Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Ah, That Feels Better

Some Good News - a little cooperation in trying to make things better. 56 newspapers in 45 countries carry the same editorial - all calling for leaders in Copenhagen to take definitive action on climate change.



noocomme1 said...

You said your post contained "good news". Where was it? You can't mean the chicanery taking place in Copenhagen. In light of the fraud deep at the heart of global warming "science" revealed by the exposure of the CRU emails and the continuing uncertainty about everything about climate change as noted by such non-kooks as Richard Lindzen http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4515 and untold numbers of other scientists http://climaterealists.com/about.php, the expenditure of what?...$45 TRILLION http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6763409/Copenhagen-climate-summit-Blindfolds-at-Copenhagen-are-hiding-the-crucial-issues.html doesn't exactly strike ME as cause to party down.

Someone, please make the madness stop. Please.

Susan said...

Incredible to me that despite all the science, there are still people in denial.
Does it really seem possible that we can make the changes we've made, pollute as much as we have, and we get off scot free?
Think animals have gone extinct in a vacuum, too?
Evidence that some people will go to any length to pretend nothing's wrong.

nocomme1 said...

The News-Junkie site that you link to calls people who are skeptical of anthropogenic global warmind "deniers" and "Flat-Earthers". Calling names is far easier, of course than dealing with facts. Here is a VERY brief list of some of the "Flat-Earthers":
Habibullo I. Abdussamatov, Dr. Sci., mathematician and astrophysicist, Head of the Russian-Ukrainian Astrometria project on the board of the Russian segment of the ISS, Head of Space Research Laboratory at the Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia
Göran Ahlgren, docent organisk kemi, general secretary of the Stockholm Initiative, Professor of Organic Chemistry, Stockholm, Sweden
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, PhD, Professor of Physics, Emeritus and Founding Director, International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, U.S.A.
J.R. Alexander, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000, Pretoria, South Africa.
Jock Allison, PhD, ONZM, formerly Ministry of Agriculture Regional Research Director, Dunedin, New Zealand
Bjarne Andresen, PhD, dr. scient, physicist, published and presents on the impossibility of a "global temperature", Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Here is a link to their thoughts on this issue: http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4603&linkbox=true

Here is an excellent article detailing the fakery and possible ramifications of this entire scam: http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=Mjk3ZTRkODVjMzcwZDI0Y2ZhOTU5ZjdmN2JkZDE5NmU=

Global warming is the greatest con in history. Bernie Madoff is sitting in prison right now banging his head against a wall wishing that he wasn't such a nickel and dime con artist. He's wishing he was smart and had gotten a piece of this whole global warming scam. He wouldn't be in jail. Instead he'd be in Copenhagen and people like you and most of the mainstream media would be calling him a hero.

You are being had.

Pauline said...

There's interesting comment on those emails here: http://www.ginandtacos.com/2009/12/10/grasping-at-straws/

Susan said...

Thanks, Pauline. Always good to have someone else do the lifting with my cousin.
Bottom line for me, Eddie, is a simple question: what would be so awful about acting AS IF climate change was a reality? Would it be horrific to clean up pollution, invest in new technology, create energy that eliminates our reliance on foreign oil, create a new growth industry when we're desperate for one?
Why is that so damned objectionable? And if the side benefit is we reduce our impact on the planet, which at this point is the only place we can live, it would seem to make a great deal of sense.
But sense seldom has anything to do with anything these days.

nocomme1 said...

"...what would be so awful about acting AS IF climate change was a reality?" Because it will cost us untold billions or trillions of dollars:

"A study by the Brookings Institution finds that meeting the Waxman-Markey emissions targets would result in a loss of personal consumption from $1 trillion to $2 trillion; GDP would be lower by 2.5 percent by 2050; and there would be 1.7 million fewer jobs. The Heritage Foundation estimates the largest GDP losses – up to $9.4 trillion cumulatively from 2012 to 2035 -- and projects 2.5 million fewer jobs." http://www.sphere.com/opinion/article/copenhagen-global-warming-talks-threaten-to-impose-huge-costs-for-little-benefit/19269107

The fact that I was able to produce a list of so many very credible scientists (and I can show you MANY more, if you'd like) should tell you something about the honesty of media and "scientists" who tell us all the time about a consensus on global warming. First of all "consensus" is NOT a scientific standard. Consensus is a political and not a scientific term. The speed of light isn't accurate because there is a consensus about it. It is accurate because you can do reproducible tests proving its accuracy.

The hysteria about global warming has nothing to do with "saving the planet" and everything to do with redistributing income. The Copenhagen "Convention arranges the “transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries.” Such international economic redistribution would occur via “a multilateral climate change fund,” “a Mitigation Fund,” “a Capacity-building Fund,” and other schemes. By 2020, these disbursements are supposed to “meet the full costs incurred by developing country Parties” — an anticipated $50 billion to $140 billion." http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjk3ZTRkODVjMzcwZDI0Y2ZhOTU5ZjdmN2JkZDE5NmU=

Real scientists don't hide data. They don't try to prevent papers that differ from theirs from being published. They don't destroy data to avoid FOIA requests. And smart people don't wreak havoc on their economies based on the kind of "science" produced by people who do such things.

And in truth the environment has been improving in many ways for many years without a world spanning beaurocracy grabbing up trillions of dollars and redistributing them.

If the Administration was so eager to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy then they'd be working double time to build new nuclear power plants. (Oh, that's right, the environmental movement has been waging war on them for 30 years so new power plants get lip service and no action) and drilling for oil in Alaska and off shore.

