• 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'

Gibberish said:
Does global warming equate to cold weather no longer existing? I would think it would be called "global warm" at that point as the world would no longer be warmING.

The black and white nature that opponents of global warming interpret weather is quite ludicrous.

"OMG it's cold today that means that global warming is false!"
Click to expand...

Yes, opponents of global warming are quite ludicrous.

People opposed to being stampeded off an economic and societal cliff by proponents of AGW, a known scientific hoax, are sensible and cautious.
 
Gibberish said:
I don't know and don't care. I don't believe in the apocalyptic theories spewed by Global Waring supporters. I haven't seen any strong evidence to show that C02 increase will have any significant impact. I do however believe in lowering C02 levels since we are able to to advert any possible risk. I see no negative effects of making things more energy efficient where we can. Why not do it if we are capable of doing it and avoid any theorized risks?
Click to expand...

Since there is no demonstrated risk, the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions must be done voluntarily by the individual consumer via the machinations of the free market, not commanded by force from our masters.

That's why we shouldn't enact any stupid GHG treaties or legislation.
 
justabubba said:
it is your claim that junk science is being used

it is noted that you are unable to provide anything* showing junk science is behind the global warming concerns

*nothing other than your backward, flat-earth opinion
Click to expand...

Any science that deliberately seeks to provoke fear and ignorance by conspicuously concentrating on compounded unlikely worst-case scenarios and ignoring the fact that the proposed theories don't reflect known trends and history is junk. Since this is exactly what the "global warming oops it's cooling I mean global climate change" hoaxers are doing, it's clear AGW is purest junk.
 
justabubba said:
then identify for us the science which provides proof that there is no global warming
Click to expand...


The issue isn't about "global warming" or "global cooling"....which by the way, the planet's been in a cooling phase for a solid decade from the recent local maxima shown in 1998....which wasn't the warmest year in that century, that honor falls to 1938.

The issue is what influence human activity has on global climate.

Given that the promoters of AGW theory have to hide their data and lie, and given that AGW theory consistently fails to predict things like the current cooling trend, the issue is really "why the hell are we wasting time and money on these charlatan AGW people?"
 
obama will still go, tho any real accomplishment there would be impossible even if talks weren't already broken down

he just returned from another disneyland excursion to scandinavia, didn't he?

the chance of anything substantial ever coming from one of these gab fests, which probably contribute more to warming simply due to hot air released, is always nil

there's no global enforcement

all the nations are directed by realpolitik

emphasis on the "real"

copenhagen always was nothing more than pure fantasy

worthy of another bad al gore poem

yet obama will go

more and more ridiculous
 
MrVicchio said:
THAT statement right there, says it all.

From the True Believers of the house of Gore to the so called scientist that run this.

Did Albert Einstein demand consensus for his Theories? No, he laid down the gauntlet and said "Find what's wrong here".
Click to expand...

Mr. Vic... That is the New Science, which accompanies our New Politics.

Neither can be challenged.

It's called Change... sucker. Change whether you like it or not, whether it works or not, whether it is true or not, and regardless of history's lessons.

Kinda Kool if you're one of the arrogant elites capable of force feeding your illusion on the masses. Not.

.
 
hazlnut said:
Yeah, Vicchio, the African nations left for less than 90 minutes. Was is a walk-out or did they just break for lunch?

see what happens when you jump on a non-story too fast.

I thought you learned your lesson with those hacked emails.
Click to expand...

Are you still reading Air America's blog and gore tweets?

The divide between rich and poor boiled over Monday when negotiators for the Group of 77 -- which represents developing countries as well as large emerging economies such as Brazil, India and China -- walked out of the negotiations in the morning.

They returned to the conference later in the day, but the underlying issues remained unsolved, Swedish Minister Andreas Carlgren said. This prompted a suspension in the official negotiation, and the chairman of the conference appointed two ministers to pursue consultation on how to solve the problem.

China, the world's biggest greenhouse-gas emitter, is casting the talks as a referendum on what it calls the developed world's failure to clean up its act. Rich countries should "honor the commitments they have made" in the past, said Li Ganjie, China's vice minister of environmental protection.
Click to expand...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126079318461090419.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories
 
Last edited:
and humming along harmoniously, clearly

swaying in sweet unison---kumbaya

LOL!
 
hazlnut said:
No, Vicchio, just giving you an update on the 'suspended' talks.

They were already back at the table by the time you posted.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was a staged WALK OUT.

See how that works? You're trying to say it was a nothing event, a no big deal.

That's patently dishonest of you.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The issue isn't about "global warming" or "global cooling"....which by the way, the planet's been in a cooling phase for a solid decade from the recent local maxima shown in 1998....which wasn't the warmest year in that century, that honor falls to 1938.
Click to expand...

Also, it's the rediculous assumption that CO2, which is a trace NUTRIENT required for life is suddenly equivalent to a deadly nerve toxin...

Especially when THIS is the raw data :
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxmo9DskYE"]YouTube- Hockey Stick over Time - Narrated[/ame]

The issue is what influence human activity has on global climate.
Click to expand...

I would wager aside from weather control technologies (as described in the treaty on 'weather weapons') that our impact on the climate is negligable overall.

Given that the promoters of AGW theory have to hide their data and lie, and given that AGW theory consistently fails to predict things like the current cooling trend, the issue is really "why the hell are we wasting time and money on these charlatan AGW people?"
Click to expand...

Because people like Al Gore already have the companies lined up and invested in to implement the carbon taxes that the copenhagen treaty is attempting to create.

hazlnut said:
No, Vicchio, just giving you an update on the 'suspended' talks.

They were already back at the table by the time you posted.
Click to expand...

