• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Copenhagen climate summit negotiations 'suspended'

BmanMcfly said:
The earths climate has been warming for the past couple hundred years, though that warming trend seems to have hit a peak for the moment... about a thousand years ago, according to the raw data, it was hotter then it is currently. possibly why the ice shelves broke off around that time. Nothing terrible happened then.... actually, the rennaissance was going on around that time.
Click to expand...

see, and thats one of the reasons i'm confused, if the earth is going through cyclical warming, why are the ice shelves growing, which is stated in the link j-mac gave me
 
I don't know how far off the GW topic I'm going but has anyone (Scientists or otherwise) looked into volcanic activity (or lack thereof). I watched a show on the History channel that was talking about one massive volcanic fissure in Iceland creating worldwide climate changes in the late 1700's. Laki I think is where it's located or what it's called. Pretty interesting to see how Earth changes its own climate.
 
Orius said:
All countries are developing countries, just at different stages. Everyone should be willing to accept the same standards. We all breath the same air.

The shortsightedness of people is shocking.
Click to expand...

Yes, because equality in life has always been such a success! I mean look at countries that impose equality! The USSR, China, Cuba and NK come to mind! Everyone is equal comrades!
 
MrVicchio said:
Yes, because equality in life has always been such a success! I mean look at countries that impose equality! The USSR, China, Cuba and NK come to mind! Everyone is equal comrades!
Click to expand...

your statement is flawed, one cannot impose equality without having power over others.
and they just used the label communism to justify dictatorships.
 
spud_meister said:
see, and thats one of the reasons i'm confused, if the earth is going through cyclical warming, why are the ice shelves growing, which is stated in the link j-mac gave me
Click to expand...

The earth WAS going through a cyclical warming.... now its going through a cyclical cooling, resulting in growing ice at the poles.
 
Gill said:
The earth WAS going through a cyclical warming.... now its going through a cyclical cooling, resulting in growing ice at the poles.
Click to expand...

yet alot of research i do points to the fact the average global temp. has risen quite recently
 
spud_meister said:
your statement is flawed, one cannot impose equality without having power over others.
and they just used the label communism to justify dictatorships.
Click to expand...



And here in lies the rub. See, it is my contention that in order to bring about this Global Marxism, we had to have a massive effort brought by a world body, the UN springs to mind. Then, there had to be something that Global Marxists found could be implemented as currency, strong enough to redistribute entire nations wealth from the wealthy, to the poorer countries without upsetting the production of goods and services in these countries.

Carbon begins to be demonized. Think about it. Carbon, while only contributing a miniscule portion of the atmospheres greenhouse gases, water vapor being the lion share, it is carbon that is devised into a commodity ready to be bought and sold on the world exchange. This is the redistribution mechanism.

Now all that would be left is for someone prominent to start bellowing world wide, with the cooperation of certain scientists that rely on grant money, to devise how it is carbon that is destructing the globe, and that a body like the UN should be in control of overseeing nation state economies, and regulation of emission of said pollutant, enter Al Gore. Never mind, that the debate is not over, it was attempted to be squashed from the start. And that imposing of say a carbon tax will do absolutely NOTHING to curb emissions, it just imposes tax, which turns our exhaling into a taxable source, real money. Thereby giving government control over us at an unprecedented rate, and allows them to tax the air we breath.

This is simplistic but you get the gist.


j-mac
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
And here in lies the rub. See, it is my contention that in order to bring about this Global Marxism, we had to have a massive effort brought by a world body, the UN springs to mind. Then, there had to be something that Global Marxists found could be implemented as currency, strong enough to redistribute entire nations wealth from the wealthy, to the poorer countries without upsetting the production of goods and services in these countries.

Carbon begins to be demonized. Think about it. Carbon, while only contributing a miniscule portion of the atmospheres greenhouse gases, water vapor being the lion share, it is carbon that is devised into a commodity ready to be bought and sold on the world exchange. This is the redistribution mechanism.

Now all that would be left is for someone prominent to start bellowing world wide, with the cooperation of certain scientists that rely on grant money, to devise how it is carbon that is destructing the globe, and that a body like the UN should be in control of overseeing nation state economies, and regulation of emission of said pollutant, enter Al Gore. Never mind, that the debate is not over, it was attempted to be squashed from the start. And that imposing of say a carbon tax will do absolutely NOTHING to curb emissions, it just imposes tax, which turns our exhaling into a taxable source, real money. Thereby giving government control over us at an unprecedented rate, and allows them to tax the air we breath.

