This afternoon at Copenhagen a document mysteriously leaked from the UN Secretariat. [...] The cuts in emissions that countries are proposing here are nowhere near good enough to meet even their remarkably weak target of limiting temperature rise to two degrees Celsius. In fact, says the UN in this leaked report, the cuts on offer now produce a rise of at least three degrees, and a CO2 concentration of at least 550 ppm, not the 350 scientists say we need, or even the weak 450 that the US supposedly supports.
In other words, this entire conference is an elaborate sham, where the organizers have known all along that they’re heading for a very different world than the one they’re supposedly creating. It’s intellectual dishonesty of a very high order, and with very high consequences. And it’s probably come too late to derail the stage management—tomorrow Barack Obama will piously intone that he’s committed to a two degree temperature target. But he isn’t—and now he can’t even say it with a straight face.
PS..
there is a very strong possibility of a HAARPGATE scenario coming to the fore..
perhaps, if you search for Project SHEBA or SHEBA Project. -you may find it in english..
-it has been making it’s way around spain/spanish science sites for over 2 months.
NO MORE SECRETS. -said the spider to the fly.
-s
ps..turn off your tv.
I see so many deniers but no takers to my offer. Come on, I’m dead serious here. I’m offering proof you are seeking, how more convenient can one get and how much easier is it for you to find out?
It may end up that some of you may be correct in that these might be happening that’s is affecting climate more, 1%, compare man is…
1. Dark matter somehow affecting Earth and everything else
2. Dark energy is pouring in too much
3. Something in the 4th dimension is acting up
4. Worm hole activity might be happening that we don’t know about
5. Suns flares are doing something we haven’t known about
6. 4th dimension activity is happening
7. That unknown chemical is somehow causing the mixture with CO2 to deplete O2 on the whole planet. See Giant Robo
8. Dumb people are the real cause of climate change, see yourself. But we don’t know because we lack data and there are unknowns..such as how stupid parents were, etc.
So you see, there is nothing we should be worry about less be doing anything, ANYTHING towards any such improvements and/or answer finding. Because really, all the great people in history just happened to KNOW what they have discovered. There were no search, no soul seeking, no questioning whatsoever. It was as it should be.
I’m still amaze we’re not in the neanderthal period…well, some of us. I’m suck an idiot because I don’t know what I should already know NOT to be doing anything. Imagine that.
Well, I think the chavez thing was a big enough hint, dontcha think?
#1 Gee, I wasn’t expecting you to suck up so much to them lefty loons.
#7 Also blame its failure on all the kids playing ouija to jinx them. So senile…
#15 Aren’t you and your loons trying to conserve the earth? Doesn’t that make you a conservative?
You’re getting lamer & lamer.
#22 Debating with true believers is futile. So carry on with your belief. And if you can take them elsewhere, the better.
#20
What you are suggesting that we make decisions that will have profound economic implications based on conclusions that have some serious scientific doubt. Arguing that too much CO2 is bad and thus we need these draconian limitations is sophomoric. Anything in sufficient quantity can kill you. Oxygen overdose kills people every year. Simply saying that CO2 is bad is insufficient. How much exactly is too much and how much of that is coming from us and is that the root cause and does that account for the Earth compensating for increases in CO2?
My counter offer is that I challenge you to live without water since water is “bad”. It kills thousands of people every year. Going on. Give it a shot. We’ll help.
Re: #2, qb, insightful and sensible yet again. I believe you are right on regarding Cap & Trade, supply / demand of oil and China’s jump on energy technology.
Mr. Fusion, there are very few actual deniers around. That is a term used to demean someone and you use it broadly without justification. There are, however, a lot of healthy skeptics around. Canada’s CO2 contribution to the apparent global increase is only 2.08% of the world’s total (2008). We are a country that’s frozen solid for half the year, and yet our per capita use of energy is lower than the USA… a much warmer country.
#24 Thomas, excellent post. CO2 doesn’t become poisonous for humans until it is above 1000 PPM.
I should add that some parts of oceans seem to be suffering from acidity, and we should get to the bottom of that issue, but until we get transparency from the scientific community and an honest scientific consensus… which includes dismantling the IPCC we are spinning our wheels.
#18, Soundwash… thanks for providing the actual document. You RULE!
#16, Thomas,
Suppose, just for a moment, that scientists do not know the whole story and that industrial carbon emissions aren’t the root cause for climate change.
