So...assess Copenhagen

[HarpoSpoke]

Seems like a decisive "win" from our perspective.

The motivations we have suspected for a long time from various parties came to the fore and crippled Copenhagen. Pretty clear that many countries have absolutely no interest in "saving the planet" and were there for the profit potential. Safe to say none of us are surprised to see those motives put on display.

Meanwhile other, less clear, motives may have been in conflict. Any who are interested in pushing forward a "world government" type of agenda were met by those with only self interest. And I also wonder how big a role any "anti-developed nations" sentiment may have played when put up against those with dreams of carbon trading millions. The group with the honest religious fervor of AGW running through their veins must have felt pretty frustrated watching all this unfold. (Even though I find their logic supremely flawed...at least they seem to truly believe what they say)

So the dance will continue. I highly doubt that the many parties involved will ever admit a mistake or back away from the confident way they insist that "everyone agrees" (they are all way too committed now...including the media), but it's quite possible the various agendas will continue to stymie any real harm they can do.

[Richard S Courtney.]

Friends:

HarpoSpoke says:

"Seems like a decisive "win" from our perspective."

I agree.

In a presentation I gave at York University in October I said;
“The desires of developing and developed countries for the Treaty are directly opposed and the negotiations are deadlocked. But something will come out of No-Hope-in-Hagen because it has to. That is the nature of politics.”

So, what did come out of the Conference?
Meaningless words, nothing but meaningless words.

It was agreed that developed countries will provide to developing countries up to $30 billion for 2010-12, with the intention of increasing this to $100 billion by 2020. This will be “scaled up, new and additional, predictable and adequate funding” to developing countries via a “Copenhagen Green Fund” with a “Technology Mechanism” to “accelerate technology development and transfer” to developing countries. But this is not formalised in how it will be done.

Simply, nothing came out of Co15 on climate except meaningless words. But CoP15 completed establishment of the Gleneagles Agreement for Third World Aid that was decided a year ago, and that agreement is meaningless words, too.

So, what do I conclude from this?
Take hope, the end is nigh (for AGW) !!

AGW is dead. Its corpse will rot and the smell of it will pervade the world when CoP16 meets in Mexico.

But something else (‘ocean acidification’?) will take the place of AGW and we need to be ready to fight that coming monster.

For now we can rejoice that the giant of AGW has been slain while we enjoy the Festive Season.

Seasons Greetings.

Richard

[Richard111]

I am curious to know what is expected from the "disadvantaged" countries for all the largess about to be dumped on them?

Will they use this new found wealth to purchase "global cooling fans" from China like the "industrialised" nations are doing now? Will they buy more food? From whom? How produced?

From my own experience of having lived in South Africa for over twenty years I predict the sales of SUVs to increase markedly.

Most people seem to be aware that global temperatures have been climbing at about 0.7C per century for quite some time so a claim to "limit global temperature rise to 2C or even 1.5C" is a guaranteed win - win.

I still believe the AGW farce and the Copenhagen gabfest is a cover to get all the worlds Marxist/socialist governments together under the humanitarian flag while the real debate of who rules whom takes place behind closed doors.

[HarpoSpoke]

(12-19-2009 12:00 PM)Richard S Courtney. Wrote:  So, what do I conclude from this?
Take hope, the end is nigh (for AGW) !!

AGW is dead. Its corpse will rot and the smell of it will pervade the world when CoP16 meets in Mexico.

But something else (‘ocean acidification’?) will take the place of AGW and we need to be ready to fight that coming monster.

For now we can rejoice that the giant of AGW has been slain while we enjoy the Festive Season.

Seasons Greetings.

Richard

I certainly hope you are right.

But I see a lot of politicians and scientists continuing on with statements that are going to be hard to take back. I cannot honestly see any of them ever admitting the truth. You may have hit on the "switch" to ocean acidification. That would be the obvious political move.

[Sunsettommy]

Ocean Acidification is far harder to prove than AGW was and we know that was weak.

[Richard111]

Well, wadda u no? CFCs are back in the limelight.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/22/st...l-warming/

[HarpoSpoke]

(12-22-2009 09:23 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  Ocean Acidification is far harder to prove than AGW was and we know that was weak.

A weak case certainly never stopped them before.

(12-23-2009 12:16 AM)Richard111 Wrote:  Well, wadda u no? CFCs are back in the limelight.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/22/st...l-warming/

As funny as this would be, I still have problems with it. He may be guilty of the same "pick a small time frame with correlation and ignore the others" tactic CO2 theory uses. Just based on the article, I have some questions....

