Copen' With Copenhagen - Grab a Hagen Das, and Enjoy

[The Old Fogducker]

Square:

Although the word demagogue would suit the "High Priest of Global Warming," I did indeed mean to use demigod in my previous post.

"The Right Reverend Gore" is one of the founders of "The First Church Of Climatology," and therefore is so revered by his followers as to be held up as a god-like figure.

Like his boss, Bill Clinton, he has just had his "Blue Dress Moment" come to light, and his DNA is all over this. That's why he's gone into hiding like a cockroach when the kitchen light is turned on.

Public support for "The Cause" is going to drop so far that in 8 weeks you'll need a mine shaft to graph the bottom of its popularity plummet among the well-meaning, average guy unwashed populace whose support is required to make the MMGW case succeed.

Some of that popularity backlash will come from the press. Many journalists have strongly bought into MMGW on a personal basis, and their bias has shown in their coverage, and daily news copy lexicon. Now that the populace has the feeling "somethings up" and they have been potentially duped, journalists will need to be seen as being balanced in their coverage, or lose "street cred" and audience as a result.

So, look forward to what the alarmists will see as an "attack" on their beliefs.

The Old Fogducker

[Siddley Hawker]

Copenhagen climate summit: 1200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenh ... edges.html

[scm]

Interesting quotes from the link above

As Mr Singh suggests, the interesting question is perhaps not whether the climate changers have got the science right – they probably have – but whether they have got the pitch right. Some campaigners' apocalyptic predictions and religious righteousness – funeral ceremonies for economic growth and the like – can be alienating, and may help explain why the wider public does not seem to share the urgency felt by those in Copenhagen this week.

In a rather perceptive recent comment, Mr Miliband said it was vital to give people a positive vision of a low-carbon future. "If Martin Luther King had come along and said 'I have a nightmare,' people would not have followed him," he said.

And inside the hall, not everything is looking bad. Even the sudden rush for limos may be a good sign. It means that more top people are coming, which means they scent something could be going right here.

The US, which rejected Kyoto, is on board now, albeit too tentatively for most delegates. President Obama's decision to stay later in Copenhagen may signal some sort of agreement between America and China: a necessity for any real global action, and something that could be presented as a "victory" for the talks.

The hot air this week will be massive, the whole proceedings eminently mockable, but it would be far too early to write off this conference as a failure.

[vrrotate]

"a proposed fund of $10 billion each year for the next three years for poor countries ... After that, hundreds of billions of dollars will be needed every year"

This from a CTV news article in regards to the Copenhagen Summit. This is what the summit is about. Crippling developed countries in a time of economic turmoil. I hope everyone is ready for our economy to get worse.

[trampbike]

To answer the first part of your post. I don't think anyone sponsors the NIPCC's research. Here is a quote from the report I posted the link to. I guess you must not have read it.

"What was our motivation? It wasn’t financial
self-interest: no grants or contributions were provided or promised
in return for producing this report. It wasn’t political:
No government agency commissioned or authorized
our efforts, and we do not advise or support the
candidacies of any politicians or candidates for public
office.
We donated our time and best efforts to produce
this report out of concern that the IPCC was
provoking an irrational fear of anthropogenic global
warming based on incomplete and faulty science."

And with your super critical thinking, you do buy that ridiculous affirmation? Scientists working with a total separation from any financial incentives or political pressure? Whatever your point of view, it would be lame to think such thing is possible.

Also, you might like to read http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/person ... t.php?id=1, it talks about your all well intended scientist you just quoted to "prove" your point

Hey vrrotate, I'd still like to hear you about that supposed perfect objectivity of the research you talked about.

[Jastapilot]

Any good science shares the raw data with ALL scientists so the scientific process is followed. What the IPCC has done is made a joke of good science.

[scm]

This is what the summit is about. Crippling developed countries in a time of economic turmoil. I hope everyone is ready for our economy to get worse.

No it's not.

Quoted from Wikipedia..actually the quote below is for the Copenhagen Council, but it's obvious to anyone that the purpose of the summit is not to cripple countries, but rather to promote awareness and policies to prevent or slow the effects of GW.

