Today 56 newspapers in 45 countries take the unprecedented step of speaking with one voice through a common editorial. We do so because humanity faces a profound emergency.
Unless we combine to take decisive action, climate change will ravage our planet, and with it our prosperity and security. The dangers have been becoming apparent for a generation.
I love it:
Social justice demands that the industrialised world digs deep into its pockets and pledges cash to help poorer countries adapt to climate change, and clean technologies to enable them to grow economically without growing their emissions.
The transformation will be costly, but many times less than the bill for bailing out global finance — and far less costly than the consequences of doing nothing.
Note the comments. Any comment condemning the editorial is deleted. You have to be lockstep or you are out.
I’m believe the question “is pollution causing climate change?” is the wrong question. I think the question should be: “are we all morally obliged to clean up after ourselves?”
Not to worry, not only these fine, objective and critical media but also these fine business with all those caring people that altruistically thinks only of the future and shall save the world and not their own pockets of course… ref. friends of ‘Hopenhagen”…. that want a new ‘world order’ and the whole shebang… IT IS PATHETIC! And note these bozos and don’t ever do business with them!
2ergo
A&E TV
Ad Council
AdForum
Advertising Week
AdvertoTV
Alex Tehrani (Photographer)
AOL
AREday
Art Info
Audubon Magazine
Biography
Bob Isherwood
Brøndby IF
Business India
Business Insider
Business Standard
Business Week
Buzz Logic
Care2
Choice Hotels
Christian Weber (Photographer)
Citadel Media
Clang (Photographer)
Clear Channel
Climate One
CO2 Cubes
Coca-Cola
Colle + McVoy
Connie Hedegaard
Corbis
CosmoGirl
Cosmopolitan
Danish Foreign Ministry
DART
Discovery Channel
Dopamin Models
Earth Friendly Products
Earth Hour
EcoSeed
Eenadu Group
EuroNews
Eventful
Everyday Health
Flavor Pill
Gawker
Getty
Global Observatory
Good Magazine
Google
Greenfudge
Grist.org
Grub Street
Guest of a Guest
Guidance
Health Central
History
Huffington Post
IAC
ICP
ICUC
IGN
International Advertising Association
International Herald Tribune
Internationalist
The Japan Times
JCDecaux
Joachim Ladefoged (Photographer)
Ketchum
Kinetic Worldwide
Love Tree
Management Today
Marge Ely c/o Gallery Stock
Marks & Spencer
McCann Worldgroup
MDC Partners
Media Transasia Group
Menu Pages
Mid-Day
MLB
Mother Jones
MPG
National Geographic
National Geographic Stock
Natural Capitalism Solutions
Natural History
Neo@Ogilvy
Newsweek
NY Mag
Ogilvy
Outlook
Pandora
Part Two
Paul Davis (Illustrator)
Presidential Climate Action Project
Rajasthan Patrika
Real Simple
Redworks
SAP
Scientific American
Sea Web
Seedmagazine
Segal Communications
Seventeen
Siemens
Stefan Ruiz (Photographer)
SustainLane Media
TakePart
Text Appeal
The ChariTREE Foundation
The City of Copenhagen
The Danish Ministry of Climate and Energy
The Economist
The Financial Times
The Green News Network
The Japan Times
The Rezidor Hotel Group
The Wall Street Journal
Thomson Reuters
Treehugger
Tribal Fusion
T-sign Studios
Vibrant Media
Visit Denmark
Warner Bros Digital Media
Washington Monthly
Weather Undeground
Yahoo!
Zazengo
Urgh…more of this climate change rubbish. I don’t really understand you guys obsession with it. I know most of this blog’s posters are conspiracy nuts, and think its a big elaborate scam….somehow excellently organised, and has had the vast majority of scientists on board, but pleeaase. Its getting boring now. Climate change is happening and it exists. The science is there (not just cherry picking tiny samples that try and show it isnt). I am sorry this conflicts with your ideology, but sometimes reality doesn’t change according to your idea that “everyone in the world is out against you, ooogga boogaa!”.
Here’s how a conversation with one of you guys goes:
Me: Gosh, this climate change sure is a doozy
Conspiracy Nut: There is no climate change. It’s just a giant excellently peformed scam being done by thousands of people in government to make extra money.
Me: Well I guess they could use that money to help them out in the middle east
CN: They are only in the middle east cause the government is controlled by big oil corporations.
