quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth


The shame of it is, it will make the real job of controlling pollution and controlling the massive amount of carbon emission coming from the developing countries harder to corral, not easier. If they only came clean and acknowledge they lied, albeit for the always present 'good intent'; this could result in positive and truly global action. As it stands - its done nothing but polarize the sides further.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PenOnBeadedChain

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
Well - you'd first have to provide one credited climatologist who can PROVE evidence of global warming. Not theorize it, not speculate, not form an opinion based upon data supporting that position, but disposing of other data that conflicts with their position.

See, as someone who has participated (and published) in peer-reviewed science and knows people in the climatology field, this is what I find so disheartening about the low level of understanding Americans have about what science even is.

quote:

Mercnbeth, no one has ever "proven" the theory of gravity. It could turn out that planets and other heavenly bodies just suck, as some sort of compulsive habit (there's one people can have fun with here). Most philosphers will tell you, and rightly so, that no objective reality can be definitively established. The best we can do - and what scientists do every day - is develop theories, test them, generate evidence for or against those theories with every form of sensing and reasoning we possess as humans, and develop competing ones and test them.

quote:

This is what climate scientists have been doing for several decades now. The competing theories (solar forcing, random natural variation, interglacial cycle etc.), simply can't explain the sharp, quick increases we've seen as unprecedented (in human time) GHGs have built up in our atmosphere. This is why 97% of currently practicing climate scientists - and every major national and international science body - have concluded that humankind is driving this.

quote:

the whole world is there to reach a multi-lateral deal which it is hoped will be legally binding.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

the whole world is there to reach a multi-lateral deal which it is hoped will be legally binding.

Not the whole world; only the believers in a manipulated science, and those standing to gain financially from the outcome.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


What E wrote isn't true at all.

India insists they won't do anything to curb their economic growth, and its doubtful that China will curb their own growth in any meaningful way. They're content to encourage those of us who are trying to make a living in the the Western world to choke ourselves back to the point that they can assume control of what little industry we have remaining.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

the whole world is there to reach a multi-lateral deal which it is hoped will be legally binding.

Not the whole world; only the believers in a manipulated science, and those standing to gain financially from the outcome.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

There is no uni-lateral methodology or deal at Copenhagen; the whole world is there to reach a multi-lateral deal which it is hoped will be legally binding.

Arguments that this is all about destroying the wealth creating base in the US are quite ridiculous - such destruction has been underway for some years now, driven by economics. Meanwhile the US has plenty to gain from a deal through restructuring and reestablishing its manufacturing base with technologically advanced green energy solutions.

E

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8



Yes, countries *agreeing* to cut emissions together will pose a huge problem for our present world system, one of competing self-maximizing interests.

quote:

Competition (even war) as the motive force for development was always a dubious foundation for human values -- you could say, actually, that it was exactly wrong.

quote:

Interestingly enough, though, this system represents an extremely small portion of human history, something like less than 1%. Applying the Hobbesian understanding of 'human nature' to primitive and archaic societies has never panned out, though many, many have tried.

quote:

Like an adolescent teenager, society is 'going through a phase'. Hopefully we'll snap out of it before jumping off a bridge.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8



Yes, countries *agreeing* to cut emissions together will pose a huge problem for our present world system, one of competing self-maximizing interests.

Is this "countries agreeing" not just again another utopian dream never to become reality?

quote:

Competition (even war) as the motive force for development was always a dubious foundation for human values -- you could say, actually, that it was exactly wrong.

What has been the alternative to "competition" but top down planning? When has that been effective?

quote:

Interestingly enough, though, this system represents an extremely small portion of human history, something like less than 1%. Applying the Hobbesian understanding of 'human nature' to primitive and archaic societies has never panned out, though many, many have tried.

Unclear what you mean here. Hobbs applied his analysis to European nations and favored Monarchy. He was not a Liberal in the classic sense of democratic free markets.

quote:

Like an adolescent teenager, society is 'going through a phase'. Hopefully we'll snap out of it before jumping off a bridge.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

Good! This means Obama can sign whatever he wants in Copenhagen and he doesn't need congressional approval!

And another thing that's good is I hope it makes Stephen Harper, a George Bush lapdog, look bad.

EPA: Greenhouse gases endanger human health - Yahoo! News

Officials tell The Associated Press that the Environmental Protection Agency has concluded greenhouse gases are endangering people's health and must be regulated.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091207/ap_on_bi_ge/us_epa_climate

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: PenOnBeadedChain

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
Well - you'd first have to provide one credited climatologist who can PROVE evidence of global warming. Not theorize it, not speculate, not form an opinion based upon data supporting that position, but disposing of other data that conflicts with their position.

See, as someone who has participated (and published) in peer-reviewed science and knows people in the climatology field, this is what I find so disheartening about the low level of understanding Americans have about what science even is. Mercnbeth, no one has ever "proven" the theory of gravity. It could turn out that planets and other heavenly bodies just suck, as some sort of compulsive habit (there's one people can have fun with here). Most philosphers will tell you, and rightly so, that no objective reality can be definitively established. The best we can do - and what scientists do every day - is develop theories, test them, generate evidence for or against those theories with every form of sensing and reasoning we possess as humans, and develop competing ones and test them.

This is what climate scientists have been doing for several decades now. The competing theories (solar forcing, random natural variation, interglacial cycle etc.), simply can't explain the sharp, quick increases we've seen as unprecedented (in human time) GHGs have built up in our atmosphere. This is why 97% of currently practicing climate scientists - and every major national and international science body - have concluded that humankind is driving this.

Every one of the red herrings you folks regularly bring up - suddenly excited like little children who've learned a new thing - have been looked at long ago, and are a continuing part of the complex picture the climatology community takes into account in their work. Just because YOU (speaking generally now) got interested in this just last week or last year when your favorite talk radio host got worked up about it, doesn't mean the scientific community doesn't take it into account as a matter of routine course in their models, discussions, and publications.

It's getting silly and tiresome. Greenhouse gases have residence times of many decades. Waiting till the world is in total, undeniable and irrevocable chaos will be too late to head off a lot more pain later.

This is one reason, by the way, that the Pentagon - yes, those ACORN-loving commie-pinko America-hating crusty generals in the DoD - are all over this as a national security issue. Yes, it's true. They're also in on Obama's nefarious plot to steal your money and give it to America-mocking Frenchmen to spend while drinking wine and laughing at you. They have been an integral part of The Big Plot since the Bush Administration, by the way:

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1730759_1731383_1731632,00.html

So this is the bad news. You're surrounded. 97% of the climatology community, the major scientific organizations, that evil mainstream media, the military, even the damned insurance industry (who knows they stand to get soaked from all of this).

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2008/03/12/88138.htm

It's just you, Glenn Beck, and the oil industry left. The last valiant "patriot holdouts". Don't think Big Oil doesn't appreciate your pro-bono work on their behalf, though. Oh, they won't share in the millions extra in profits they pull in with each month we hold off on action - they're not that appreciative. But they do applaud the tireless, devoted work you are doing to contribute to the delay in making changes.

You're kids won't though (if you have them).

What a bunch of hot air.

Ironic as this is the most cogent post on this thread.

It's a coherent argument; it might seem alien and strange, since you've never made one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8


An example -- look at how many countries have adopted financial bailouts that parallel the U.S. one. That's the joke -- how fast we all 'agreed' to save the top 0.1%. Again, again, again -- we already have a command economy -- this would be a great time for the people to take the reins.

quote:

Partly, it comes down to the metaphysics of it all -- the history of human conflict has always been over the 'fictitious' commodities, those commodities that don't resemble things like chairs, tables, and chocolate bars. First land, then labor, then water, air, sunshine, and, now, temperature. The commons. For a virtual example, look at what's happening with the internet...The whole system was built to spill.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

Good! This means Obama can sign whatever he wants in Copenhagen and he doesn't need congressional approval!

And another thing that's good is I hope it makes Stephen Harper, a George Bush lapdog, look bad.

EPA: Greenhouse gases endanger human health - Yahoo! News

Officials tell The Associated Press that the Environmental Protection Agency has concluded greenhouse gases are endangering people's health and must be regulated.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091207/ap_on_bi_ge/us_epa_climate