Climate Change Protests on 5th December in London

During the 6th December - 18th December 2009 the Copenhagen climate conference must achieve positive results in terms of agreements, deals towards reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

The current path we are on is leading to 6 degrees celcius temperature increases.

World on course for catastrophic 6° rise, reveal scientists

The world is now firmly on course for the worst-case scenario in terms of climate change, with average global temperatures rising by up to 6C by the end of the century, leading scientists said yesterday. Such a rise – which would be much higher nearer the poles – would have cataclysmic and irreversible consequences for the Earth, making large parts of the planet uninhabitable and threatening the basis of human civilisation.

We are headed for it, the scientists said, because the carbon dioxide emissions from industry, transport and deforestation which are responsible for warming the atmosphere have increased dramatically since 2002, in a way which no one anticipated, and are now running at treble the annual rate of the 1990s.

My country may indeed become a paradise, but we don't have room for 6 billion people so, this is going to lead to wars for survival over water, resources, and even just for habitats to live in.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Despite promises by the present Prime Minister to "robustly protect" the Green Belt, the Government plans to review the way that it restricts development around 27 towns in England – with "review" in this context meaning "remove". The Government is determined to ensure that an enormous number of new houses are built, and built quickly, which can only be done if the existing restrictions on building over Green Belt land are dismantled.

World on course for catastrophic 6° rise, reveal scientists

"As the ice-caps melt, hundreds of millions will also be forced to move inland due to rapidly-rising seas. As world food supplies crash, the higher mid-latitude and sub-polar regions would become fiercely-contested refuges.

"The British Isles, indeed, might become one of the most desirable pieces of real estate on the planet. But, with a couple of billion people knocking on our door, things might quickly turn rather ugly."

The labour govt. in the UK is planning to build houses on green belt land, which contradicts their plans to fight climate change.

This brings me to the following source:

Copenhagen conference won't stop climate change

Ed Miliband, the climate change secretary, has admitted that next month’s United Nations climate conference in Copenhagen will not produce any binding treaty to tackle climate change.

Instead he hopes that it will “lead, on a very clear timetable, to a legally binding treaty”.

Miliband’s statement is an admission that the world’s leaders are to disgracefully fail everyone.

The Kyoto Protocol, which is due to expire in 2012, commits a number of countries to targets for cutting carbon emissions.

There is an urgent need to reach a new agreement to succeed Kyoto.

Copenhagen is the last time that a meeting at government level will take place before Kyoto expires.

Many won’t be surprised that our governments are throwing away the chance to stop climate change.

After all, Miliband showed his concern for the environment by this week announcing plans to rush through ten new nuclear power stations.

Instead of trying to tackle climate change, world leaders are fighting among themselves over which countries will make the biggest sacrifices.

Meanwhile, the Danish government is clearly expecting a big protest by climate activists at the summit.

It is planning to bring new riot laws into force before the summit. These would represent a major crackdown on the right to protest.

Currently police can arrest people “pre-emptively”—those who have committed no crime—and hold them for six hours. The new law would increase this to 12 hours.

Penalty

The normal penalty for the hindering the authorities—such as the police, the fire brigade or the ambulance service—is a fine.

The new law would up this penalty to a 40-day prison sentence.

It would also increase the amount that people can be fined for failing to disperse from protests.

Some activists have described the package of laws as “a bomb under democracy”.

The fight against climate change has exposed the gaping hole between the needs of ordinary people and the priorities of world leaders.

The outrageous attitude of those at the top is fuelling the anger of those who want to save the planet.

The most effective way to fight for serious action on climate change is to make sure that the anger is taken onto the streets in London on 5 December and in Copenhagen on 12 December.

I have decided to go to London on the 5th December and join the rallies.

After seeing videos of police brutality in Pittsburgh in ths US this year, and from London last year, in the G20 protests, only more of the same brutality can be expected in December. This will not stop me from going and protesting peacefully, and using my rights to do so.

I will try to take as many photos and videos as I can of the demonstrations, and post them on youtube and on this thread.

On our current course, we cannot sustain a 6 degree temperature rise, and this will lead to the extinction of most plants and animals on planet earth. We must all do whatever we can to prevent this catastrophe!

[edit on 18-11-2009 by john124]

good luck with that friend, i hope you stay safe.

I might go down and protest too but its alot of money for the train which i dotn have, and given my beliefs i think its best not, i dont think we are causing global warming i believe its the earths cycle basically, we may of helped increase its rate of change but i dont think we caused it, so if i go i will bew down as anti tax on climate change.

reply to post by thecrow001


Thanks for the support.

I'm planning on travelling by National Express coach.

Should be cheaper than going by train.

Keep safe.

[edit on 18-11-2009 by john124]

Of course, I support your right to protest, and I wish you well as you do so. May all your activities lead us to a better ecology. I would like to offer some constructive advice, however.

What exactly are you protesting for? A treaty, if I understand you correctly. But what treaty? What are the terms you feel are necessary? What will you accept; what will you not accept? Are you demanding CO2 reductions? How much? Will you accept higher energy costs in return? How much higher? Higher taxes? How much higher? Would you accept limits on how much energy you can use, as in gasoline rationing or electrical energy rationing?

I ask these questions because the sole reason things do not get done over protests is that usually the protesters themselves do not fully know what they want. You need exact, specific things to demand, else your demands are quickly glossed over by those in power because they realize you don't really know what you want. It's like a child crying on the street corner who won't tell anyone what is wrong. You can't help, because you don't know how to help.

So yes, despite the fact that I do not agree with any forecasts of a 6°C temperature rise, I must applaud you for your efforts to make your voice heard. Just be sure your message is clear, or louder won't make a difference.

Above all, be careful. Please.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


Thanks for your input. I don't claim to be an expert in fixing the problems, and I disagree with your assertion that it's like a child crying in the street. I don't intend to be extremely vocal unless I have a game plan. I have a couple of weeks to decide exactly what action should be taken, but it's obvious that we need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions as a general assertion.

I intend to join friends who are associated with "Friends of the Earth". I disagree with those who are associated with greenpeace who climb on top of government buildings to make a point, as it's only detrimental to the cause, and I prefer that people educate themselves with the science, rather than instead provoke an entirely emotional response from people, so the people can hopefully make up their own minds correctly.

There is however a problem to be fixed - that is undeniable, and I intend to go to London and be part of a protest movement towards some form of solution. I also intend to make a day of it, and go round a few pubs on the way - as is the English mentality of life!

[edit on 18-11-2009 by john124]

Tbh this is what happens when the world is run by business men. Its all money money money and more money. Rape the world and let the kids deal with it i had my fun.......

put it this way centuries ago we was ruled by thugs we changed that. Then we got rid of the thugs and let business men run the world...now the business men have had they day so dont you think its time we let scientists run the world......

It seems like everytime a Global Warming rally is held, the city it is held in experiences a freak cold spell or blizzard.

I'll be rooting for a massive blizzard with record low temperatures!

A Global Warming rally in the middle of the 3rd coolest year in the last 100? It doesn't seem right.

reply to post by Carseller4

A Global Warming rally in the middle of the 3rd coolest year in the last 100? It doesn't seem right.

Over short term periods the earth may cool, but over longer periods it will heat up. That was expected to happen, so it's not a surprise if it does.

Other environmental including wind increases are occuring right now in the UK, likely as a consequence of an increase in greenhouse gases.

So... protesting to be enslaved... how british of them.

Seriously, those useful idiots don't know squat about what this is really about. They really don't understand much, I know, my cousin is a global warming nazi and she doesn't understand the whole picture.

Of course she thinks Al Gore just want the good of the planet... And that carbon permits for children and carbon rations are good ... ect...

Reasoning with those people is almost impossible.

reply to post by john124


Protest: an expression or declaration of objection, disapproval, or dissent, often in opposition to something a person is powerless to prevent or avoid

OK. So you're joining a protest (by your thread title) of a meeting you're actually in support of?

reply to post by Vitchilo


We known for over 100 years that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas - it's a well established fact!

The science is undeniable except to the ignorant.

People should recognise that at the very least - precautionary measures are required.

Originally posted by john124

Thanks for your input. I don't claim to be an expert in fixing the problems, and I disagree with your assertion that it's like a child crying in the street. I don't intend to be extremely vocal unless I have a game plan. I have a couple of weeks to decide exactly what action should be taken, but it's obvious that we need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions as a general assertion.
..............

Really? How is it "evident" that CO2 is causing any kind of harm to Earth?