The purpose of the Copenhagen Climate Council is to create global awareness of the importance of the UN Climate Summit (COP15) in Copenhagen, December 2009. Leading up to this pivotal UN meeting, the Copenhagen Climate Council works on presenting innovative yet achievable solutions to climate change, as well as assess what is required to make a new global treaty effective. The Council will seek to promote constructive dialogue between government and business, so that when the world's political leaders and negotiators meet in Copenhagen, they will do so armed with the very best arguments for establishing a treaty that can be supported by global business. By promoting and demonstrating innovative, positive, and meaningful business leadership and ideas, the Copenhagen Climate Council aims to demonstrate that achieving an effective global climate treaty is not only possible, but necessary. The strategy is built upon the following principles:

* Creating international awareness of the importance of the Copenhagen UN Climate Summit and the successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol.
* Promoting constructive dialogue between government, business, and science.
* Inspiring global business leaders by demonstrating that tackling climate change also has the potential to create huge opportunities for innovation and economic growth.

[BoostedNihilist]

No it's not.

yes, so let's ignore the unintended consequences.. isn't that the same mentality that got us into our current (perceived) circumstance?

[Siddley Hawker]

actually the quote below is for the Copenhagen Council, but it's obvious to anyone that the purpose of the summit is not to cripple countries, but rather to promote awareness and policies to prevent or slow the effects of GW.

And this small matter...
http://www.examiner.com/x-25407-Wake-Co ... government

From the article:

This weekend van Rompuy gave a speech in Brussels outlining his vision.

"We are living through exceptionally difficult times: the financial crisis and its dramatic impact on employment and budgets, the climate crisis which threatens our very survival. A period of anxiety, uncertainty and lack of confidence. Yet these problems can be overcome by common efforts in and between our countries. 2009 is also the first year of global governance, with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet. Our mission is one of hope, supported by acts and action."

My italics.

[BoostedNihilist]

I will bold the most important parts...

This weekend van Rompuy gave a speech in Brussels outlining his vision.

"We are living through exceptionally difficult times: the financial crisis and its dramatic impact on employment and budgets, the climate crisis which threatens our very survival. A period of anxiety, uncertainty and lack of confidence. Yet these problems can be overcome by common efforts in and between our countries. 2009 is also the first year of global governance, with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet. Our mission is one of hope, supported by acts and action."

Didn't they call people who believed in this new world order shit fucking bat shit crazy? weren't they all tin foil hat wearers? Why do I need someone in fucking copenhagen to decide ANYTHING for me? The impositions from this creation will be fucking huge and with the technology available to these fascists now I am seriously thinking martyrdom (in the form of doing nothing) is a better choice than letting these dictators run my life from afar.

[scm]

I'm not sure what the concept of "global governance" is and how it affects the sovereignty of each country, but if it prevents the illegal invasions of countries, global recessions on the scale that has happened, and irreversible changes due to climate change, i'll support it. Global cooperation would be better than a global dictatorship of any one superpower.

Either way this is news to me..it's not something i'm going to blow my top at. Let's see where it goes.

[vrrotate]

scm, I don't understand what you mean by irreversible changes due to climate change. When I read this it makes me wonder if you know about the Medieval Warm Period? It is a period of time roughly around 1000 years ago that was warmer than it is today. Not only was it warmer but there was also less CO2 in the atmosphere during this time. Can't we partly conclude from this that CO2 emissions don't necessarily cause warming? And that our current warming trend will likely reverse just as it has numerous times in the past?

Maybe you are also unaware that we are currently in an interglacial period. This means that we are in a warm time between glacial periods. There have been many interglacial periods throughout the history of the earth. Did you also know that our current interglacial period is cooler than the last four? Wouldn't this lead us to think that there is absolutely no cause for concern?

I almost find it amusing when people talk about these irreversible changes, but trust me, wait a number of years and the earth will correct itself and we'll be heading towards another glacial period... Maybe at that time our idiot ancestors will be talking about anthropogenic global cooling and US Vice President Hal Core will make a movie to scare all of them.

Trampbike, I didn't say they were perfectly objective. I only said I don't think they are provided funding for their research. I'm not a fly on the wall of their office, nor am I psychic but I have no reason to believe that they are lieing about this. Regardless of funding, I have read a large part of the report now and I find it to be very trustworthy science. There are thousands of references to peer reviewed articles, journals and papers. Sure they may be biased towards GW skepticism but only because this is what the science has led them to believe. I too am biased towards GW skepticism because that's what my own researching has led me to.

I think what a lot of it comes down to is that this whole thing is similar to religion. You either believe one thing or the other. And that is perfectly fine. We can agree to disagree.

[scm]

Thanks vrrotate, I am aware of all of that.

When I say "irreversible", I mean the short term harmful effects - those which will affect us in our own and our children's lifetimes. Of course in the long term the earth itself will be fine - and so will the species that survive and evolve.

