Speaks for itsself!
http://dingo.care-mail.com/cards/flash/5409/galaxy.swf
|
Speaks for itsself!
http://dingo.care-mail.com/cards/flash/5409/galaxy.swf
Eric Idle song. Really has nothing to do with Copenhagen but yes, I do like Eric Idle and Monty Python's Flying Circus.
Makes a lot of sense to have climate talks and using tear gas on the protestors that goes up into the atmosphere - and this is supposedly about "green" stuff and climates getting warmer? They are all off their rockers if you ask me. They all did arrive in limos and off nice costly private jets. What hypocrites they truly are. At least the "poorer" countries walked out on this stupid bunch from the meetings once they learned about the skullduggery and lying trickery the "richer" nations were trying to pull on the poorer nations. Hooray for them - the poorer nations that is to stand up to these baloney artists.
What I thought it had to do with Copenhagen was the closing line, a very apt comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by twinkiedooter
If we just got on with doing what we had already agreed to do we would be much further advanced towards our objectives, then the richer nations would be able to demonstrate to the poorer nations that they are serious and no longer the principal source of the problem. I do think that certain pieces of European hyprocracy need to be dealt with, such as counting emissions from natural events. It is easy to be holier than thou when you only have a small land mass or zero population growth, even more so when your economy has collapsed. We no longer need to count in terms of emissions per head of population but in absolute terms
What is the carbon footprint of a tear-gas grenade ?Quote:
Makes a lot of sense to have climate talks and using tear gas on the protestors that goes up into the atmosphere
Chaos at climate conference - - POLITICO.comQuote:
in a surprise move that captured growing uncertainty over conference — Denmark's climate minister, Connie Hedegaard, stepped aside as president of the conference, handing the gavel to Rasmussen, as head of the host country.
Outside, Danish police — who have been accused of heavy-handedness by human rights groups — clashed with thousands of environmental activists who descended on the complex from a nearby train station and demanded entry to the Bella Center.
BBC video showed truncheon-bearing Danish police shoving the crowd backward as protesters gasped and covered their faces to avoid breathing tear gas.
Inside the building, U.N. officials revoked the credentials of about 100 accredited members of the green group Friends of the Earth for staging a series of small protests on Tuesday.
However ;the bigger story is how the left demonstrates . They frequently get militant when they don't get what they want. Conservatives had tea party and town hall demonstrations all year and you never saw an instance when tear gas had to be employed for crowd control.
It's too bad . There is nothing inherently wrong with environmentalism and conservation. But clowns like the Goracle and his ilk have co-opted a good idea and turned it into a cynical money grab. Actually ;come to think of it ,everything the left promotes with good intentions turns into a concentration of power and a money grab.
The problem with Hopenchangem is the same problem we see with the Health Care debate. The lefties inside the halls of power are feeling the pressure from their base to "pass something" .And that is what they will do . It will accomplish nothing ;but they can puff out their chests and brag about it.
Word is that when Evita Clintoon announced yesterday that the US would contribute to the $100 billion/year kleptocrat's pot of gold ;and changed the language from 'verified' to 'transparent' compliance... (we in the US are becoming painfully aware what the word transparent means to the Obot regime).. that China agreed to cut back on its pollution .
This is the breakthrough that negotiators in Hopenchangeum were looking for . There is still some time for a face saving agreement to come out of the fiasco there. No wonder Hugo Chavez got a standing ovation when he pledged to make “capitalism obey us”.
There was a chance that the talks were going to completely break down when Sen Lurch Kerry(key Senator working on the cr@p n trade legislation ),under marching orders from the steel worker's union(USW ), spoke protectionist language against Chinese manufactured steel. Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio and other rust belt Senators are putting pressure on the Obots to maintain what they call a “level playing field for American manufacturing" . Damn those luddites ! Don't they know that green jobs will keep them gainfully employed for the next generation ?
Kerry said “To pass a bill, we must be able to assure a senator from Ohio that steel workers in his state won't lose their jobs to India and China because those countries are not participating in a way that is measurable, reportable and verifiable”..
That sentence alone came close to torpedoing the whole meeting .
President Obama took his big carbon footprinted act to Hopenchangem yesterday to put his imprint on the charade. Not sure yet if a deal can be reached in the final days of the pow-wow ;but if there is ,surely it will be because the chosen one is there to put his stamp of approval on the effort.
How can anyone take you seriously when you make puerile word plays like that? Do you realize that the only name you didn't bastardize was the Republican person's name? This screams of infantile bigotry.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Wrong again... I left the Marxist loon Hugo Chavez' name unchanged and Sen. Sherrod Brown is a Dem.