Quote:His conclusions are based on observations that from 1950 up to now, the climate in the Arctic and Antarctic atmospheres has been completely controlled by CFCs and cosmic rays, with no CO2 impact.

Ok...here he starts observing in 1950. Not a big problem with that although the warming previous to that time may not fit the theory.

Quote:“Most remarkably, the total amount of CFCs, ozone-depleting molecules that are well-known greenhouse gases, has decreased around 2000,” Lu said. “Correspondingly, the global surface temperature has also dropped. In striking contrast, the CO2 level has kept rising since 1850 and now is at its largest growth rate.”

Agree here. I wouldn't mind a mention of the fact that our CO2 emissions didn't increase until mid-20th century though.

Quote:In his research, Lu discovers that while there was global warming from 1950 to 2000, there has been global cooling since 2002. The cooling trend will continue for the next 50 years, according to his new research observations.

If he is going to mention the small time frame of 2002+, it sounds inconsistent to not mention the cooling from 1950-1975.

Quote:As well, there is no solid evidence that the global warming from 1950 to 2000 was due to CO2. Instead, Lu notes, it was probably due to CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays. And from 1850 to 1950, the recorded CO2 level increased significantly because of the industrial revolution, while the global temperature kept nearly constant or only rose by about 0.1 C.

Here he asserts that CO2 levels increased because of "the industrial revolution". That is ignoring the fact that CO2 levels began to rise almost 100 years before our emissions increased dramatically.

Quote:The depletion theory says cosmic rays, rather than the sun’s UV light, play the dominant role in breaking down ozone-depleting molecules and then ozone. In his study, published in Physical Review Letters, Lu analyzed reliable cosmic ray and ozone data in the period of 1980-2007, which cover two full 11-year solar cycles.

Now the study begins in 1980? I hope this article is just badly written.

[Sunsettommy]

(12-20-2009 02:26 AM)Richard111 Wrote:  I am curious to know what is expected from the "disadvantaged" countries for all the largess about to be dumped on them?

Will they use this new found wealth to purchase "global cooling fans" from China like the "industrialised" nations are doing now? Will they buy more food? From whom? How produced?

From my own experience of having lived in South Africa for over twenty years I predict the sales of SUVs to increase markedly.

Most people seem to be aware that global temperatures have been climbing at about 0.7C per century for quite some time so a claim to "limit global temperature rise to 2C or even 1.5C" is a guaranteed win - win.

I still believe the AGW farce and the Copenhagen gabfest is a cover to get all the worlds Marxist/socialist governments together under the humanitarian flag while the real debate of who rules whom takes place behind closed doors.

Most of the "disadvantaged" nations are that way because of their rotten corrupt leaders pocketing the money.

Little of the no strings money will ever be put into meaningful use,it will as it normally does is flow into various political pockets with a trickle reaching the intended target.

It is a good reason why Africa and part of Asia is not a good place to be in.

[Sunsettommy]

(12-23-2009 12:16 AM)Richard111 Wrote:  Well, wadda u no? CFCs are back in the limelight.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/22/st...l-warming/

I wonder if Qing-Bin Lu has read Dr. Dobson's research on this similar area from the 1950's?

Dr. Dobson noted the abrupt drop in O3 in the late 1950's that would today be considered a ozone hole situation,since the low numbers were similar to those seem during the 1980's and 1990's that seem to distress people,including scientists and of course the mainly ignorant environmentalists.

Do we have to keep bringing up evidence of O3 "holes" seen and known in the 1950's again?

[Richard111]

We've wandered off into science on this thread so here is some political fallout from the Copenhagen meeting. I found this link at GREENIE WATCH.

I wonder if I will see mandatory euthenasia used as population control in my lifetime? I think we need to keep an eye on this Optimum Population Trust organisation, note the well known names of some of the founding members. Read all the article for more links.

The Population Control Agenda Behind The Global Warming Movement: For The Environmental Extremists At Copenhagen Population Reduction Is The “Cheapest” Way To Reduce Carbon Emissions

Quote:For the environmental extremists attending the U.N. climate change summit in Copenhagen, fighting global warming is not just about reducing carbon emissions or promoting alternative energy. Rather, public documents released by some of the most important organizations represented at Copenhagen reveal an absolute obsession with population control and a bizarre belief by environmental extremists that population reduction is the "cheapest" way to achieve a reduction in carbon emissions. You see, to many of those gathered in Copenhagen, the math is simple. Less people = less carbon emitters. In fact, a carbon offset initiative launched by the Optimum Population Trust even allows people to offset their "carbon footprint" by making online payments to support "family planning" in poor countries. In other words, you can now be forgiven for your carbon "sins" by paying for a baby on the other side of the world to be killed.

[HarpoSpoke]

(12-26-2009 05:30 AM)Richard111 Wrote:  We've wandered off into science on this thread so here is some political fallout from the Copenhagen meeting. I found this link at GREENIE WATCH.

I wonder if I will see mandatory euthenasia used as population control in my lifetime? I think we need to keep an eye on this Optimum Population Trust organisation, note the well known names of some of the founding members. Read all the article for more links.

The Population Control Agenda Behind The Global Warming Movement: For The Environmental Extremists At Copenhagen Population Reduction Is The “Cheapest” Way To Reduce Carbon Emissions

Quote:For the environmental extremists attending the U.N. climate change summit in Copenhagen, fighting global warming is not just about reducing carbon emissions or promoting alternative energy. Rather, public documents released by some of the most important organizations represented at Copenhagen reveal an absolute obsession with population control and a bizarre belief by environmental extremists that population reduction is the "cheapest" way to achieve a reduction in carbon emissions. You see, to many of those gathered in Copenhagen, the math is simple. Less people = less carbon emitters. In fact, a carbon offset initiative launched by the Optimum Population Trust even allows people to offset their "carbon footprint" by making online payments to support "family planning" in poor countries. In other words, you can now be forgiven for your carbon "sins" by paying for a baby on the other side of the world to be killed.

I'm torn here.

I see some Bjorn Lomborg attitude in one article:

Quote:The $7 cost of abating a tonne of CO2 using family planning compares with $24 (£15) for wind power, $51 (£31) for solar, $57-83 (£35-51) for coal plants with carbon capture and storage, $92 (£56) for plug-in hybrid vehicles and $131 (£80) for electric vehicles.

I consider that an improvement over what we usually see. Normally there is a tendency for strict adherence to the company line (i.e. carbon taxes, cap and trade...the only viable course of action). At least this group is actually thinking of the best way accomplish the goal they see as necessary.

And I'm not in opposition to contraceptives or the desire to have smaller families (by the families...not by the government). I'm sure we're all aware of the fact that birth rates are falling worldwide as the human race becomes more affluent. (One wonders if these organizations make that connection though) So given the incredible improvement in the human condition over the past century paired with falling birthrates, I'm not convinced aid to those who desire smaller families is a bad thing.

Now if this spills over into abortion, then a can of worms has been opened. Though I'm not the most dedicated pro-lifer in the world, I understand the position.

At first glance, they appear to be talking about people who want to have fewer children as opposed to forcing that decision on anyone. I suspect there are extremists who hold the latter view, but I'm thinking they would be the extreme of the extreme left. Not sure about any "slippery slope" effect this might have, but I'm more open about this one due to the potential good effects that probably would occur which are not related to CO2 at all. I realize their intentions are kooky but they might accidentally do something good. Plus it's nice to see some on that side thinking in terms of "what is the most benefit we can get for our money?".

[Richard111]

""Plus it's nice to see some on that side thinking in terms of "what is the most benefit we can get for our money?". ""

Agreed. But it all seems to be based on the same premise, AGW. Population will be a very serious problem if global temperatures drop, not so serous if temperatures climb and allow increased food production. My gut feeling is that population awareness is very high in world governments and they would be aware that massive cooperation would be required to impose any sort of control. Be much easier to put controls in place with a world goverment in power.
It worries me, the wording of this report, seems to imply undeveloped contries need most control. They are not going to take kindly to that idea.

[Sunsettommy]

Harpo,

I see Lomborg as a lukewarmer,who is not that worried about global warming.He is more worried about the many environmental problems that CAN be dealt with,that brings measurable improvement.

[HarpoSpoke]

(12-26-2009 10:45 AM)Richard111 Wrote:  ""Plus it's nice to see some on that side thinking in terms of "what is the most benefit we can get for our money?". ""

Agreed. But it all seems to be based on the same premise, AGW. Population will be a very serious problem if global temperatures drop, not so serous if temperatures climb and allow increased food production. My gut feeling is that population awareness is very high in world governments and they would be aware that massive cooperation would be required to impose any sort of control. Be much easier to put controls in place with a world goverment in power.
It worries me, the wording of this report, seems to imply undeveloped contries need most control. They are not going to take kindly to that idea.

Very true. Again conflicting agendas should clash and result in a big bunch of nothing.

Fertility rates are falling on their own and are expected to continue that trend, I wonder if they even know that?

(12-26-2009 11:30 AM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  Harpo,

I see Lomborg as a lukewarmer,who is not that worried about global warming.He is more worried about the many environmental problems that CAN be dealt with,that brings measurable improvement.

That's a pretty good way to describe him. He always looks so out of place when surrounded by the typical AGW believers....uncomfortable even. The contrast between him and someone like Al Gore is stark.

[Sunsettommy]

Quote:That's a pretty good way to describe him. He always looks so out of place when surrounded by the typical AGW believers....uncomfortable even. The contrast between him and someone like Al Gore is stark.

That is because he is not in it for the power or the money.So indeed he does not mix well with the AGW scammers.

He is a believer in AGW to a certain point,but does not think there is a run away warming potential from it,that is why he is not all that concerned about it,and rather deal with issues that can be dealt with,more easily and effectively with the limited funds and personnel.

His Copenhagen Consensus project reflects his priorities on the environmental concerns that needs to be addressed.

Copenhagen Consensus Center

Here is the most recent list published.

Copenhagen Consensus 2008

[HarpoSpoke]

(12-26-2009 05:09 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  

Quote:That's a pretty good way to describe him. He always looks so out of place when surrounded by the typical AGW believers....uncomfortable even. The contrast between him and someone like Al Gore is stark.

That is because he is not in it for the power or the money.So indeed he does not mix well with the AGW scammers.

He is a believer in AGW to a certain point,but does not think there is a run away warming potential from it,that is why he is not all that concerned about it,and rather deal with issues that can be dealt with,more easily and effectively with the limited funds and personnel.

His Copenhagen Consensus project reflects his priorities on the environmental concerns that needs to be addressed.

Copenhagen Consensus Center

Here is the most recent list published.

Copenhagen Consensus 2008

I think it's safe to say I'm a fan of Mr Lomborg. What really impressed me was how he changed his views when presented with compelling evidence. He described that process in the beginning of The Skeptical Environmentalist when he led his class on a quest to prove Julian Simon's It's Getting Better all the Time wrong. (Good book by the way, short and easy to read...but full of eye opening stuff) When he found out Simon was right, he changed his way of thinking and that led directly to him writing that book.

[Sunsettommy]

I have that book and it is a readable one for us layman's to see the picture of what he is bringing up,that addresses in a rational way the issues that impact the environment and the people living in it.

I wonder if he has an updated book from the one I bought about 7 or so years ago?

[HarpoSpoke]

(12-27-2009 11:54 AM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  I have that book and it is a readable one for us layman's to see the picture of what he is bringing up,that addresses in a rational way the issues that impact the environment and the people living in it.

I wonder if he has an updated book from the one I bought about 7 or so years ago?

Wow...I didn't realize it was already that old...seems like yesterday...

[mcclane]

i'm not sure what to make of dope-n-hagen.

I thought it was a complete was of time and money, but hey, what do i know.

The biggest problem I have is the channeling of money to 'developing' nations to combat climate change. First, some of these nations are run by warlords, why in the world would anyone give money to a country governed by a warlord (somalia) ? 2nd, the hippies keep saying 'combat climate change', be specific. what are your ideas ? Why should we give money to 'combat climate change' when no specifics are given ?

I'm dreading this year coming up when there is another hippie conference in mexico city. Gawd, these greenies just don't give up do they ?

[Sunsettommy]

(01-02-2010 09:17 PM)mcclane Wrote:  i'm not sure what to make of dope-n-hagen.

I thought it was a complete was of time and money, but hey, what do i know.

The biggest problem I have is the channeling of money to 'developing' nations to combat climate change. First, some of these nations are run by warlords, why in the world would anyone give money to a country governed by a warlord (somalia) ? 2nd, the hippies keep saying 'combat climate change', be specific. what are your ideas ? Why should we give money to 'combat climate change' when no specifics are given ?

I'm dreading this year coming up when there is another hippie conference in mexico city. Gawd, these greenies just don't give up do they ?

Because they are stuck on stupid.

I really do hope they continue the farce in Mexico,since it is so damaging to them and exposes to more people that they are running on political baloney.

Then hopefully when enough people say ENOUGH! and drop any support of the sickening greenie crap and get back to rational scientific research.