat image, all your favorite websites would be ripping them apart right now. And industry doesn't produce heat like that. Heat islands do, but only on small scales, not on a regional basis like you think you're seeing there.

Here's another viersion of the image, taken for the AIRS satellite. Take prevailing winds into account here.

OK I just have to pick this image apart to show how they show the facts but then present it in usch a way as to make things look alarming.

The entire scale of that map ranges from 370 ppm to 380 ppm. So we are talking a scale range of 10 ppm or 1 part per 100,000 The VERY lowest to the VERY highest ranges is from 37 parts per 100,000 to 38 per 100,000.

Another way they couldhave presented the map would have been, oh 300 ppm on the purple end of the range and 400 ppm on the red end of the scale...but if they did that, the entire planet would be a pretty much perfectly uniform golden color and you would be hard pressed to see any areas of differentiation.

I had a boss that like to play these same type of games with graphs and statistics. If our team average was to close 7 cases a day and the low was 5 cases a day and the high was 8.5 cases a day....instead of making a graph scaled from zero to 10 he would set the low end at about 4 and the high end at 8. This made the person that did only 5 his bar on the bar graph was very short, and it gave the impression that the guy doing 8.5 was doing 4 times as much. Yes all the information was there but the visual presentation was engineered to make that impression - to emphasize the differences. This graph is the same. It would not matter if the entire world was between 375 ppm and 376 ppm, they would just make the graph be in tenths of a ppm (375.1, 375.2, etc) and they would still have their nice graphic showing a huge variation in CO2 distribution.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics

 

[Dieseler]

OK I just have to pick this image apart to show how they show the facts but then present it in usch a way as to make things look alarming.

The entire scale of that map ranges from 370 ppm to 380 ppm. So we are talking a scale range of 10 ppm or 1 part per 100,000 The VERY lowest to the VERY highest ranges is from 37 parts per 100,000 to 38 per 100,000.

Another way they couldhave presented the map would have been, oh 300 ppm on the purple end of the range and 400 ppm on the red end of the scale...but if they did that, the entire planet would be a pretty much perfectly uniform golden color and you would be hard pressed to see any areas of differentiation.

I had a boss that like to play these same type of games with graphs and statistics. If our team average was to close 7 cases a day and the low was 5 cases a day and the high was 8.5 cases a day....instead of making a graph scaled from zero to 10 he would set the low end at about 4 and the high end at 8. This made the person that did only 5 his bar on the bar graph was very short, and it gave the impression that the guy doing 8.5 was doing 4 times as much. Yes all the information was there but the visual presentation was engineered to make that impression - to emphasize the differences. This graph is the same. It would not matter if the entire world was between 375 ppm and 376 ppm, they would just make the graph be in tenths of a ppm (375.1, 375.2, etc) and they would still have their nice graphic showing a huge variation in CO2 distribution.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics

I never would have noticed.
Thanks.