I thought Hopenchangeum was clever and a whole lot milder than Schmucky Schumer's word for a flight attendant. The reviews so far I've heard are Obama's speech was quite the disappointment to the cause. The only man who could save us let his people down. Being the Messiah ain't what it used to be...
Hello again, clete:Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Couple things:
I suggest there's no relationship between mans inability to confer with one another, and mans ability to pollute the planet.
If your video is meant to suggest that the world is SOOOOOO big, that man just couldn't possibly effect it, you're SOOOOOOO wrong.
We used to think this country was big enough to just throw our trash on the road, and it wouldn't do anything... We were wrong. We used to think the ocean was soooooo big, that we could just dump our trash into it, and it wouldn't do anything. We were wrong.
Now, I suppose you're saying that our atmosphere is sooooo big, that we can just throw our trash out there and it won't do anything...
??
excon
I did not want to respond to the observation beyond my correction ;concerned of the risk of having the OP closed.
Steve are you sure linking to an article by George Monboit meets the approval of the board's arbiter of approved sources ?
Although I did take pains to not cite any sources that have been officially ruled as "a pile of steaming crap," I'm never sure of anything where that's concerned.
Told you Obama disappointed...
Barack Obama's speech disappoints and fuels frustration at Copenhagen
Being called a joke by Chavez has got to sting.Quote:
Many reactions were strongly critical of Obama. Hugo Chávez, the president of Venezuela, described Obama's speech as "ridiculous" and the US's initial offer of a $10bn fund for poor countries in the draft text as "a joke".
Tim Jones, a spokesman for the World Development Movement, said: "The president said he came to act, but showed little evidence of doing so. He showed no awareness of the inequality and injustice of climate change. If America has really made its choice, it is a choice that condemns hundreds of millions of people to climate change disaster."
Friends of the Earth said in a statement, "Obama has deeply disappointed not only those listening to his speech at the UN talks, he has disappointed the whole world."
The World Wildlife Fund said Obama had let down the international community by failing to commit to pushing for action in Congress: "The only way the world can be sure the US is standing behind its commitments is for the president to clearly state that climate change will be his next top legislative priority."
So Chavez's opinion matters to you now?
The sarcasm was clearly evident.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Update: China and India have walked. Looks like we're all doomed to climate disaster.
Gee what happened ? Obama's bow wasn't deep enough ?
Ex I have responded to you on this trash crap previously and I try not to repeat myself. What I have said is that I am yet to be convinced that Mankind is significantly or wholly responsible for global warming and that they don't have the ability to change the situation they think that they do. This is not just my opinion it is the opinion of some respected scientists. Haven't you noticed that the goal posts keep moving? The reality is that even if we stopped emitting CO2 and equivalent greenhouse gases right now, the predictions are we are going to get the temperature rise anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
There are many facts that are ignored;
Volcanic activity accounts for about 40% of atmospheric CO2
CO2 remains in the atmosphere for thousands of years
There is a cycle of warming/cooling that is not man related
There is a cycle of high concentration of CO2 that is not man related
The Earth has a system of sequestrating carbon, it is in fact a giant CO2 pump
If we want to limit CO2 emissions there are an number of things that must be done
Population limits, it is useless to limit CO2 with limiting population
Energy limitation. People must not be allowed to consume energy at the current rate
Food security. The pattern of consumption must change
In case you haven't got it yet the change starts in the Northern hemisphere where you will have to turn the heating/air con down and stop super sizing those meals
What was to be will be with or without these grandstanders. Typical Asian negotiating ploy. Obama has his answerhttp://www.news.com.au/world/meaning...-1225811944522, these guys will not accept his ideas of transparancy and if he is so concerned let him ratify and comply with Kyoto.. There is an easy way for the west to fix the problem, take their manufacturing plants elsewhereQuote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
An arctic blast from the past...
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre..._wx_review.png
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Your point being what? That because this guy said the planet was warming back in '22 means that it isn't today? Really? That's the new right wing attack?? You got to do better than that.
excon
I have done better than that. There has been a significant cooling since 1998... Not a warming .
Hello tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Well, I got scientists saying that the last decade was the warmest on record. I wonder if YOUR scientists have a bias? For sure, you're going to say MINE do.
How do we settle this? The OK corral? Or, do we take the overwhelming totality of data?
It seems to me, though, that you're argument isn't really with global warming.. You'd be fine if the planet was warming.. You just don't want ANY regulation about fossil fuels. THAT is what your agenda is about.
Come on, tom. You can tell me. Let's talk about what you want to be able to do that you think regulation will prevent you from doing. Let's talk about your fear that it'll be EUROPE that leads on that, and frankly, EUROPE scares right wingers... I don't know why. So, let's talk about that...
Unless you just want to say, "I know I am, but what are you"?
excon
Wrong again. I had no problem when they identified the exhaust of sulfer dioxide as a cause of acid rain ;and then took steps to require scrubbers on coal smoke stacks. That was proven science and a good policy.Quote:
You just don't want ANY regulation about fossil fuels. THAT is what your agenda is about
I also have no issues with the use of catalytic converters to clean up auto emmissions.
When and if it can be proven that man made CO2 emissions are the cause of harm then sign me up to whatever cure they can come up with OR if they develop alternates to replace fossil fuels that aren't economy wreckers ;and are of sufficient supply to keep the economies of the world growing ;then I'll gladly go along with the conversion.
One of my big secrets is that we have investments in a large energy company that is investing heavily in alt energy R&D .
Meanwhile send me pictures of the yurt you live in and the bicycle you ride instead of the auto. Let me guess ;your computer has a gerbel on a treadmill powering it...
It's probably a hemp house...Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
http://www.moonbattery.com/inflatable-hemp-house.jpg
Hello again, Righty's
Your position that people who think the earth is warming, are not to be believed simply because they don't move into yurts and start bicycling everywhere, is actually one of the most stunningly stupid things you guys say...
excon
I have yet to see where any of us have made such a link, but you don't find it a little troubling that so many true believers in AGW don't walk the walk?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Yes it's just as silly as us pointing out the ironic hypocrisy of the Goracle flying all over the world in private jets promoting his plans to limit carbon footprints.
What method of transportation do you support for him to make presentations around the world?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I find it troubling that you think walking the walk means, for example, that Al Gore shouldn't fly on airplanes, or enjoy a wealthy lifestyle. Those ARE comments you've made.
I ENJOY a wealthy lifestyle. I BELIEVE in global warming... I don't walk everywhere. I don't carpool. I like to be warm. If I had a private plane, I'd be flying in it. I DO my part, but I'm not going to live in the woods.
To think that's what's necessary in order to "walk the walk", is just plain stupid. There isn't any other way to describe it.
excon
But to advocate it for everyone else isn't ?
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
In this world, to advocate on a world wide scale, takes a big carbon footprint, relative to yours or mine. To say that he shouldn't advocate, because it takes carbon to do so, is dumber than dumb.
excon
Ed Begely Jr is a big spokesperson for environmentalism... and he walks the walk.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I guess you're just not going to get it... You think that unless you ride a bike everywhere, you're a hypocrite in terms of the environment. I suppose that includes me, and everybody who doesn't live in a yurt.
I'll say it again. That is one of the stupidest positions your side has ever taken. If you keep up this clap trap, I'll keep on saying it.
excon
You said we think the AGW believers "are not to be believed simply because they don't move into yurts and start bicycling everywhere." At least now you're coming closer to my position, they ARE hypocrites when they don't walk the walk that they talk. Isn't that precisely what a hypocrite is? Are you OK with them advocating one lifestyle for us but not for themselves?
You mean like republicans?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
No I think he means like the scientist ,conferees and delegates at COP-15 (and most of the protesters for that matter ) with their 490 personal and business jets ,and their thousands of limos. Ed Begley, Jr. would've flown commercial and rode a bike once there .
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Let me say it once again, and that's the last I'll argue this insanity..
It's YOUR position, is it not, that people who use energy (like I'm doing right now), to say there should be a better way to use energy, ought not be believed, because they're using energy to communicate their message??
Do I have it down?
That is absolutely the stupid thing, among MANY stupid things, that you guys have come up with.
excon
Is this where you're expecting me to defend GOP hypocrites? I never said the left had cornered the market on hypocrisy.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
No but you find one that's a hypocrite and brand the whole lot as such. We can all do that if you like. Name all the groups you belong to and I'll find you a hypocrite among them - then we can brand the whole as hypocrites.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Now that we have that settled...
Quote:
No Rise of Airborne Fraction of Carbon Dioxide in Past 150 Years, New Research Finds
ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009) — Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.
However, some studies have suggested that the ability of oceans and plants to absorb carbon dioxide recently may have begun to decline and that the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is therefore beginning to increase.
Many climate models also assume that the airborne fraction will increase. Because understanding of the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide is important for predicting future climate change, it is essential to have accurate knowledge of whether that fraction is changing or will change as emissions increase.
To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.
In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.
The research is published in Geophysical Research Letters.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:52 AM. |