Copenhagen summit in trouble

[Morts]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

You guys have it all wrong, it's not about saving the plant, it's about transfering wealth to other parts of the planet. Just look at the speakers and the offers. That's okay, I didn't really want my money anyway.

yeah....err...right.....

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Morts

yeah....err...right.....

It is. Clinton wants to send money to developing countries to help combat emissions and global warming.

[Morts]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

It is. Clinton wants to send money to developing countries to help combat emissions and global warming.

aye, but thats not how Mcbee put it

Originally Posted by Morts

aye, but thats not how Mcbee put it

Sure it is. He just added a touch of healthy sarcasm.

If Hillary is so eager to throw money at the problem, there is no need to P away USDs to the third world. An investment in these would be much wiser, and would give something back to USA. As a bonus it's already an international effort.

The roads are german. The mills are danish. The song is norwegian. The uploader is dutch.
As is easily seen, they aren't an eye-soar.



Comments welcome.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

It is. Clinton wants to send money to developing countries to help combat emissions and global warming.

Oh yes...and I can see the leaders of them 'developing countries' not using a cent for their personal gratification

[SteamWake]

Help me out with something.

I know Ms. Clinton made a vague promise that wont even take effect untill 2020 or whatever and also contingent upon cooperation by / with other nations. In short it will probably never happen. Which is fine with me but thats not what confuses me.

What confuses me is this.

Arent the big developed contrys those with huge emmissions like China and the US bear the brunt of the blame for global warming.

Why are we promising money to the undeveloped nations? Wouldent the money be better spent at the 'root' of the problem?

[Skybird]

USA is quoted with 20% and china with 21% of global CO2 emissions.

However, China is not as developed as America, but has 4 times as many people. Their per capita CO2 emissions are 4 times as low as that of the average American.

If China continues to develope its industry to american levels (per capita), its emissions would at least quadruple. They still would double (at least) their emissions if compared to the average German emissions level (per capita: half of the american mark).

Now consider nations that even have not come close to the industrialisation level of china, but are considered candidates for that and have huge populations. India. Indonesia. Brazil.

If these nations become as industrialised as the West, but don't do better than we do currently in CO2 emission cutting tehcnology, CO2 emissions on a global level would go up by several factors.

we are too many people on the world, and the living standard of the West under no circumstance could serve as an example of how all people on the globe could live and consume. we would live too excessively even if we were just 1 or 2 billion people. Consider there would be only contemporary europe and north America, with current industry and consummation levels, coming close to 1 billion in populationall in all, and all other continents would be empty of people. I think we still would erode our resources basis and erode our environment too much and would destroy our future in the long run.

Too excessive consummation levels in the West. Too many people globally. No matter how I turn things, I always come down to this coinclusion.

But all this is purely academic. what they now call a minimum consensus deal in Copenhagen is not worth to be mentioned. even the possible optimum that was tried to be achieved in the beginning would not have been anything valuable.

The issue is a serious one, and a threatening one. But unfortunately it has been adressed in unprofessional, hindering ways since years and decades - by lobbyistic politicians and economies as well as by science that performed very unprofessionally in presenting itself and its results. That means understatement as well as hysteric fear mongering. the official climate Tv spot of the conference for example imo is a total desaster, becasue it bypasses the intellect and directly appeals to sentiments - by that giving sceptics the ammo they need to load their gun. Somebody should get shot for having done this TV spot.

What's it about in the summary? Ressource consummation in the bfuture and emmissions in the future will grow, golobally, no matter wzat some nations do. Becasue the other nations will not stop to get their piece ofn the cake, too, and develoepe their industries, and the first world will become even more energy-consuming, no matter low power TV's and energy saving light bulbs. Because these things will serve as an argument why we could spend the saved energy on even more energy consuming gadgets. who wants to press citrus juice by hand (brrr, how primitive!) if there is an electric kitchen assistant with a motor available...?

Sometimes I think we need a Butler's Djihad. Let's see how many people figure out the reference here!

Originally Posted by Skybird

Sometimes I think we need a Butler's Djihad. Let's see how many people figure out the reference here!

Couldn't find any reference to "Butler's Dijhad" in danish, english, norwegian, or swedish, and my comprehension abilities go no further.

Any chance of gleaming a hint?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Snestorm

Couldn't find any reference to "Butler's Dijhad" in danish, english, norwegian, or swedish, and my comprehension abilities go no further.

Any chance of gleaming a hint?

Nebula Award 1965.

Originally Posted by SteamWake

Help me out with something.

I know Ms. Clinton made a vague promise that wont even take effect untill 2020 or whatever and also contingent upon cooperation by / with other nations. In short it will probably never happen. Which is fine with me but thats not what confuses me.

What confuses me is this.

Arent the big developed contrys those with huge emmissions like China and the US bear the brunt of the blame for global warming.

Why are we promising money to the undeveloped nations? Wouldent the money be better spent at the 'root' of the problem?

That's exactly what I was trying to illustrate in post #16.
We seem to think alike on this subject.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

It is. Clinton wants to send money to developing countries to help combat emissions and global warming.

Clinton's a fool. The Eastern US is expecting 8"-14" of snow in many places this weekend, Las Cruces New Mexico has snow on the ground, and we just had a nice snowstorm here in sunny California a few days back where I live. And I was freezing my can off a couple of days ago.

Global Warming is a joke. A complete farce. It's not just from observation, and real time data....it's common sense. At what point do the people that carried the water for this hoax, give it up. Climategate e-mails were only one aspect that unraveled this horrendous lie. The rest comes from just opening your eyes, and listening to discredited frauds like Al Gore convey their versions of junk "science". The fact that they keep pushing the lie despite the overwhelming observation against it, plus the leaked e-mails shows there's more to it than just "emissions" and "climate concerns". The "science" community that keeps pushing this junk is the worst in the business, and it's obvious there is motive there other than truth.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Clinton's a fool. The Eastern US is expecting 8"-14" of snow in many places this weekend, Las Cruces New Mexico has snow on the ground, and we just had a nice snowstorm here in sunny California a few days back where I live. And I was freezing my can off a couple of days ago.

Global Warming is a joke. A complete farce. It's not just from observation, and real time data....it's common sense. At what point do the people that carried the water for this hoax, give it up. Climategate e-mails were only one aspect that unraveled this horrendous lie. The rest comes from just opening your eyes, and listening to discredited frauds like Al Gore convey their versions of junk "science". The fact that they keep pushing the lie despite the overwhelming observation against it, plus the leaked e-mails shows there's more to it than just "emissions" and "climate concerns". The "science" community that keeps pushing this junk is the worst in the business, and it's obvious there is motive there other than truth.

It's cold outside, therefore there's no global warming?

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Torvald Von Mansee

It's cold outside, therefore there's no global warming?

No, that's not it. But the theories which espouse that increased percentages in CO2 output (ie man) is the direct driving factor in "increased warming" is total bunk. As continued output of CO2 has increased......and temperatures have fallen or remained static.....the theory is obviously flawed. That's merely one problem. And that's the hoax this "science" community has been pushing. The climategate e-mails helped many rational skeptics see the hoax for what it is......a total fraud.

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

No, that's not it. But the theories which espouse that increased percentages in CO2 output (ie man) is the direct driving factor in "increased warming" is total bunk. As continued output of CO2 has increased......and temperatures have fallen or remained static.....the theory is obviously flawed. That's merely one problem. And that's the hoax this "science" community has been pushing. The climategate e-mails helped many rational skeptics see the hoax for what it is......a total fraud.

Look at the scientific literature, read the emails and comprehend them and then speak again. You are so full of **** right now it is not even worth addressing as it has been done in the s called hoax emails tread already.