It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Phage
I'm thinking more the latter than the former.
doesn't take much to put us right back into a mini ice age
originally posted by: JasonBillung
a reply to: Aallanon
You know, all you deniers are going to be seen in the future as not only stupid but also as evil.
You will be reviled as very stupid folks who ignored the science and sided with crass oil and coal industry for no good reason except to agree with the political masters of your time. You will be viewed in the same light as those who supported slavery, those who said women should not vote, and those who supported the international global power of oil.
You descendents will claim you were voting for states rights, or some such nonsense, to avoid the embarrassment of your ignorance. You will be hated, as the generation that bought into to lies told to you by your global masters, and your graves will be dedicated by your childern.
You have chosen your path, and you have announced your beliefs. The internet never goes away. You are doomed by your statements. They will seem as terribly wrong in 50 years as the defenders of slavery seem today. When your grandchildren curse your names in 20 years, find comfort that you lived in a time when you could still promote some disbeilief. Your time is growing short, and the judgement of future generations is about to fall upon you.
I pity you apologist for global oil and continued enslavement.
In 985 Greenland was so lush and green that is how it got its' name.
Really? I thought that was the Federal Reserve.
Carbon credits are the biggest scam in th4 history of the world,
Really? I thought that was the petrodollar.
and were supposed to be the basis of the one world currency.
The latest case in point comes from United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) official Ottmar Edenhofer. In a recent interview with Germany’s NZZ Online, Edenhofer lays out just what the climate talks are all about:
NZZ: The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.
Edenhofer: That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.
NZZ: That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.
Edenhofer: Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet—and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400—there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.
NZZ: De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.
Edenhofer: First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
This shouldn’t be all too surprising. The Copenhagen conference last year quickly devolved from a discussion on how to cost-effectively curtail greenhouse gas emissions—the primary culprit behind global warming, according to the U.N.—into a browbeating session designed to get developed countries to accept massive economic costs arising from carbon dioxide cuts and to provide billions of dollars in wealth transfers (up to $100 billion annually was discussed in Copenhagen last year) to help developing nations cope with the projected consequences of a changing climate. Meanwhile, developing countries (even the large developing country emitters like India and China) were being exempted from emissions restrictions even though that would undermine any possibility of meeting emissions targets.
Last year in Copenhagen, Janos Pasztor, the director of U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s Climate Change Support Team, admitted: “This is not a climate-change negotiation. … It’s about something much more fundamental. It’s about economic strength.” The nations at the negotiation, he added, “just have to slug it out.”
It goes to show how ill-suited the United Nations is at handling a climate treaty. The competing interests of U.N. member states make it extremely difficult to for the negotiations not to get sidetracked.
I live on the coast, 50 years and I have seen not one cm of the waters rising anywhere