I'm not entirely sure this is like a religion. I'm always learning, and just like I changed my stance on religion, it's possible for me to change my stance on global warming.

[Jastapilot]

actually:
irreversible [ˌɪrɪˈvɜːsəbəl]
adj
1. not able to be reversed the irreversible flow of time
2. not able to be revoked or repealed; irrevocable
3. (Chemistry) Chem Physics capable of changing or producing a change in one direction only an irreversible reaction
4. (Physics / General Physics) Thermodynamics (of a change, process, etc.) occurring through a number of intermediate states that are not all in thermodynamic equilibrium
irreversibility , irreversibleness n
irreversibly adv

[vrrotate]

What then are the irreversible short-term harmful effects?

[scm]

Jastapilot - i'm not about to argue semantics. A rise in sea level, the loss of glaciers, or the extinction of the barrier reef would be irreversible with runaway global warming.

vrrotate - I don't think you need me to quote from the Copenhagen report or Wikipedia. If you believe it is fraudulent (or just incorrect) then what would be the point?

As you say, agree to disagree. Although I do enjoy discussion you already know what information is available.

[Siddley Hawker]

What?? More leaks!!!!

Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after 'Danish text' leak.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... anish-text

[BibleMonkey]

Understanding Climategate's Hidden Decline
" American Thinker December 06, 2009
Close followers of the Climategate controversy know that much of the mêlée surrounds an e-mail in which Climate Research Unit (CRU) chief Phil Jones wrote about using “Mike’s Nature Trick” (MNT) to “hide the decline.” And yet, seventeen days and thousands of almost exclusively on-line op-eds into this scandal, it still seems that very few understand exactly which “decline” was being hidden, what “trick” was used to do so, and why Jones’s words have become the slogan for the greatest scientific fraud in history.

As the mainstream media move from abject denial to dismissive whitewashing, CRU co-conspirators move to Copenhagen for tomorrow’s U.N. climate meeting, intent on changing the world as we know it based primarily on their now-exposed trickery. Add yesterday’s announcement of a U.N. investigation into the matter, which will doubtless be no less corrupt than those being investigated, and public awareness of how and why that trick was performed is now more vital than ever.

So please allow me to explain in what I hope are easily digestible terms...."


==============================
The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero

========
The Dog Ate Global Warming.....

....“We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”.....

[AEROBAT]

Thanks for posting those links BibleMonkey, very interesting reading and not really surprising considering the amount of money involved. The leaders of the kleptocracies who were anticipating a further windfall from the developed world may have to wait.

[Rockie]

If Al Gore or David Suzuki sincerely tried to warn a bunch of MMGW deniers they were about to get hit by a train...they would get hit by a train.

You guys quack me up.

[iflyforpie]

If Al Gore or David Suzuki sincerely tried to warn a bunch of MMGW deniers they were about to get hit by a train...they would get hit by a train.

You guys quack me up.

Funny how both don't live very 'eco friendly' lifestyles. Oh wait, the duty to stop MMGW belongs to the masses.

Really, basing MMGW on 100 or so years of climate data is like writing a thesis with one source.

[BoostedNihilist]

If Al Gore or David Suzuki sincerely tried to warn a bunch of MMGW deniers they were about to get hit by a train...they would get hit by a train.

You guys quack me up.

If Al Gore or David Suzuki sincerely tried to warn a bunch of MMGW proponenets that jumping off a cliff would save the world... they would jump off a cliff

You guys have my pity.

[BibleMonkey]

As a scientist, Suzuki is a quack; he's more of a religious leader..

" The Sad Legacy Of David Suzuki

So David Suzuki’s next ‘Nature Challenge’ is apparently challenging students to determine if there isn’t some “legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they’re doing [about climate change] is a criminal act”, to quote the National Post (Feb 7, 2008).

It appears that a religious fervor for protecting nature has transformed Canada’s leading environmentalist into an emotional bully intolerant of anyone, including other scientists, who don’t see things his way.

Over the years, I’ve heard and read statements by David Suzuki that are too often misleading or incorrect, especially about climate. He, and many like him, claim natural events are unnatural thus guaranteeing that they appear right. What he conveniently overlooks, and may have learned had he remained a scientist rather than becoming an activist, is that nature and climate frequently change dramatically and in very short time periods.

Suzuki gets away with this misinterpretation by fully exploiting the false authority of his claimed and cultivated position as a scientist and environmentalist. He does this despite the fact that he deliberately abandoned his university research position in the 1980s and has no more qualifications as an environmentalist than many of us.