As I said initially, Global Warming is a giant scam. More and more people are realizing that all the time. I've looked into what the advocates of Global Warming have to say. You should look into what some of those who are skeptics think. Let the best arguments prevail.

Susan said...

Name listing won't convince anyone, as both sides have a long, long list. Do I have to dig up a list of climate change believers for you?

Here's a UN summary: http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/proof-of-climate-change-unequivocal

Now, if your objections are about HOW governments intend to respond to climate change, that's a whole different issue, isn't it?

That most certainly should be debated. There is an inherent sense of fairness in reimbursing countries damaged by our industrialization, but that's also a tough sell when the American Empire is crumbling.

Where, by the way, does the green economy come into this doom and gloom prediction? The Internet pulled us out of the seventies recession. So far, nothing has as much promise as green technology for pulling us out of this one.

Who knows - we might even start manufacturing something again. Wouldn't that be an amazing development?

And what if we didn't have to strongarm our way into countries where our only interest is guaranteeing access to the fossil fuels we so desperately need? What if we made solar, geothermal and wind energy affordable and practical...something we all have access to?

Nuclear? Never mind, dear. I've done enough stories on Indian Point to have no interest in a technology that has yet to figure out how to dispose of its waste. Show me a long term, environmentally neutral way to do it and I'm willing to change my mind. Burying it won't cut it.
We haven't prepared for fault lines, thyroid cancer rates up among neighbors, leaks, faulty evacuation plans...nope.
I do not buy "acceptable risk". My kids could be one of those "statistically acceptable" victims. It might be someone else's kids.

I won't be adopting a tiger for a housecat, either.

I will not stick my head in the sand and pretend that the pollutants we've pumped into the earth and the atmosphere somehow magically were absorbed and negated by this incredible planet.

Magical thinking leads to inaction, abuse and a nasty shock when there's finally no denying that it's too late to do anything.

nocomme1 said...

"Name listing won't convince anyone, as both sides have a long, long list. Do I have to dig up a list of climate change believers for you?"

Sorry you missed my point which was that the science isn't settled; there is no consensus, it is not a certainty that calamity is around the corner and that the constant drumbeat about all credible scientists agreeing with Al Gore and the IPPC is bunk meant to marginalize opponents; hardly the tactics of ethical scientists.

And my further point is that, the science NOT being settled, it is madness to risk destroying our economy fix a problem whose existence is utterly speculative.

"There is an inherent sense of fairness in reimbursing countries damaged by our industrialization, but that's also a tough sell when the American Empire is crumbling."
Interesting. Does this mean that WE can now get reimbursed by all the countries who have benefitted by our assistance: all the countries helped by the Marshall Plan, all the African countries helped by Bush's aid in fighting AIDS, years of foreign aid to dozens of countries, etc. Somehow I'm doubting a tit-for-tat world makes much sense but with the liberal view that all the world has been victimized by America, I'm not surprised to see you raise it.

"So far, nothing has as much promise as green technology for pulling us out of this one." Green technology is heavily overhyped. The Europeans are finding that it kills more jobs than it creates and the examples of Green projects that start out with big hype and end with big disappointment grows daily. Which is not to say that I'm opposed to alternative energy sources. But they should grow organically (if you'll excuse the pun). Right now they're not economical or practical as a substitute for oil, coal, etc. I look forward to the day when we no longer rely on fossil fuels. Let's incentivize research into any and all reasonable possibilities. I'm all for it.

"Show me a long term, environmentally neutral way to do it and I'm willing to change my mind." I'll go ask the French and a host of other countries who get a large percentage of their power from nuclear energy.

All of which is off the main point which is that global warming is a scam whose goal is advancing a political agenda and not saving our poor, fragile Gaia.

I hope Bernie Madoff doesn't find your blog, Sue. If he does I'm betting you may be getting an email from him very soon. I hear he's got a great investment that he just knows will be great for you....

Susan said...

Scientific consensus. Was there much consensus with Galileo? Einstein? String theory? There is seldom any fast scientific consensus. There comes a preponderance of scientists who agree and move forward based on their beliefs - the others are later proved to be dinosaurs.

I don't expect consensus - I expect solid evidence and a reasonable theory to tie it together. It is logical to tie the increased pollution we have created to the radical changes in the climate, in the ice caps, in the Himalayan plain.

You can argue it's cyclical. But if you're wrong, we've made a horrific blunder. I vote for taking responsibility for what we're doing.

For God's sake, we're talking about people here. There are still people who argue the Holocaust never happened...that we never landed on the moon.

Nuclear power:
Oh, Eddie, you know better than that. "Everybody's doing it" is no argument. You don't buy it for socialized medicine.

Has France solved the disposal issue?

Have there been extensive tests showing no health impacts on neighbors? Has an ironclad emergency evacuation plan been created? And most importantly, if the answer to all that is yes, might that be because they have a different set of regulations?

We have "safely operating" nuclear plants too...it's not like you're being deprived of their incredible benefits.

We put one right near NYC. What a genius idea. Imagine trying to evacuate Westchester County.

It has a less than stellar safety history. It's had leaks. It can't get its siren system to work. It draws water from the Hudson to for cooling, then discharges millions of gallons of hot water which have killed off the fish in that area.

Nuclear power harnessed, locked up, done by someone other than a company that has to make maximizing profits the bottom line - maybe. Nuclear power without a full consideration of all its effects, without an answer to the long term disposal, without pro-active examinations of health effects, without respect for its neighoring environment? No.