Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, in:

Are you saying that because we exhale CO2, burning stuff that causes MORE CO2 to be released must be ok???? I think that IS what you're saying. That is, without a doubt, one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.

excon

---

I think one of the more ridiculous things I have heard EX IS THAT CO2 IS TRASH

Have you not considered that there is a symbiotic relationship between humans and plants? Humans inhale oxygen and exhale CO2, plants inhale CO2 and exhale oxygen. That CO2 is produced when plant material in any form is burnt is a natural process associated with the very oxygen that plants breath out, it is a natural process, not TRASH but a cycle, now the trick is not to burn too much plant material and we could stop by taking some positive steps to prevent forest destruction, removal of big agriculture, big oil and big energy which it seems might have the desirable effect of removing some very large countries and very large corporations from the equation.

What you are really saying you know is that your nation, as one of the largest emitters, is TRASH

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

I think one of the more ridiculous things I have heard EX IS THAT CO2 IS TRASH

---

Hello clete:

You guys will go to ANY lengths to keep your heads in the sand... You don't like that I call CO2 trash, so you pretend that burning stuff and creating MORE of it, no matter what you want to call it, is a good thing... You even point out the times in our past when CO2 was rampant, and everybody was doing swell. It seems as though you think it's cool that we return to those times... The only problem with those times, is the ocean was just a tad higher.. That's OK with me, cause I live on a hill. But, the areas where MOST of the people in the world live will be devastated.

Or do you think all that wonderful CO2 is just doing nothing?

Let me ask you this, since you're so keen on words... Water isn't poison. It isn't trash. In fact, it's GOOD. Consequently (using your logic), it couldn't hurt you, unless, of course, you breathed it.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello clete:

You guys will go to ANY lengths to keep your heads in the sand... You don't like that I call CO2 trash, so you pretend that burning stuff and creating MORE of it, no matter what you want to call it, is a good thing... You even point out the times in our past when CO2 was rampant, and everybody was doing swell. It seems as though you think it's cool that we return to those times... The only problem with those times, is the ocean was just a tad higher.. That's ok with me, cause I live on a hill. But, the areas where MOST of the people in the world live will be devastated.

Or do you think all that wonderful CO2 is just doing nothing?

Lemme ask you this, since you're so keen on words... Water isn't poison. It isn't trash. In fact, it's GOOD. Consequently (using your logic), it couldn't hurt you, unless, of course, you breathed it.

excon

---

You want to talk about me having my head in the sand but in reality it is you who hide from the truth. The truth is, EX, it is a cycle and we are all part of the cycle and if the water is a little higher and a few beachfront properties are demolished, well the people are only there as a matter of convenience anyway, they don't have an inalienable right to that land. So from your words you want water declared trash too, along with CO2 so someone can prevent rising water levels, more boondoggling building dykes no doubt.. CO2 is doing what CO2 does and if left alone it will promote plant growth which by coincidence will make more oxygen. In the process there will be more deserts, there will anyway because stupid humans cut down the trees. I haven't heard you say anything about stopping deforestation. Your business as usual arguments don't wash EX. Did I say we should burn more fossil fuels, no I didn't, nor did I say we should stop eating even though less agriculture would apparently be a good thing on many levels, but what we can do is be realistic about the problems we face and correctly identify the issues rather than panicking as we are doing now.

Issue: Climate is changing.
Issue: Oceans are rising
Issue: Glaciers are melting
Issue: Inequality in food distribution
Issue: Stupidity in high places

What I see in all these is a consequence, displacement of populations with only two apparent solutions acceptance of migration or population reduction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

if the water is a little higher and a few beachfront properties are demolished, well the people are only there as a matter of convenience anyway, they don't have an inalienable right to that land.

---

Hello again, clete:

If it were only a few fat cat beachfront properties, we wouldn't be having this conversation.. But, in fact, it's MOST of the world..

And, I agree with you. They have no inalienable right to the land... But, IF we COULD save their way of life, and at the same time turn our economy around, why wouldn't we? Plus, as a byproduct, we'd be starving our enemies of the money they need to make war on us... For that reason ALONE, we should do it. No?

If we COULD do all that, why, on earth, wouldn't we?

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

But, IF we COULD save their way of life, and at the same time turn our economy around, why wouldn't we? Plus, as a byproduct, we'd be starving our enemies of the money they need to make war on us... For that reason ALONE, we should do it. No?

If

---

That is a very big IF Ex a very very big If. You see that's what I meant in another thread when I said do goodin'. I think that you know as well as I do that the two are incompatible objectives just wishfull thinking. Who are those enemies you would be starving Ex, the North Koreans, the Iranians? They have more than enough money. Your own people are likely to be severally affected and you can't raise enough interest to get on with it.

Personally I'm just as happy to say that it you think global warming through CO2 emissions is reality I have a very nice bridge, just slightly used and well above the water...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, in:

Are you saying that because we exhale CO2, burning stuff that causes MORE CO2 to be released must be OK?? I think that IS what you're saying. That is, without a doubt, one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.

Excon

---

Ex


Burning more stuff? What do you mean? Be specific please.

Coal is used to provide electricity, gas is burned for transportation, even farting is used to relieve pressure ;) So there is a PURPOSE.
The strawman of "burning stuff" is easy to see through. Do you personally, since you believe in AGW, walk or bicycle 100 % of the time? Are a vegetarian? Don't use any source of electricity derived from coal? Can someone like Gore claim this? Is the Amish lifestyle what the Global warming believers wanting us to live like?

Odd how nuclear power is not even on the table at Copenhagen.

Quote:

---

Tensions Increase as Poor Nations Stage a Protest - WSJ.com

...

One possibility is a very general agreement in which developed countries promise to try to reduce their collective emissions by some amount and to provide a pot of money to help pay for a cleanup in the developing world...

At the heart of the disputes in Copenhagen are sharp disagreements over money....

The European Union has pledged a total of €7.2 billion ($10.52 billion) between next year and 2012 to jump-start efforts to curb emissions in developing countries. Officials from developing countries have called that offer inadequate.

"We need to see developed nations give us a plan of what [financial] transfers will come in five years, 10 years and how much over the years ahead, and we aren't seeing that," said Mamadou Honadia, who is part of the negotiating team for Burkina Faso.

A Nigerian delegation official said the EU offer of short-term funding was "pathetic


Climate Drama Climax Looks Elusive in Copenhagen - ABC News


Agreeing on how much rich countries should pay for poor nations' clean energy technology and for seawalls, irrigation and other projects to counter a changing climate.
...

"I think the United States needs to come up with $2.5 or $3 billion to put on the table for an immediate jump start," reporters were told last week by U.S. Sen. John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat sponsoring the first legislation capping U.S. emissions
...

Recognizing an obligation by the rich to undo the climate damage they've done,

---

This is not about real science. Otherwise it would be a scientific exposition on what technoloy, what emerging research, can advance a truly more efficient use of energy resources. There would be no politicians, no mandates, no demands or expectations for money. This should be about the free exchange of knowledge. Instead, it is about the agenda of using fear to extort money.


Why doesn't Kerry use the fortune he married into [ that she married into ] to personally make a difference, why doesn't Gore? Why don't they lead by example?




G&P

Yesterday, tom reported on armed UN security forces shutting down a journalist trying to ask questions about Climategate. The same guy was shut down when trying to quiz The Goracle.

Quote:

---

Not only did the former Vice President completely refuse to answer questions about his blatant misrepresentations of the age of the most recent e-mail message obtained from Britain's CRU, a U.N. security official actually disconnected McAleer's microphone to make sure any answers would be unrecorded.

---

AP science hack Seth Borenstein participated in the CRU email exchanges and just happened to be among the AP's fact checkers. The UN is suppressing questions by force. What are they afraid of and does it not bother you this is happening - and the media is not reporting it - just as with Climategate itself?

Ban Ki-Moon says Climategate is "posturing" ;and wants the delegates at Copenhagen to get serious about creating a one world government ...."seal the deal".
BBC News - Ban Ki-moon tells Copenhagen summit to 'seal a deal'

Seal The Deal!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Ban Ki-Moon says Climategate is "posturing" ;and wants the delegates at Copenhagen to get serious about creating a one world government ...."seal the deal".
BBC News - Ban Ki-moon tells Copenhagen summit to 'seal a deal'

Seal The Deal!

---

At no point in that article does he talk about creating "one world government". Can you point out where he says that?

I don't know if Ban Ki-Moon has come right out and said so but his predecessor certainly has. I've previously posted the link to where he said a climate change agreement "must lay the basis for a global regime."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

where he said"must lay the basis for a global regime."

---

Hello again, Steve:

You Righty's seem surprised that our adversaries have weird viewpoints...

What's surprising to ME, though, is your belief that, BECAUSE they're weird, you don't think we should talk to them - I guess about ANYTHING.

Or what, Steve? What is the POINT of your post Steve? We KNOW they're weird. I want to know what you propose to DO about it?? Is it possible for you guy's to have ANYTHING to contribute here, other than NO?

excon

Let me turn it around on you, do they have anything to offer besides this bulls*t?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Let me turn it around on you, do they have anything to offer besides this bulls*t?

---

Hello again, Steve:

Let me teach you a bit about negotiation.. You start high...

excon

Quote:

---

You Righty's seem surprised that our adversaries have weird viewpoints...

---

Ex,Glad you agree the UN qualifies as one of our adversaries. Let's deal with them by cutting off their funding and turning Turtle Bay into condos.

Quote:

---

At no point in that article does he talk about creating "one world government". Can you point out where he says that?

---

NK ;Nov. 11 of this year Ban went to the US Senate and demanded the Senate take the necessary action;and deliver "as soon as possible" ,a "legally binding" commitment to "25 to 40 percent greenhouse gas reduction . . . as recommended by the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."
John F. Kerry Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ,who invited Ban to speak that day called him "Your Excellency."

Annex I, Article 38 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC) states: “The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism[the ability to levy taxes].”...

[financial mechanism being the ability to levy taxes]
The proposed treaty continues...

... The government will be ruled by the COP [Conference of the Parties] with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009.../eng/inf02.pdf

World government will be a reality if this agreement is ratified .I know what Ban proposes so I don't need it specified in every article about him that I quote.

Thanks tom,
At least you admitted in so many words that the article you linked to contains no such words. Extreme hyperbole is what you specialize in.

Well I have to applaud your leader Stephen Harper for resisting the bs in Copenhagen.

Climategate is still growing in spite of the lack of media coverage and the AP's conclusions that the science wasn't faked. The Russians are claiming CRU cherry picked their data, preferring to use incomplete data and overemphasizing urban weather stations over stations in rural areas and at higher elevations, particularly playing fast and loose with Siberia.

Quote:

---

Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific evidence and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.

Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.

On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.

---

The gang in Copenhagen claim “it is in Soviet Union that the CRU, NOAA, NASA show the greatest warming.” No wonder, when the data ignores 40% of Russian territory and highlights urban stations over complete data sets from rural areas.

As Christopher Horner put it, "The reason this cherry-picking is relevant — as is the apparent similar gamesmanship being played with other countries examined in recent days including China and New Zealand — because our NOAA compiles the global dataset and the rest work from it. So when CRU claimed that it “lost” its raw data, what they’re saying is the claim to have lost which stations they chose from NOAA’s compilation, making it impossible for those who wish to check it to discern how they got the answer they did."

Science at its best, and definitely no agenda...

Been a while so time for a Climategate update. The IPCC is only off by hundreds of years on when Himalayan glaciers will melt off. Which by the way, a number of those glaciers haven't heard the news about AGW.

The 'science' was actually based on "speculation" by one unknown Indian scientist which made into a news article in a scientific journal. The World Wildlife Foundation, an environmental advocacy group, used the article as the basis for one of its reports and the IPCC picked it up and used it in their Nobel winning report.

They've also fed us a load of crap on AGW induced disappearing Amazon rainforests.

So where's the science?

The former Tata exec who heads up the IPCC ,"Dr." Pachauri ,has a major conflict of interest in all of this... much like the Goracle. An international conglomerate with ties to Pachauri through Tata stands to make up to $1 billion in carbon credits by closing down a steel plant in England (net loss of 1,700 jobs) .The plant is the Cora Redcar steel plant .The company has 7.5 million European Union surplus carbon allowances, given to the company free by the EU.

Pachauri who shared the Nobel Prize with the Goracle for the garbage in the IPCC report like the lies about the Himalayan glaciers and the Amazon is under fire for the conflict of interests .

Also ,the scientist who originally made the glacier claim is working for a company in India for which Pachauri is director-general.[ The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI)] The glacier claim helped TERI win a share of a $500,000 grant , along with a share in a three million euro research study funded by the EU.

So;as in the case of the Goracle; one of the major movers advancing the so- called settled science(the President used that line of pablum last night in SOTU) also has a vested interest in the outcome of the debate .

It's funny how the state run media can't make any of these connections. In fact, WaPo just ran a story on how the harsh winter we're having is proof of AGW. The report is by the National Wildlife Federation which I'm sure has no dog in this hunt.

Warmer lakes such as in the Great Lakes region is prompting these storms allegedly. Well, the Gulf never freezes and it's always been the main source of our precipitation. Warm gulf air meets cold northern air and bam, a 5 day weekend - thanks to AGW :)

The WaPo article also cites 2 reasons Americans are more skeptical now, the recession and Cap and Tax. I think if they had done their jobs and covered Climategate Americans would be even more skeptical. By the way, British authorities have said the University of East Anglia did break the law on FOIA requests, but it's too late to do anything about it.