Me: Surely, if thats the case, then the government would want to deny climate change to INCREASE the reliance on fossil fuels like oil?
CN: WWAARRRGGGBBBLGLG! THE SKY IS FALLING! THEY’RE ALL OUT TO GET ME! LOGIC DOES NOT MATTER!!!11
Is Cherman a hacker who posts here without Dvorak’s permission or has Dvorak gone completely Curry?
#3-Fat_Anarchy
They say having a conversation with yourself is a sign of mental illness… need I go on.
@#1 And there lies the root of the problem … CO2 is accused of being pollutant and than the whole ecological attention is focused on it.
Nature knows how to deal with and balance CO2. Our “efforts to pollute with it” are puny compared to a single volcanic eruption. So, no we shouldn’t treat CO2 as pollutant nor “clean up” after us regarding it.
What we should clean up (and all of these are much more deadly and completely ignored by global warming Church): 1) Heavy metals. Nature is not prepared to deal with them in concentrations and places we brought them to. 2) Plastics and related chemicals, completely absent from Nature until we introduced them in vast quantities 3) Hormones in quantities and places Nature itself never could have delivered, hence ecosystems are not able to deal with them.
Only way to deal with these is LOCAL not Global. Effects are strongest locally and incentive of local populations to solve their particular and immediate issue is much greater than the likely bogus Global Warming.
#4, not a hacker, just an editor of dvorak.org who’s trying to expose this scam.
Zzzzzz…..
#3 and #8 – WAKE UP!!!!
Its like reading something straight out of Atlas Shrugged.
You forgot about the e-mails by the CRU that were hacked and made public. They showed that the global warming scientist were fudging the numbers and silencing dissent. If scientists have to fake results to prove global warming, it’s not happening.
The Vikings had dairy farms in Greenland. You can still see them today if you feel like digging down six feet into ice. In March of 1776 cannon were dragged on sledges across the frozen Hudson river. The Hudson River doesn’t freeze. Therefore we can conclude that it has been both much warmer and much colder on the Earth than it is now.
Warming may be occurring, but it is not caused by humans. Pluto, Mars, Triton, and Jupiter were experiencing warming at the same rate as the Earth. The lack of sunspot activity might indicate the warming trend is ending and we are in for an ice age. There are too many variables to show that the science is settled.
#3–Fat==the Bushco Conspiracy DID/STILL DOES DENY CLIMATE CHANGE. Obamagod gives it only lip service so far.
So–yea==conspiracy theory is supported.
#11–Hey Benji==the facts you recite have ZERO RELEVANCE to whether or not the global warming of today is contributed to in a significant way by hoomans.
Your “logic” is like saying ice cubes cannot be made in refrigerators because you find ice on the ground at the South Pole. You do see your disconnect?
#9 You’re offering me a choice of which hysterical whining nutcase I want to listen to? Al Gore vs Glenn Beck? Fox vs Huffington?
Both sides are boring, religious, and predictable.
#6–dismal==what do you do?==search the internet for the most tired, most disproven BS you can find and then you post it here?
Silly. Either you have stopped reading anything on the subject you post on for the past 20 years, or you avoid reading anything that disagrees with what you already “think.”
Dolt.
#14–qb==there you go again with that broad brush. Get out the pencil brush and highlight the smaller details.
Affirm life. Don’t join the dismal horde.
Gort! Klaatu barrada nikto!
#17 – I can do that too… mumbo-jumbo:
“Vokn opp surrebukker og se hva som foregår! Dette er tulliball fra ende til annen.. verden vil bedras! Politikk på høyt nivå og denne elite som vet mer enn de fleste er ‘loosers’ av en annen verden, fat Gorist med en tin for øye – herredømme!”
So – there you go!
Besides – the Vikings found ‘Vinland’ located in Newfoundland… no dispute about that. And why the name? It provided abundant harvest of all the good stuff, eveen better than Greenlans that was green and prosperous and gave rich harvests… What a bummer, it turned and they either died of starvation or returned back home to Iceland or Norway.
That’s all folks! It happened…
well pedro, looks like you opened your computer again. why do you pretend to be some other asshole when you know you are the asshole you are. are you so ashamed of your roots you have to tell everyone you are now “cherman”? does that explain why you now carry a sign saying “please don’t squeeze the chermain”. we used to think it was because you didn’t want your ass squeezed while it was still leaking all that green stuff.
your goat misses you. he keeps licking his butt. we think its because you haven’t been here to lick it for him. your stupid mother wanted to get the goat some toilet paper, but you know goats will only eat the paper. please come home and take care of your dick. dick needs his ass licked like only you can do it.
do not forget our little bastard son, if you want to laugh at serious people, remember how people can also laugh at you.
#18, either you missed my sophisticated reference to a world-wide social initiative, or I missed whatever sophisticated reference you were making – ?
whats funny about all this is that Greenland was named for how it looked. Yet, it then got covered in Ice.
Corporations pollute the air, sea and land. We dig up oil to burn, and then say “Its not our fault”. Only because to take responsibility would mean they were at fault. So, they get a bunch of other corporations together to blame the populace, drugging them with idiotic TV and dumbing down the school curriculum, and then hold the blame on their heads by raising taxes to pay for the folly of the corporate giants.
And then make it so people start arguing about who and what is at fault, rather than actually spending the time to clean it up so everyone can benefit.
Reading these posts for the last few days, and it just shows that you cannot change peoples minds, because for a person to have an opinion they have to know the whole facts behind what they are discussing. In these days of hiding and cloak/dagger melodrama, people are more concerned with whats on the TV than whats growing in their yards.
The ‘global warming’ argument has been around as long as I can remember, and back in the 70’s…in the days of the ‘oil crisis’ where people waited in lines to get that precious fuel at ‘exorbitant prices’ (.90 a GAL!! Outrageous), all the while not realizing that all of the pollutants being spewed HAD to go somewhere.
The current generation has been left with the cleanup of a decades long party, and the people responsible don’t want to have to pay for the disposal and effective use of NEW ideas and solutions, simply because it would mean money leaving their pockets. And thats unfair to the capitalists isn’t it?
THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!
Remember you herd it here first!
# 25: So, it is a grand capitalist tradition NOT to clean after yourself?
Fat_Anarchy aka Sheep Nut, since you call everyone else a Conspiracy Nut that disagrees with Anthropological Global Warming.
Let us call it what Al Gore & IPCC dubbed it. It is important not to change it to Climate Change, because the climate changes all the time and no one here is stupid enough to deny that. It is also important not to call it Global Warming, because you remove the causality: what causes the warming – so please use it carefully with “anthropological” in front of it. The science as you say, and was re-iterated by 10s of thousand of scientists is that humans cause global warming. There are also 10s of thousand of scientists that say the opposite. The share thought that humans can warm up our globe is a bit magical in my opinion – i think we heavily over-estimate our own impact on CO2 caused warming, and underestimate our impact as far as pollution – chemical crap spewing out, hormones, collection of plastic in the ocean etc..
So why would a country and a government such as Denmark be all for this? One reason could be that the no.1 alternative wind energy company is Danish, the name? Vestas (www.vestas.com).
But let’s look away from this.. i am a sceptic. Not a denier, not a nutcase, not a conspiracy theorist.. I am a sceptic of both sides and have learnt to question authority and analyze strategic positions that companies and individuals take.
Why am i sceptic?
1. Al Gore has invested interest in the carbon trading system. He says something, does something completely different. So do all the attendees according to their transportation mode.
2. Original data is lost.. they deleted it. Why? The hacked data was only 150mb of nearly 20 years of data – storage of this data could not have been an issue. All data should be open to the public and be able to be scrutinized.
4. All of the world’s carbon will be traded on this system, where will this system be placed? What does that mean? The one who controls the system controls the world currency.
5. Carbon in the eyes of these individuals is something criminal.. it is bad because it kills the environment. They believe we should save the world (fair enough). So carbon polluters do something bad.. borderline criminal in these guys eyes. So the solution is to create a system where people can trade this criminal/bad behavior…? even gamble on it.. make derivatives?
Many people liken the stock market to gambling, where you are betting on the future pricing. So here we are, creating a system to reduce carbon, by trading and betting on bad behavior.
In this case we need to invest money in a totally new system, institute a governing body, several oversight and security boards.. while we have a perfectly functioning system already. Wouldn’t it make much more sense to do the same thing as we do with criminal/bad behavior and just punish it? Sanction the idiots who go over their quota, kill em off… no new system, no trading, just fine them and imprison the CEOs and Prime Ministers who fail to meet their quota. We don’t need new taxes.. (another reason why government is for this).