This is simplistic but you get the gist.


j-mac
Click to expand...

that's a fair point, just a note though, rather than global marxism, i think it would be better to have it as global egalitarianism, as that better fits the idea, but the problem with it is, if they wait for a unanimous decision on global warming, if it proves that it is indeed a threat, then it may be to late, hence the carbon tax, as an incentive to try and reduce the amount of something that may cause a problem in the future, it seems to me that global warming is akin to standing in front of a charging elephant whilst holding a large bore elephant gun, as there is a 50/50 chance the elephant may either trample you or miss you, now you can wait and see what happens, or you can fire the gun, thus stopping the elephant, whether it would've trampled you or not, but, as it is such a big gun, shattering your scapula in the process, which may or may not cause long term problems anyway, as the bone may not heal.

and if i missed your point entirely i do apologise, as it's 1:30am here and i just can't sleep due to excessive temperatures (just summer, not GW)
 
spud_meister said:
that's a fair point, just a note though, rather than global marxism, i think it would be better to have it as global egalitarianism, as that better fits the idea, but the problem with it is, if they wait for a unanimous decision on global warming, if it proves that it is indeed a threat, then it may be to late, hence the carbon tax, as an incentive to try and reduce the amount of something that may cause a problem in the future, it seems to me that global warming is akin to standing in front of a charging elephant whilst holding a large bore elephant gun, as there is a 50/50 chance the elephant may either trample you or miss you, now you can wait and see what happens, or you can fire the gun, thus stopping the elephant, whether it would've trampled you or not, but, as it is such a big gun, shattering your scapula in the process, which may or may not cause long term problems anyway, as the bone may not heal.

and if i missed your point entirely i do apologise, as it's 1:30am here and i just can't sleep due to excessive temperatures (just summer, not GW)
Click to expand...


No worries Spud, but if I may lets go back to your analogy of the Elephant, and the hunter if we can. If the Elephant is boring down on you as you stand firm, static in the same place knowing that the Elephant will trample you if you miss, then I would say yes, you must shoot. But what happens if you take a step to the side, per se, and the Elephant misses you giving you the time to set up a better position, and gather more information, thus making your shot not in panic but more calculated, and informed?

We can not afford to keep doing these things in haste, using manipulated data, and relying solely on the word of those with a political agenda. With figures derived to fit a conclusion before the data was compiled can we? Is that really science?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
No worries Spud, but if I may lets go back to your analogy of the Elephant, and the hunter if we can. If the Elephant is boring down on you as you stand firm, static in the same place knowing that the Elephant will trample you if you miss, then I would say yes, you must shoot. But what happens if you take a step to the side, per se, and the Elephant misses you giving you the time to set up a better position, and gather more information, thus making your shot not in panic but more calculated, and informed?

We can not afford to keep doing these things in haste, using manipulated data, and relying solely on the word of those with a political agenda. With figures derived to fit a conclusion before the data was compiled can we? Is that really science?


j-mac
Click to expand...

but, on the same note, poliical agendas can go both ways, with figures being manipulated to show the opposite, to fit a conclusion so as to argue another set of figures, seems the only way to solve the debate would be unbiased research, which would be impossible as funding must come from somewhere, and this could just apply enough pressure to tip the finding either way.
and the political alignment stigma that goes with it also skews things more, as if you agree with it, your a leftie, and if you disagree, a rightie.

you make a good point, we do need more data, but, if you wait too long getting the data, it could be too late, if the worse is proved.
side stepping is only a temporary solution, and even if more data is gathered, it may not clear the water, i think a carbon tax may be a bit to far, and driven by greed, as the tax has to be paid to someone, but it can't hurt to lower pollution anyway, could make the next olympics in china a bit more bearable to foreign athletes
 
spud_meister said:
but, on the same note, poliical agendas can go both ways, with figures being manipulated to show the opposite, to fit a conclusion so as to argue another set of figures, seems the only way to solve the debate would be unbiased research, which would be impossible as funding must come from somewhere, and this could just apply enough pressure to tip the finding either way.
and the political alignment stigma that goes with it also skews things more, as if you agree with it, your a leftie, and if you disagree, a rightie.

you make a good point, we do need more data, but, if you wait too long getting the data, it could be too late, if the worse is proved.
side stepping is only a temporary solution, and even if more data is gathered, it may not clear the water, i think a carbon tax may be a bit to far, and driven by greed, as the tax has to be paid to someone, but it can't hurt to lower pollution anyway, could make the next olympics in china a bit more bearable to foreign athletes
Click to expand...