Indeed, it is arrogant for people such as Suzuki to claim that they are environmentalists as if it were some sort of exclusive club, inferring they care and the rest of us don’t. It is more likely he, and those who work with him, are pushing a political agenda to create the world they want. H. L. Mencken, one of the most influential American writers of the early 20th century, said, “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”

Suzuki’s image is being increasingly tarnished as evidence accumulates against his positions and statements. This was bound to happen with climate because he ignores the standard scientific method, which tries to disprove hypotheses.As Richard Lindzen said about the hypothesis that human addition of CO2 would cause significant global warming; the consensus was reached before the research had even begun.

Despite personal attacks and a campaign of disinformation by alarmists, it is science that is destroying the human-caused climate change hypothesis. The disinformation of alarmists, Suzuki included, has gone through many phases—the now familiar ‘consensus’ argument, the ad hominem attacks (‘climate deniers’, ‘climate criminals’, ‘international outlaws’, etc.) to presenting misinformation to political leaders.

The latest position is that ‘the science is settled’.

In February of last year, Suzuki stormed out of an AM640 Toronto radio interview when interviewer, John Oakley, made the accurate observation that global warming science is not a “totally settled issue.” Besides Suzuki’s aggressive behavior, his promotion of certainty in a field scientists understand to be immature, is counterproductive to climate research. If the science is settled then why is there literally a deluge of scientific papers coming out on the topic? If the science is settled, then this all must be an enormous waste of money.

Suzuki raised the spin to a professional level when he teamed up with James Hoggan of Hoggan and Associates, one of Canada’s largest public relations firms. According to Hoggan’s Web site, “Hoggan has provided strategic communications services to the DSF [David Suzuki Foundation] for more than 15 years, providing communications advice on salmon farming, climate change, forest preservation and international conservation projects.

Hoggan continues to provide ongoing support to the DSF Nature Challenge and its Capital Contribution campaign. Hoggan also recently prepared a report for the DSF Board based on extensive national research on how to guide the evolution of the DSF’s communications strategy to help become more effective in building broad-based support among decision makers, opinion leaders and other influential Canadians.”

It would be hard to imagine a closer relationship between supposedly distinct entities that that which exists between Hoggan and Suzuki. Hoggan and Associates list the David Suzuki Foundation as one of their “Research Sponsors” and Hoggan himself has served on the Board of the DSF for the past 11 years, now even replacing Suzuki as Chair of the Foundation.

According to the DSF 2006 annual report, Hoggan and Associates is a large financial donor to the Suzuki Foundation and Hoggan has personally arranged “a future gift” to the society.

Not surprisingly, Suzuki regularly boosts Hoggan’s global warming projects in the media and Hoggan is quick to use his project to attack those of us who dare disagree with Suzuki. That Hoggan’s project has been funded by an Alberta-based lawyer who has pleaded guilty to multi-million dollar money laundering charges seems to bother no one.

Suzuki’s ignorance of fundamental science is breathtaking. For example, he wrote an article on his website asserting and has often told audiences, “It’s been estimated that as many as three species go extinct every hour.” This would mean that he is claiming that 72 species a day, 504 a week and 26,208 a year are disappearing.

When Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore and I ask him to name these disappearing species, Suzuki is unable.......

....."

Of course, Suzuki remains quite popular, much like the popularity of the fake-wrestling stars.

Unlike a less "popular" scientist such as, say-R.A. Pielke Sr.

bio

[AEROBAT]

If Al Gore or David Suzuki sincerely tried to warn a bunch of MMGW deniers they were about to get hit by a train...they would get hit by a train.

You guys quack me up.

If my safety and well being depended on a fat pig like Al Gore, or a TV personality like Suzuki I would go out and FIND a train to stand in front of

[trampbike]

Do you guys really think that saying crap about Gore or Suzuki actually brings something to the scientific debate? I'm not saying what theses guys claim is perfect or even right, I'm just saying attacking them does not in anyway proves that man does not affect climate. Using logical fallacies does not improves the skeptics credibility. I've read that topic and most of what is written consists of ad hominen attacks, abusive generalisations, straw man and authority arguments, false dillemas and a whole bunch of other lamef things human do sometimes on purpose and sometimes without even realising it.

We are not competent to really judge the science behind all that, so please let's try to use some real critical thinking instead of chosing our "side". The very fact that there are two sides on this scientific subject is ridiculous.