6. How much money is this entire AGW business worth? what is it’s potential worth if this trading system starts working?
7. Specifically for you Fat_Anarchy: Why would government want to support AGW? One suggestion among many would be: A debtor nation without the natural resources and on the verge of desperation to obtain more, wouldn’t want to increase reliance on something they don’t have. Empire building is costly both in people, PR and resources and most empires fail at their empire building.
Countries rich in resources: Russia, China and Africa don’t want to touch this AGW with a ten foot pole.. it means less dependence on them for the future for those specific resources. It is a money game. U.S which is a debtor nation, needs resources from its colonies and is driven to countries by its corporations, because it has no other option.. it can take other resources from smaller countries or become dependent upon other super powers like Russia, China and Africa, who will eat up its wealth. Note that most of the nations for this program are debtor nations.. most surplus nations due to their natural resources and wealth creation are against it or skeptical of it. Best way to remain ahead is to stop the other super-powers progress.. what better way than to stop the reliance upon those valuable resources that make them wealthy?
So what do I believe? I think time should be spent on cleaning up our pollution, before our CO2.. we don’t even make up .5% of the world CO2 emissions, one volcano eruption can contribute more CO2 than entire mankind has ever contributed – BUT we make up 100% of unnatural pollution that mutates nature, kills children and adults alike.
I also wonder how much CO2 would be saved if we stopped war mongering?
My suggestion is to question authority. Ask yourself… who benefits and who is hurt? Look past the veil on both sides. What is more important? What could or would have benefitted from having 5000 journalists pay attention to it for 12 days, more than CO2.. what could have benefited getting all of this funding more than CO2? WOW, the problems we could have solved! Corporations are in the business world to profit… they aren’t there to hug you and protect you and they certainly wouldn’t support this agenda unless it was beneficial to them.
I am not here to question the scientific process.. but from my understanding it wasn’t the scientific process that was followed it was the profit process. What do you think would happened if NASA AGW funding would disappear? If all of those employed by the AGW industry would wake up without a job tomorrow.. yikes! Similarly.. what do you think would happen when 50% of U.S energy industry (coal/oil/gas) woke up tomorrow morning without a job, replaced by a solar panel would say? Let’s face it.. both sides have invested BIG money in their belief; don’t expect either side to disappear without a fight.
Therefore i choose to be sceptic of both, but in the meantime factories keep spewing out chemicals, hormones pumped into feedstock, children using acid to remove metals from computer chips.. but who gives a rats ass, lets save the world from what we breath out CO2.
I’m with Thor- boycott Google! And Yahoo! Down with search engines! And as for that Presidential Climate Action Project- well, let me tell you, I’m not sending them any more cans of soup.
To throw fuel on the fire:
Current temp in Edmonton at 10 am: -29 C (-20 F)
Normal daytime high for this time of year: -4 C (25 F)
We are currently 21 degrees C (45 degrees F) below wher we ‘should’ be.
#27, bip-bop, or should I call you asshole.
No, I didn’t read your whole post. I am not in the mood to read a book of bullshit, thank you.
The science as you say, and was re-iterated by 10s of thousand of scientists is that humans cause global warming. There are also 10s of thousand of scientists that say the opposite.
Isn’t it funny, I keep hearing there are all these “scientists” who disagree but no one knows who they are. Oh, in a pinch they can maybe pull a few names that have been paid for by big coal and those that benefit from CO2. Other names are of “scientists” who know nothing about climate.
i think we heavily over-estimate our own impact on CO2 caused warming,
That is the problem in the denial community. They “think” therefore it becomes a fact. Wrong. You investigate, find the evidence, and prove (either for or against) your theory. In scienbce, you ook for and base conclusions on FACTS, not what you think fits nicely into your little world.
we don’t even make up .5% of the world CO2 emissions, one volcano eruption can contribute more CO2 than entire mankind has ever contributed
Oh, really? And where did you get that idea? I don’t recall any reputable journal ever publishing that. I could be wrong, in which case I would dearly love to see some source for it.
I imagine the rest of your book is just more bullshit.
Reparations for climate damage, paid to the third world, by the first world, will only empower the third world to buy more stuff, use more energy, and have more children-causing a net increase in global carbon emmission rate.
Where did all the ice in the Northwest Passage go then?