Lowering pollution, and being good stewards of our planet is not a bad thing. As a conservative I am all for conservation. But I am also for sound science. What I see in this debate is one side bullying the other into a forced conclusion about the causes of a problem, perceived or real.

The very moment they introduced a political agenda into the debate, then the credibility was lost. To think that those in favor of AGW, were actively pursuing an agenda of personal destruction of any scientists that disagreed with their conclusion should be enough to start over.


j-mac
 
spud_meister said:
but, on the same note, poliical agendas can go both ways, with figures being manipulated to show the opposite, to fit a conclusion so as to argue another set of figures, seems the only way to solve the debate would be unbiased research, which would be impossible as funding must come from somewhere, and this could just apply enough pressure to tip the finding either way.
and the political alignment stigma that goes with it also skews things more, as if you agree with it, your a leftie, and if you disagree, a rightie.

you make a good point, we do need more data, but, if you wait too long getting the data, it could be too late, if the worse is proved.
side stepping is only a temporary solution, and even if more data is gathered, it may not clear the water, i think a carbon tax may be a bit to far, and driven by greed, as the tax has to be paid to someone, but it can't hurt to lower pollution anyway, could make the next olympics in china a bit more bearable to foreign athletes
Click to expand...
Except that the "worst" AGW predictions have already been disproved, hence the reason the continued doom and gloom prediction still coming from the failed prognosticators falls on rightly skeptical ears and eyes.;)
 
i think this graph proves global warming
MHV3u.gif
 
How telling is it that the biggest and longest applause at the summit so far was for for Hugo Chavez and his comments about capitalism being the evil ghost in the room described by Karl Marx?
 
It's great to see the Snuff Conference falling apart like this.

I can't say how thrilled I am that Hugo and his big mouth have exposed the real motivations of the global warming hoax.
 
apdst said:
It's great to see the Snuff Conference falling apart like this.

I can't say how thrilled I am that Hugo and his big mouth have exposed the real motivations of the global warming hoax.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Global Warming is basically a massive hoax concocted to redistribute the world's wealth, destroy capitalism, and reduce the United States to the same status as Belgium.

And with China completely balking at the whole thing now, it's basically a way to officially hand the planet over to communist China as the most powerful country on the planet.
 
Erod said:
How telling is it that the biggest and longest applause at the summit so far was for for Hugo Chavez and his comments about capitalism being the evil ghost in the room described by Karl Marx?
Click to expand...

:lol: Got video of that? I'd like to plaster it all over some facebook pages...

Edit: Translated video, All I've seen so far is this:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBlxPmn1SVA"]YouTube- Hugo Chávez 1/3 la voz del pueblo en Copenhagen 2009 COP15 discurso Climate Justice[/ame] (part 1 of 3)
 
Last edited:
Erod said:
How telling is it that the biggest and longest applause at the summit so far was for for Hugo Chavez and his comments about capitalism being the evil ghost in the room described by Karl Marx?
Click to expand...

How telling was it that there were people in the room listening to Chavez?
 
hazlnut said:
Why do newbies always whip out these b.s. denialist arguments -- like we've never seen them before.

Mcfly -- stop. :stop:We've been there, done that.

There's a chunk of ice the size of Manhattan heading toward Australia. Hello? Not good.

Quick, go copy/paste the denialist explanation for why that's all perfectly normal. Big chunks of ice always float around the ocean.:roll::roll:
Click to expand...

Well, the new posters aren't aware of the depths of ignorance and denial the truly devout beleivers of the silly AGW theory are, and don't expect that a proven fraud will be called "bs" by the species of true believers found here.

Since Mann's Hockey Stick is a known fraud, it's not bs to point it out.

Yeah, yet another hunk of ice fell off the ice sheet. So? For millions of years, Antartica has been filling requests by Australia for ice, and yet only recently has anyone thought to put it in drinks. What's your point, that Antartica is wasting effort?
 
The real reason is shckingly obvious.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNQqUACJ_Kw"]YouTube- Proud Flag-Waving Communists and Socialists March in Copenhagen to Stop Global Warming[/ame]
 
Hello....the true stallers of this summit is China, and I for once agree with them. Obama's got a hard row to follow when he shows up, they've set him up.

I know this may come as a surprise to the president, but China is a global economic power that is not impressed by marshmallow rhetoric appearing on a TelePrompTer. Oh, and a "Beer Summit" won't make things change on the international chess board. :lol:
 
azura28 said:
Oh, and a "Beer Summit" won't make things change on the international chess board. :lol:
Click to expand...

:rofl

How stupid that must look to the rest of the world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom