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.
Not perfect, but I’m all for countries getting together to discuss, debate the health of the planet. It’s a tough problem but it has been done before.
Countries are at least in some cooperative to not pollute the oceans and over-fish.
The effort to protect the ocean waters were met with stiff Conservative opposition, but progress was made. Having similar debate on atmospheric pollutants will likely take the same amount of diligence.
The best possible outcome of Copenhagen would be 450 ppm of CO2 or a 2 degree shift. That’s just based on high school chemistry and physics – and junior high at that. No tree ring studies, no climategate emails, no dinosaurs walking off the ark. Will weather and temperatures still fluctuate? Yes, weather always does. But over the long run that will be the outcome of those CO2 levels.
Cap and Trade, as they are proposing in Copenhagan, is really good at creating a futures market for carbon credits – maybe even worth trillions. Trading tulips always turns out well, right? However, it will do bugger all for reducing carbon emissions.
On the other side of the coin there is higher consumption of fossil fuels with less supply. The need for efficiency in energy consumption coupled with the need for other energy sources will drive carbon reductions.
China gets this and is perfectly happy to let the US screw this up. China is already well out of the gate on developing efficient energy technologies, India and Korea are trying to catch up. The US is dithering and is going to get boned very badly.
That’s hilarious that “Bill McKibben”, the founder of 350.org, is hand written on the document.
Anyone find it ironic that during the conference on “global warming”, Copenhagen was hit by a blizzard that dumped 4″ of snow overnight. Officials said that they haven’t had a “white christmas” in 14-years.
http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601130&sid=a5wStc0K6jhY
…”tomorrow Barack Obama will piously intone that he’s committed to a two degree temperature target.”
I assume that refers to a 2c degree increase. In which case, since the “global” temperature only went up by less than 1 degree in the last 100 years, and since we’re now in a cooling trend, can we just announce that nothing is going to be done and we’ll still easily meet the 2 degree “goal”.
#3, Tim,
Somebody didn’t read the article.
Whether or not Copenhagen succeeds, and it looks like it won’t with all the denier input, guarantee there will be another conference of a more earnest character in a few years.
How do the deniers sleep at night knowing the world they are leaving their children and grandchildren?
I will point out a few things in the USA past.
During the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s the USA made allot of regulations against Industry and manufacturing and wood products.
We were polluting this nation faster then we could clean ANYTHING up. There are movies about some of it. Like a Mutant Bear, created from using Mercury in ponds to DE-BARK trees and lumber.
These regulations have lead to Profits being cut, and Prices being increased.
Business found that it was CHEAPER if other nations DID our work, then WE wouldnt have to clean things UP after.
So, its CHEAPER to ship our lumber to CHINA, have stuff made and SHIPPED BACK and sell it.
Then it is to MAKE it here and CLEAN UP our OWN MESS and pollutants from Processing, making, cutting, and so forth..
WE would rather POLLUTE other nations for OUR OWN GOODS.
I could post the links to those NEET areas like MEXICO and CHINA, but I think many of you already have seen these locations on TV..
#7 A world without bogus carbon taxes eating into what little is left of people’s already dwindling paychecks?
All the scientific ducks need to be in a tight row before any progress can be made. Solid, proven scientific facts presented should not be so full of holes that anyone with a sixth grade education can pick them apart..nor should they be so complicated that sixth graders can’t understand them. Al Gore was a poor choice for spokesperson of the cause too.
Mr. Fusion
Deniers have nothing to do with this failure. Deniers have no real voice and are not in political power.
What we need to leave to our children is prosperity so they may develop new technology. We need more then solar and wind power. We need nukes, self contained cities where people can live near work. We need less fancy homes and older cars.
The real problem with radicals is draconian policies and ignorance of technology. For example they demand 100 MPG cars (nice round number) without realizing gasoline just does not have that much energy.
When slaves powered ships by oars, it was liberals cracking the whip.
Dallas
There is no such thing as “health of the planet”. Is the planet healthy now? Will liberals nurse it back to health? When was the last time the planet was healthy? Was it before humans learned to burn fuel?
The bottom line is that radical liberals just cannot accept that man does not live like animals. Vegan animals that is.
so the green Hajj was a joke…what a surprise. must really suck to be a far left wingnut these days with the agenda crashing, no free healthcare, green religion revealed as a fraud, etc, etc
#12 I guess that is a fundamental difference with conservatives. I would argue that the health of the ocean waters pertain to health of the planet.
Do you not think that man can have dire consequences for the condition of the oceans waters, beaches, biodiverstity, the coral reefs?
I find it hard to believe that deep down inside, this is not evident to even the most of extreme of deniers.
#7
> How do the deniers sleep
> at night knowing the world
> they are leaving their
> children and grandchildren?
People have been asking that about the Democrats for years.
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. Now think about the economic implications of the cap and trade and environmental restrictions in that light. Trillions will have been pissed away for nothing. There are people in the world that cannot get food or clean water and we are dickering around with a potential five degree increase in temperature over the course of numerous decades.
The moment we move from scientific debate into making policy with these types of profound implications, we better be damn sure we are right. We better have close to irrefutable evidence that human created carbon emissions are the root cause of the climate change and that reducing those emissions will correct the issue.
There’s nothing wrong with consuming less energy as it saves money. The problem is when government’s want to mandate that you pay higher taxes for consuming more than an artificial figure they come up with. The AGW sympathizers and architects (Gore, Maurice Strong, UN people, scientists on the take) were working with flawed data so why should anyone trust what they are saying to be true. It highlights an agenda and an immoral one at that. Is this likely a play to make one-world government a reality?
Can we please not forget that climate change is a natural occurrence. Do we need to control the weather too… and even worse, be forced into controlling it?
The only thing I am on board with is to conserve national parks and the beautiful, wild landscape contained therein. If you like the option of camping and getting away from the hustle and bustle of urban / suburban life for a few days then you will surely agree with me.
The link to the leaked UN climate doc has been twice sabotaged on 350.org. I fixed it and dl’d the pdf version.
You can find Both the UN leaked doc:
[leaked-UN-Climate-Doc.pdf] and the original Climategate [FOI2009.ZIP] in this
[naked] folder on my website: http://soundwash.net/climategate/
Either double click or right click and “save as” whichever file you desire. There is no scripting, html or anything involved. it is just a linux folder. if these links fail, it is an outside source causing it.
—-
The lack of *basic* scientific and technical knowledge of the majority of DU posters is simply TRAGIC.
Mr. Fusion is obviously a government shill. There can be no doubt now. (or he’s mainlining Fluoride)
#4 BigBoyBC: -that was the Russians that produced the storm. they mastered weather control *at least* a full decade if not 15 years prior to the U.S. and have owned Space since the 60’s..
They stood to lose a lot of oil & gas income if the CO2 scam was allowed to go to Full fruition. They don’t care too much about the US market, but obviously, much of Europe would freeze to death without Russian petrol products.
Nonetheless, this is GREAT news.
-now, if the health care [scam] bill is killed, there just might be a chance this country will survive..
-s
Everything is an Illusion…
#17
Car,
Efficiency SUCKS..
Think of a city that has mostly 60% efficient Gas heaters..
A few find a better option that will give them 100% efficiency..
Others see what they have done and JUMP on the wagon and change over.
After awhile the GAS company says..”we arent making money, RAISe the rates”.
You started at paying $60 per month. Cut it to $40..and NOW you are back to $60(at least).
Its not that its better. ITS not so that the corp can give LESS to MORE people. the CORP wants $60 from you.
#16
The absolute you want is never going to happen. The majority of the scientists who believe climate change is because of mans influence don’t just believe it is solely the root cause. If a scientist would to believe that, he/she would be ignorant and laugh at in the community…see politicians.
That is because there ARE many many factors that contribute and affect climate changes. This is obvious if not because of the scale of the issue itself. However, that does not rule out that man does not contribute to the mess.
When it comes down to you and I the question is really, is this CO2 bad, is this garbage bad.. Can we sustain doing this for generations more? How anyone can argue that it isn’t is beyond common sense and reasoning. I will offer my services to prove to you that you can die from CO2 and garbage, just email me and sign my agreement and it’s a done deal. At the very least, send your kids over and I’ll give them a all expense pay vacation in the dead zone. They can swim there all they want…on me!
But you know what, arguing about this over the comfort of your home and couch must be nice. Not having to actually deal with this must be nice as well. As Einstein would say, when encountering one of the 99.9% ignorant human beings out there the BEST thing to do is ignore them. The most difficult issue when one is trying to find answers is the presence of these people.
My offers stands, come over, send your kids over and sign my contract and I’ll be more than happy to show you the “proof” you need, even if it’s on a smaller scale. That’s ok though because most of you ARE thinking on a small scale and not globally. I’ll even toss in a free deal, exposure to radiation. There’s nothing like slow death because you don’t see it coming til maybe years later. It aligns perfectly with the thinking of deniers 🙂
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.
#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.
#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.