It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Copenhagen Conference - Dec. 7-18, 2009

page: 2
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 06:14 AM
link   
If you can think one minute about climate change, I have the BIG QUESTION : FOR WHO WANT TO BE A MILLIONAIRE !

What would be more dangerous for humanity : ICE AGE or GLOBAL WARMING ?

You know that the ice age happen regularly on the planet : and maybe we have change this fact.

en.wikipedia.org...

So what do you think of the global warming itself ? Human have changed the system : cool. Is it bad or good after all ?

At least, to me, it is the least worst solution.

I WISH MORE PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THIS LOGIC.

I keep also in mind that, Environmentalism can be an ideology. Communism, liberalism, capitalism, scientism, stupidity, conformism are ideology, and they have demonstrated dangerousness. (in small and long term view)

en.wikipedia.org...

SO I CHOOSE NO IDEOLOGY AT ALL !




posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 06:18 AM
link   
I will be your alls humble eyes


here are some first insights:

The link to Cop15 as earlier reffered, that Obama comes to Copenhagen ?
- Well in all the danish tv/media we yesterday heard about Obama going to Copenhagen, but only for a few hours, as it is on his way to recieving the Nobel Peace Price in Norway (uargh !)
- so his presence in Denmark is only to "show the flag"
ekstrabladet.dk...

Regarding the 17% increase, we also read that it is not right - its merely ony 3-4%

Read about it here in Ekstra Bladet (around 400.000 readers - use google translation)

ekstrabladet.dk...



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 06:18 AM
link   
AWG at this point is an indefensible position. Its over. Maybe the faux greenies should move into a global cooling scare now, and suggest at Copenhagen a radical CO2 emissions INCREASE to combat the falling tempatures!



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 06:18 AM
link   
reply to post by SpaceMonkeys
 


Exactly.

I'm interested in hammering out the connection between human activity and GW. If there IS a connection, then we need to do what we can to lessen the impact. If not, then we need to focus on the effects of GW anyways.

Rising sea levels, desertification and lack of fresh water will create population movements and cause devastating damage to the shipping industry and its infrastructure. I'm sure there will be many more effects to consider as the conference brings them forward.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 


Didnt you get the memo? The Earth is in a cooling cycle now. Perhaps you should submit some solutions to combat dropping tempatures?

Perhaps ICBMs into the sun would increase sunspot activity, which is confirmed to be the true driver of climate? Be a good way for Obama to disarm, right? Fire em' at the sun i say!

Fight global cooling!!



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
reply to post by Curious and Concerned
 


I made the distinction between science and scientists:

science = verifyable facts
scientists = people, who crreate distinctions on those facts by their opinions.


Sorry, but you are WRONG....

Science = verifiable OPINIONS by a group of ones peers...

In case you haven't noticed, 'scientific facts' keep changing as time moves forward...science is just as much verifiable as religious beliefs....



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by AUM68
 


What is your opinion on the Copenhagen Post?

Is it an unbiased newspaper or does it tend toward one end of the political spectrum or another? it would be nice to know if they have credible reporting.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by rainfall

Science = verifiable OPINIONS by a group of ones peers...

In case you haven't noticed, 'scientific facts' keep changing as time moves forward...science is just as much verifiable as religious beliefs....


Then what, exactly, are we left with?



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 06:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo_Serf
 


If we are in a cooling cycle, there should be evidence of that. Please provide it.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 

We will never get a completely honest debate about GW in these conferences because theres a witch hunt against scientists who disagree that climate change is caused by CO2. The mainstream media have created this term "climate change denier" so that it fits in the category of holocaust denier. The current belief of GW keeps thousands of scientists in jobs around the world and they are quite willing to lie and follow the crowd to keep them in work. This is how the elites can fuel an agenda by simply throwing money at it, and any scientist who disagrees will just simply have their funding taken away along with their credibility. The climate is changing all the time whether its an ice age or the opposite and one aspect that seems to correlate with this is sun spot activity. How do they explain away the fact that other planets in our solar system are also heating up? Over here in the UK we had something called the medievil warm period which was much warmer than it is today and Britain had climate very similar to the mediterrainian. In fact there are streets in britain that are named after vineyards because thats what was there at the time. And then theres Al Gore and his twisted documentary with more holes in it than than a fishing net.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 06:37 AM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 


In general, danish newspapers are quite trustworthy.

I havent before been reading the Copenhagen Post, but I have now been looking a bit through, and the articles compares pretty good the what the danish media is saying.

I have been looking at theese posts , even I havent yet heard that we wont get a white christmas

www.cphpost.dk...



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 06:39 AM
link   
NGO activists have found the place, where the danish police have "build" the temporarly "prison" during the COP15.

Follow this link for article and pictures - look further down, and you will also find the article in english.

www.indymedia.dk...



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 06:44 AM
link   
I too live in Denmark, and even better, very close to the city. 10 minutes away.

I'm quite sure the focus here is very much on Obama, and from what I've heard - he is just here to show off, literrally.

He is coming the 9th of December, when the meeting starts on the 7th. He is here for very short amount of time. He is here to show face, and get some people yelling, "Yes He Can" at him. (Sorry, dislike Obama).

Anyways, if anything major happens, I'll be sure to let people know. But then again, you might hear about it quickly!



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by AUM68
 


Hey!

Rigtig fedt at se en Dansker? på ATS forummer! Troede sgu næsten jeg var det eneste, men det er nok næppe tilfældet!



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpaceMonkeys
We will never get a completely honest debate about GW in these conferences because theres a witch hunt against scientists who disagree that climate change is caused by CO2.


And there is a similar witch hunt against scientists who are proponents of GW.

That's why it makes such interesting 'Conspiracy Theory' material.


The mainstream media have created this term "climate change denier" so that it fits in the category of holocaust denier.


Oh... now we're going to bring in the Nazis? That's a bit of a stretch, imho.


The current belief of GW keeps thousands of scientists in jobs around the world and they are quite willing to lie and follow the crowd to keep them in work. This is how the elites can fuel an agenda by simply throwing money at it, and any scientist who disagrees will just simply have their funding taken away along with their credibility.


So, you are saying that rising global mean temperatures are a lie? Can you please provide evidence that this is the case, because it would be the kicker for me.


The climate is changing all the time whether its an ice age or the opposite and one aspect that seems to correlate with this is sun spot activity. How do they explain away the fact that other planets in our solar system are also heating up?


It's facts like that which keep me firmly on the fence about human activity being involved here. I'd like to have that debate ended once and for all. The CO2 emmisions may be a factor to a degree and the spike in the graphs show the Industrial Revolution may be the tuirning point, but there are a l;ot of other factors involved, as you say.


Over here in the UK we had something called the medievil warm period which was much warmer than it is today and Britain had climate very similar to the mediterrainian. In fact there are streets in britain that are named after vineyards because thats what was there at the time. And then theres Al Gore and his twisted documentary with more holes in it than than a fishing net.


Yes, I'm aware of that. There also was a period of extreme cold as the last Ice Age ended and huge amounts of fresh water were dumped into the ocean. That caused the currents (Atlantc gyre) in the ocean to change, bringing severe winters to Britain.

A similar thing is happening right now, afaik, with the increasing amount of melt happeing in Greenland.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 


Do you consider the IPCC a credible source, in light of their massive, admitted, decade long fraud?

From Phil Jones (modification of data to hide unwanted results):

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

From Kevin Trenberth (failure of computer models):

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

From Michael Mann (truth doesn't matter):


Perhaps we'll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page--Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa '06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.

Deny Ignorance.

What else. So much to chose from.

From Phil Jones (witholding of data):

The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here! ... The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! Cheers Phil
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !

Dont let that pesky truth get in the way of your agenda!

From Phil Jones (witholding of data):

If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.

Anyone condone this coward?

From Phil Jones (destroying of emails / evidence):

Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Should have deleted the emails suggesting deletion! DOH!

From Ben Santer * (witholding data) :

We should be able to conduct our scientific research without constant fear of an "audit" by Steven McIntyre; without having to weigh every word we write in every email we send to our scientific colleagues. In my opinion, Steven McIntyre is the self-appointed Joe McCarthy of climate science. I am unwilling to submit to this McCarthy-style investigation of my scientific research. As you know, I have refused to send McIntyre the "derived" model data he requests, since all of the primary model data necessary to replicate our results are freely available to him. I will continue to refuse such data requests in the future. Nor will I provide McIntyre with computer programs, email correspondence, etc. I feel very strongly about these issues. We should not be coerced by the scientific equivalent of a playground bully. I will be consulting LLNL's Legal Affairs Office in order to determine how the DOE and LLNL should respond to any FOI requests that we receive from McIntyre.

...

From Tom Wigley (ousting of a skeptic from a professional organization):

Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.

Wouldnt want those silly *skeptics* get in the way of true faith, err, i mean science!

From a document titled "jones-foiathoughts.doc" (witholding of data):

Options appear to be:
1. Send them the data
2. Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s.
3. Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them.

Seems to be a whole lot of 'removing' and 'omitting' going on here!

ect ect ect ect....

the jig is up. AWGers should start updating their resumes, and this time try not to riddle them with lies and fantastic claims.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpaceMonkeys
reply to post by masqua
 

We will never get a completely honest debate about GW in these conferences because theres a witch hunt against scientists who disagree that climate change is caused by CO2.


No : this is not the true debate , this is not the question : this is a stupid analysis.

WE SHOULD ASK : Is gw a bad thing afterall ? Or do you prefer global cooling ?

Because global cooling would have happend ? OK ?

You know that a cool temperature means no life at all, because there is no atom 'energy'.

a system must contain a large number of particles for temperature to have a useful meaning. For a solid, this energy is found primarily in the vibrations of its atoms.

A ice age on planet earth : mean the population of the planet reduce to 0.01 % of the actual population.

We produced CO2 : cool, this mean we have change the termal system of the planet.

Maybe it is a chance that we will not have an ice age : this is called REGULATION in the control theory. en.wikipedia.org...

Maybe planet earth is our first terraformed planet.

But we don't have the skill yet to understand the process itself, and all risks.


SO : GW or GC ? You choose.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by SalkinVictory
 


Marvellous.
The more information coming out of Copenhagen, the better.

Personally, I'm not so much interested in the politicians as I am in the information that is discussed during the conference.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 06:57 AM
link   
Note:

I am going to be away for about 12 hours today. Please don't accuse me of evading questions during this time afk.

In related news, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is also staying away, from the Copenhagen Conference, that is.




posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by SalkinVictory
 


- only in english




top topics



 
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join