Well “suppose” something just means the answer will be as hypothetical as your question. For example, Suppose pedro wasn’t gay, … . See? It is just imagination.
#24,
Simply saying that CO2 is bad is insufficient.
Very true. That is why climatologists are relying more on the historical record and less on projecting.
*
Something to think about. Our known universe ranges from about -455 F in space to 11,000 on the surface of the sun. The earth occupies such a small percentage of that range. The same with our chemical make up. If our oxygen were above 25%, fires would be near impossible to extinguish. If it was less than 15% we couldn’t survive. All living things on this planet have adapted to living in the ranges found here. If you start changing them, we will die off.
We saw first hand what the small amounts of sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and other sulfur compounds released into the atmosphere did. Such a minuscule amount, compared to all that atmosphere killed lakes and ecosystems. It killed people with damaged respiratory systems. It destroyed and damaged our infrastructure.
Yet the deniers for acid rain also said it was too expensive. They said the science was wrong. They denied any of that happened. The same arguments we are hearing today over CO2.
The scientists were right then, they are right now.
how about a NO profit rule on Science discoveries??
Not surprising. Get a calculator, and go to wikipedia’s list of carbon emissions by country. The total for US+Europe+Japan+Russia+Canada+Australia+South Korea is 49%
Scientists with their models say we need to cut emissions by 80% to control temperatures. Cutting 80% of 49% only reduces things by 39.2%.
Plus the 49% number is high, given the increases of the last few years.
The projections for the next 20 years, lowers the 49% even more, and China and India become even more dominant.
#27
The amount of CO2 being discussed is infinitesimal. “Right” is a tricky thing. Right is based on current available information. Two thousand years ago, the intelligentsia were “right” about the Earth being flat. A hundred years ago, the intelligentsia were “right” about the fact that man could not exceed the speed of sound.
If scientists argue over the velocity of evolution, the cost of siding with one scientist or another is negligible. However, if scientists claim that walking on any sort of crack in the sidewalk causes back injury, the implications of that policy are profound. Many real people will lose their jobs because funds were diverted to crack maintenance. The implications of what anthropomorphic climate changers are proposing will put many people (more than now) out of work. As I said, they better be right about the specifics of what exactly is causing the climate change and what exactly is needed to be done to correct it.
Again, this isn’t a debate about which we can banter back and forth and discuss the merits of available information. What is being discussed is to make policy based on conclusions over which there is still debate and that is entirely different. What is being proposed is to take money from people in the interest of science. If that saves lives in the long run then fine, but they better be damn sure they are right because it will cost lives in the short run.
It recently occurred to me that all this official fret over CO2 levels, diverts concern from other, more important pollutants. That the big polluting industries would probably rather not have to try and clean up. CO2 isn’t just produced by coal and oil burning. Most living things produce it too. But sulfur dioxide isn’t a natural product of plants or animals. And even hydrocarbon levels are ignored, in favor of CO2. So the Automakers got off the hook for pushing SUVs and MiniVans sales, over economy cars. And then there’s the mercury levels in fish and seafood. Yeah, let’s not worry about water pollution. Let’s pretend to care about CO2, and then do squat about it.
So what’s this hundred billion in foreign aid going to do exactly? Prop up some 3rd world dictatorships? Like ones whose leaders keep all the money from diamond and gold mining. While letting their population starve. Or maybe those billions will be used to create more low wage “sweatshop” factories, to replace those in the US and UK.
In the meantime, record blizzards everywhere. Dumbasses.
#30, Thomas,
Once again your haste to criticize overwhelms your knowledge.
The amount of CO2 being discussed is infinitesimal. “Right” is a tricky thing. Right is based on current available information. Two thousand years ago, the intelligentsia were “right” about the Earth being flat. A hundred years ago, the intelligentsia were “right” about the fact that man could not exceed the speed of sound.
The Chinese knew over 2,500 years ago that the earth was round and circled the sun as the moon circled the earth. Anyone claiming the earth was flat was wrong.
One hundred years ago the sound barrier was known and understood. Although man hadn’t traveled faster, fast projectiles, such as bullets, did easily.
Then the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? Well, obviously you have no concept as to any increase. Since 1960 there has been a 16% increase. Since the mid 1800s there has been a 35% increase.
And that does not include the amount soaked up by the ocean.
#33
If you have a penny and I give you another penny, you are 50% wealthier and yet no one would consider you wealthy. The lesson is that percentages alone do not tell the whole story. As I said, the amounts in question are tiny.
Make that 100% wealthier.