That's too bad... I figured that they walked out of the table because those representing the African nations read the part of the treaty where they would be forced to take on 'green loans' through the IMF and World Bank, and knowing the track record of those institutions on their nations, it seems no real surprise to me that they might stage a protest.
 
Last edited:
MrVicchio said:
Yes, it was a staged WALK OUT.

See how that works? You're trying to say it was a nothing event, a no big deal.

That's patently dishonest of you.
Click to expand...

The 'walk out' lasted less than 90 minutes -- can you say lunch break?

This entire thread is typically intellectually dishonest of you.
 
BmanMcfly said:
Also, it's the rediculous assumption that CO2, which is a trace NUTRIENT required for life is suddenly equivalent to a deadly nerve toxin...

Especially when THIS is the raw data :
YouTube- Hockey Stick over Time - Narrated
Click to expand...

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:
 
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...


What? You mean that big chunks of Ice don't float around the ocean? Well, what did the Titanic hit then? I bet it was a right wing conspiracy to boost the stock of North Star Lines wasn't it?

Quick, turn to page 27 of Allinski's book to see how to marginalize me......:roll:


j-mac
 
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...

Global awrming will cause it to melt before it reaches Australia. Don't worry.
 
j-mac said:
What? You mean that big chunks of Ice don't float around the ocean? Well, what did the Titanic hit then? I bet it was a right wing conspiracy to boost the stock of North Star Lines wasn't it?

Quick, turn to page 27 of Allinski's book to see how to marginalize me......:roll:


j-mac
Click to expand...

have you seen the difference between the arctic and antarctic, if not let me fill you in, the arctic is just lumps of ice floating around the ocean, which is what the titanic hit, antarctica, on the other hand is a continent that is surrounded by ice shelves, these ice shelves usually stay stuck to the continent, but when a giant one breaks free and heads for Western Australia, it may be a bit of an oddity
 
spud_meister said:
have you seen the difference between the arctic and antarctic, if not let me fill you in, the arctic is just lumps of ice floating around the ocean, which is what the titanic hit, antarctica, on the other hand is a continent that is surrounded by ice shelves, these ice shelves usually stay stuck to the continent, but when a giant one breaks free and heads for Western Australia, it may be a bit of an oddity
Click to expand...



Ever happened before?


j-mac
 
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.
Click to expand...
It's a valid argument until the chicken little global camp debunks it, go ahead, we have time.............
 
spud_meister said:
not in the last couple of thousand years that i can find, ice shelves tend to be pretty tough
Click to expand...


From an Australian source.


Ice expanding in much of Antarctica Eastern coast getting colder Western section remains a concern

ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.

The results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicate there is no large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, although experts are concerned at ice losses on the continent's western coast.

Antarctica has 90 per cent of the Earth's ice and 80 per cent of its fresh water, The Australian reports. Extensive melting of Antarctic ice sheets would be required to raise sea levels substantially, and ice is melting in parts of west Antarctica. The destabilisation of the Wilkins ice shelf generated international headlines this month.



However, the picture is very different in east Antarctica, which includes the territory claimed by Australia.

East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week's meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades".


Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away | News.com.au
Click to expand...


Hmmm....Seems to run contrary to hyper fear that the GW crowd likes to put out, don't you think?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
From an Australian source.
Hmmm....Seems to run contrary to hyper fear that the GW crowd likes to put out, don't you think?


j-mac
Click to expand...

yes it does, interesting article.

i love the fact they quote peter garret, he should've stayed in his band.

i've done some further research, and now i'm even more confused about GW
 
spud_meister said:
yes it does, interesting article.

i love the fact they quote peter garret, he should've stayed in his band.

i've done some further research, and now i'm even more confused about GW
Click to expand...



Glad I could help.....:mrgreen:


j-mac
 
hazlnut said:
Why do newbies always whip out these b.s. denialist arguments -- like we've never seen them before.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the RAW DATA is speaking against any concern... for the recorded times in human history, the hottest periods coincide with things like 'the dawn of civilization', 'the renaissaince', the 'industrial revolution' (which has been the greatest creation of wealth for the middle class)

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

Why is the only response to RAW DATA only met with a 'sit down and shut up' type of response?

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

It's ok, it'll melt, then the arctice will create a new ice shelf come wintertime.... nice thing this 'climate change' it gets hotter in the summer and colder in the winter. Since it's currently summertime in the southern hemisphere, it's not really a surprise to me that there's some ice melting.

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...

Um... no need to 'copy/paste' anything... the legitimate points NEVER get addressed... to the extent that when people pushing the 'alarmist agenda' get asked independant question, they are shown the door out of the PUBLIC meetings.

The fact of the matter is that the main truth about the climate is that it's always changing... there are forces of nature at work that are beyond the understanding of the science. The entire climate is built on 'carbon cycles', 'water cycles', 'solar cycles', among countless other cycles that we are not even really aware of that are all having a certain impact on the climate.

apdst said:
Global awrming will cause it to melt before it reaches Australia. Don't worry.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

spud_meister said:
have you seen the difference between the arctic and antarctic, if not let me fill you in, the arctic is just lumps of ice floating around the ocean, which is what the titanic hit, antarctica, on the other hand is a continent that is surrounded by ice shelves, these ice shelves usually stay stuck to the continent, but when a giant one breaks free and heads for Western Australia, it may be a bit of an oddity
Click to expand...


It may be 'odd' in that it's not an occurance that happens every year. Think about it, since there is land mass under antarctica, the firs melting would be frozen to the grond, which would give it a certain 'strength'... pile on a few hundred (or thousand) years worth of compacted ice/snow, then it might not take that much to 'dislodge' that ice for it to float free in the ocean, I mean after a relative hot spell.

spud_meister said:
not in the last couple of thousand years that i can find, ice shelves tend to be pretty tough
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom