Copenhagen Conference - Dec. 7-18, 2009

Originally posted by AUM68
reply to post by SalkinVictory

 

- only in english

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you spoke Danish.

Well, I was just saying that it is great to see another, perhaps Danish? member on the ATS forums! (;

Here is a little video I found, which is a NGO protest at Bella Center where Cop15 is going to be held.

In March the group Carbon Market Insights held a meeting in Bella Center where they tryed to raise make focus on buying / Selling CO2 Quotes to deal with the climate problems

Please pay attention to the danish police - so few - and no shields or battons
thats how we do it in Denmark (until Dec ha ha

www.indymedia.dk...

reply to post by masqua


You know what I meant when I mentioned "holocaust denier", this has nothing to do with the nazis but more to do with getting people to associate the theory that GW isnt CO2 based with a crack pot theory, Its propaganda. Also I am not saying that the temperatures are a lie but that the theory behind the reason for the temperatures is a lie. I agree that climate change is happening, I just dont agree that its as a result of human intereference at least not solely anyway.

reply to post by SalkinVictory


I am danish, but we should only speak english and stay on topic here.

else U2U me

reply to post by masqua


The information being discussed is fraudulent. This is admitted by the fraudsters in 13 years of correspondence.

Must really sting for something you knew all along was true but battled so hard to supress finally coming undeniably into the light in a glorious explosion of truth and revalation! Now you occupy the unenvious potion of either : 1) renouncing your core beliefs as the absolute fraud they are and appologize to those of us who you would have imposed a global carbon tax upon(which is the most advised position), or 2) go down with the ship, and sacrifice every last shred of intellectual honesty you have in an alamo-like, guns-a-blazing last stand against the truth and defend the now discredited AWG hoax to your dying breath?

Either way you wont be taken seriously again, so i suggest the least painful options. You decide which one it is.

Climate Change Deniers?

Then the others must be Climate Change Liars

Climate Change Deniers = Truth Seekers

Climate Change Liars = Power hungary and corupt

Hey guys, I've been following the threads on this site for a few months now, but there's one thing I dont understand.... Why would they lie to us about global warming? What's the point? If climate change doesn't exist, why would they lie to us, and force themselves to spend ridiculous amouts of money to reduce emissions????!

reply to post by pitbul13
Hey guys, I've been following the threads on this site for a few months now, but there's one thing I dont understand.... Why would they lie to us about global warming? What's the point? If climate change doesn't exist, why would they lie to us, and force themselves to spend ridiculous amouts of money to reduce emissions????!


The answers simple. Power and control. And the money they'll be spending won't be theirs, it'll be ours, they'll just tac the added costs they face onto us in higher heating/cooling bills for our homes/businesses, higher prices for gas for our vehicles. You'll be facing higher bill for food, ect.

Obama may return to COP15 after 1 week.

In danish newspaper Berlingske Tidende, we read, that according to New York Times, Obama may return to COP15 dec. 17. and 18.

here is link to danish newspaper article:

www.berlingske.dk...

Copenhagen's cobblestone removed before COP15

The danish newspaper Ekstra Bladet tells the story that all cobblestone should be removed before the summit, so say policeboss (the guy in small picture).

A right wing party: Dansk Folkeparti tells in the article that also ALL empty bottles should be removed from Copenhagen as well.

Inner Copenhagen have about 600.000 people and with the suburbs Copenhagen have around 1.6 million people.

link to article:

ekstrabladet.dk...

Originally posted by masqua
reply to post by Nirgal

 

One very minor question:

Do you agree or disagree with rising sea levels, receding glaciers and a rising global mean temperature?

That is the science. Those are the facts.

I've said nothing about AGW... nothing at all. In fact, it's what I'd like to have proven beyond any doubt.


[edit on 26/11/09 by masqua]

At the risk of sounding pedantic I'm not sure you've asked a question at all. I cannot disagree nor agree with rising sea levels; receding glaciers; or a rising global mean temperature. I do not yet know what beliefs these three occurrences hold.

That may be science and those may be facts as reported. I would not doubt the results if obtained scientifically, however even if obtained scientifically it would still be possible to argue the efficacy of the results.

(Just to illustrate, many weather stations have become "urbanised" over several decades. The results are factual but they are also contextual.

In this context the global mean temperature is affected anthropogenically.)






*Additional content for the thread follows*

Language is also important in this dialogue. It is full of emotive and conflictual narrative.

"Climate change" is a meaningless term. You may as well say, "weather".

"Deniers" is being thrown around as a pejorative term, in the same way the term "holocaust denier" is used. It is unhelpful in forwarding the dialogue and serves only to deflect attention from serious discussion.

I urge all members of all sides of the discussion/fence/argument to bear in mind how they present their cases.




[edit on 26-11-2009 by Nirgal]

reply to post by masqua


Nice thread, masqua.

I agree that over these next few weeks, everyone on both sides of the issue should pay close attention to Copenhagen.

Hopefully this thread will remain on topic with comments and/or criticisms concerning what comes out of the conference. I don't think we need another AGW debate thread.

Let us make sure we understand this correctly : there is no WARMING, it is COOLING, COOLING ! Let us stop the Warming talk, it is getting colder..

The Hole in the Ozon layer, heard much fearmongering about it lately ? Nah, caus the hole is closing it self up, that is why...

And, it is cooler now than when we were between to minor iceages in the medival age... So, how that stack up with Al Gore and the Warming ?

It don't, I dont know about you guys, but I am not letting these criminal marxist world leader wannabe's take my cash, I think very much i need that money my self in preparing for some cold summers..

2012, forget it, 2010 is the disarter you need to be prepared for, and it Aint Warming....

After the decisions are made,
WE... THE PEOPLE OF EARTH
are going to be taxed ludicrisly for CO2 garbage, less money for us, more for the corrupt govs.
There is nowhere near enough evidence to have a meeting about this issue to decide what is going to happen with our civilization.

These halfwit loosers are really f*****g me off,
makes me want to take a gun into the next bilderberg meeting.

This is especially discusting when you realise that we dont even need to burn fossil fuels as there are alternitaves out there.
The american gov are either lying about extraterrestrials or their keeping their world changing technology for themselfs so more reasearch can be funded with our tax... I personally have not seen any benifit in paying taxes.


This world is an absolute sham and i need to kill some people!

Originally posted by ChemBreather
Let us make sure we understand this correctly : there is no WARMING, it is COOLING, COOLING ! Let us stop the Warming talk, it is getting colder..

Belief is a strong influence in the world, no doubt.

I'm interested in the facts, though...

fact  /fækt/ –noun

1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
5. Law. Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of fact, question of law.

dictionary.reference.com...

Here are a a few sites which propose 'facts':

Around the world, the earth's average temperature has risen more than 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.8 degrees Celsius) over the last century, and about twice that in parts of the Arctic.

environment.nationalgeographic.com...

Climate change experts studying hurricanes documented a 35-year warming trend in ocean surface temperature and linked it to larger hurricanes. The increase has been 1 degree Fahrenheit, resulting in four percent more atmospheric water vapor and six to eight percent more rainfall.

www.sciencedaily.com...

Global warming is an increase in the average temperature of Earth's surface. Since the late 1800's, the global average temperature has increased about 0.7 to 1.4 degrees F (0.4 to 0.8 degrees C). Many experts estimate that the average temperature will rise an additional 2.5 to 10.4 degrees F (1.4 to 5.8 degrees C) by 2100. That rate of increase would be much larger than most past rates of increase.

www.nasa.gov...

Records from land stations and ships indicate that the global mean surface temperature warmed by about 0.9°F since 1880 (see Figure 1). These records indicate a near level trend in temperatures from 1880 to about 1910, a rise to 1945, a slight decline to about 1975, and a rise to present (NRC, 2006). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded in 2007 that warming of the climate system is now “unequivocal,” based on observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level

www.epa.gov...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/47e57a7ad197.jpg[/atsimg]

The ten hottest years in the period of instrumental data (since 1861) have all occurred since 1989. The warmest year was 1998, followed by 2002 and 2003 (tied), 2001, 1997, 1995, 1990 & 1999 (tied) and 1991 & 2000 (tied) (Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia), and it is now generally recognized that the 1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the instrumental record.

www.whrc.org...

Over to you, Chembreather.

Would you please provide a counter argument using respected sources of information (comparable to the ones I've used)?

Originally posted by GW8UK
This is especially discusting when you realise that we dont even need to burn fossil fuels as there are alternitaves out there.

Bravo. Yes, there ARE alternatives out there. Now who would be against a move away from fossil fuels?

*cough* the oil industry *cough*

reply to post by masqua


How can you continue to quote the IPCC as a 'respected' source?

Ludicrous.

Youre speaking to us in pre climategate terms. Please update your propaganda.

reply to post by SpaceMonkeys


Here is the link to the IPCC: www.ipcc.ch...

Please direct me to the post in this thread where I have used information from their website.

reply to post by masqua


huh?

Records from land stations and ships indicate that the global mean surface temperature warmed by about 0.9°F since 1880 (see Figure 1). These records indicate a near level trend in temperatures from 1880 to about 1910, a rise to 1945, a slight decline to about 1975, and a rise to present (NRC, 2006). THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE concluded in 2007 that warming of the climate system is now “unequivocal,” based on observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level

www.epa.gov...

Have you even read the leaked emails? If you havent you need to before you make yourself look even more silly, and if you have, youre engaging in 1984 esque doublethink which is downright eerie to me.

Doubleplus ungood.

The idea behind this thread is to find proof.

There is nothing wrong with stating opinions, but unsubstantiated opinions do nothing to further knowledge. This is why it would be preferred that statements made are backed up by credible science. The National Geographic, Woods Hole Institute, NASA and the EPA are, imho, credible sources.

Prove to me, with credible websites, that what the above organizations stated is faulty. Show me the proof that glaciers are NOT receding, that sea levels are NOT rising and that the average global temperatures are NOT on the rise.

Whether CO2 from human activity is the primary cause of these problematic evidences is a facet that can be debated, certainly, but what's truly important are the effects themselves.

It's an interesting fact that the sea level in the Arctic has actually dropped while the southerly portions of the worlds oceans have risen. What does that mean?

It's also a fact that as land ice melts, the land underneath rises as the weight of the ice is relieved. What effect does that have on sea levels?

Another fact is the immense amount of CO2 trapped in the permafrost of tundras. As those northern areas warm up, that CO2 is released into the atmosphere. How does that relate?

Lots of questions, so few answers.