You do have a right to protest if you want, even if you are protesting against something which is not the cause, and we are NOT going towards a 6 C increase...

How much have you studied Climate Change? or do you just take the word of policymakers, politicians, and environmentalists who are doing this for their agendas just to get more power, and more control?...

reply to post by john124


Just because CO2 is a greenhouse gas it doesn't mean it is the cause...and the "precautionary measures" you are agreeing with includes a reduction of CO2, and even the sequestration of CO2 to up to 80% -95% of 1990s levels... That means going back to the dark ages, well almost.... But anyway, we do not have the technology to do this, not to mention the fact that the entire Earth's ecosystem NEEDS atmospheric CO2....

Have you ever studied the layers of Earth's atmosphere?

I know you are not aware that the Troposphere, which is he lowest layer on Earth's atmosphere contains approximately 75% of the atmosphere's mass and 99% of its water vapor, CO2 and aerosols. The Troposphere is also the one atmospheric layer that has some effect on surface temperatures, as well as being the atmospheric layer where all surface weather occurs, and in it WATER VAPOR, and not CO2, is the main ghg.

In the Troposphere water vapor accounts for 95%-98% of the greenhouse effect, meanwhile the rest of the ghgs which includes CO2 account for about 2% -5% of the greenhouse effect.

Water vapor is 99.999% NATURAL, so there is NOTHING you can do to stop Climate Change, and that's again without mentioning that sequestration of CO2 means you are starving the green biomass of Earth, which also means less harvest, which means MORE STARVATION OF PEOPLE AND ANIMALS...

The Earth BENEFITS from having CO2, and throughout the entire lifetime of Earth the Earth has experienced 7-16 times as much CO2 in it's atmosphere. Animal life, and plant life, as well as life in the oceans THRIVED with more atmospheric CO2, but people like you have been brainwashed to believe the lie that CO2 is bad.

You do know you are living in a CARBON based world right?... You do know that ALL plant life thrives with higher concentrations of CO2 right?...

Successful indoor growers implement methods to increase CO2 concentrations in their enclosure. The typical outdoor air we breathe contains 0.03 - 0.045% (300 - 450 ppm) CO2. Research demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2. These optimum CO2 levels can boost plant metabolism, growth and yield by 25 - 60%.

www.planetnatural.com...

and as a matter of fact...

Rebecca Lindsey June 5, 2003

Leaving aside for a moment the deforestation and other land cover changes that continue to accompany an ever-growing human population, the last two decades of the twentieth century were a good time to be a plant on planet Earth. In many parts of the global garden, the climate grew warmer, wetter, and sunnier, and despite a few El Niño-related setbacks, plants flourished for the most part.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

I am sorry but I have to laugh at the ignorance of people like you who claim anyone and everyone that doesn't agree with the lies you have acepted is ignorant, when it is obvious you are the ignorant one....

BTW, first of all...

The first neotropical rainforest was home of the Titanoboa
Published: Monday, October 12, 2009 - 15:09 in Paleontology & Archaeology

Smithsonian researchers working in Colombia's Cerrejón coal mine have unearthed the first megafossil evidence of a neotropical rainforest. Titanoboa, the world's biggest snake, lived in this forest 58 million years ago at temperatures 3-5 C warmer than in rainforests today, indicating that rainforests flourished during warm periods. "Modern neotropical rainforests, with their palms and spectacular flowering-plant diversity, seem to have come into existence in the Paleocene epoch, shortly after the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago," said Carlos Jaramillo, staff scientist at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. "Pollen evidence tells us that forests before the mass extinction were quite different from our fossil rainforest at Cerrejón. We find new plant families, large, smooth-margined leaves and a three-tiered structure of forest floor, understory shrubs and high canopy."

esciencenews.com...

But keep siding with the policymakers, politicians and environmentalists who only want more money, and power and they are using ignorant people like yourself to get what they want.

[edit on 19-11-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by Vitchilo


Vitchilo, is good to know we at least agree on something.

Some people can't seem to understand that those in power want population control, and among the many things they can do to "depopulate the Earth" is to sequester atmospheric CO2 so that there are less harvests and people can continue to starve...

Not to mention the fact that what companies are going to do is MOVE to China, India, Russia etc who have already stated several times they are not going to accept any cap in their emissions... But some people are too naive to understand what this means....

11 Jun 2009: China Will Not Accept

Binding CO2 Targets at Copenhagen

China will not accept a cap on its carbon emissions at upcoming climate talks in Copenhagen, Chinese officials said. After several days of U.S.-China climate meetings in Beijing, Chinese officials said that placing a ceiling on its greenhouse gas emissions would stunt its economic growth. “China is still a developing country and the present task confronting China is to develop its economy and alleviate poverty,” a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said. “Given that, it is natural for China to have some increase in its emissions, so it is not possible for China... to accept a binding, compulsory target.” U.S.

e360.yale.edu...

Russian climate official rejects plans for post-Kyoto caps
Russia signals it will not accept binding emission cuts as part of post-2012 deal

BusinessGreen Staff, BusinessGreen, 29 Apr 2008

Russia looks set to challenge the United States' title as the country most hostile to a post-Kyoto agreement after a top government official said yesterday that the government would not countenance binding caps on its greenhouse emissions.

According to Reuters' reports, Vsevolod Gavrilov, the official in charge of delivering Russia's obligations under the Kyoto agreement, said that the country had no plans to cap the use of fossil fuels.

"Energy must not be a barrier to our comfort. Our emerging middle class... demands lots of energy and it is our job to ensure comfortable supply," he told Reuters. "We do not plan to limit the use of fuel for our industries. We do not think this would be right."

www.businessgreen.com...

India blinks on emission caps
Nitin Sethi, TNN 12 July 2009, 12:33am IST

NEW DELHI: Has India blinked in the climate change negotiations? This seems to be the case as at the Major Economies Forum meeting in Italy, India has gone back on some of its key principles -- like a refusal to accept emission caps -- that it held to be non-negotiable till just before the G-8 meet in Italy.

In the course of some tough negotiations, India appears to have bent a bit in the face of pressure from industrialized countries, and the biggest compromise at the MEF was to accept that all countries would work to reduce emissions in order to not let global temperatures rise more than 2 degrees above pre-industrialisation levels.

timesofindia.indiatimes.com...

There are people that obviously can't understand that western countries accepting cap emissions will only redistribute wealth to those countries which have said THEY WILL NOT ACCEPT EMISSION CAPS...

This will mean that RICH companies will MOVE out of western countries that accept emission caps...

This means less jobs in western countries..

Since the U.S. is in a lot of debt to China, this could be one of the reasons why the Obama administration are going to be accepting emission caps, as a deal with China not to demand from the U.S. to pay back our debt, and in this manner MORE BUSINESSES GO TO CHINA, and other countries that ARE NOT GOING TO ACCEPT any emission caps...

And BTW...the same thing will happen in European countries...

But again, some people don't seem to understand what this means...

But hey, those people that want are free to protest all they want about the "evil CO2" meanwhile in their ignorance they are only siding with the rich elitists who want redistribution of wealth...



[edit on 19-11-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Actually it's around 20% contributing towards the greenhouse effect from carbon dioxide, 50% - water vapour, 25% due to clouds and around 5% for other gases.

www.newscientist.com...

So why aren't climate scientists a lot more worried about water vapour than about CO2? The answer has to do with how long greenhouse gases persist in the atmosphere. For water, the average is just a few days.

This rapid turnover means that even if human activity was directly adding or removing significant amounts of water vapour (it isn't), there would be no slow build-up of water vapour as is happening with CO2

What is certain is that, in the jargon of climate science, water vapour is a feedback, but not a forcing.

you said:

Water vapor is 99.999% NATURAL, so there is NOTHING you can do to stop Climate Change, and that's again without mentioning that sequestration of CO2 means you are starving the green biomass of Earth, which also means less harvest, which means MORE STARVATION OF PEOPLE AND ANIMALS...

We can prevent a runaway greenhouse effect by reducing the contribution by CO2. The plants and animals thrived before man-made CO2 emissions were around, and the temperature rises this will cause would be the primary cause of drought, famine, etc.

I've call people ignorant when they ignore these basic scientific facts. It seems you call others ignorant because they choose not to believe in your conspiracies, especially when you have so little facts to back it up.

What you are claiming as long-term benefits to high CO2 levels are only in fact short-term benefits, and once a threshold point is reached - it will lead to far worser consequences which outweigh the positives.

This is analogous to recent research concluding that drinking a bottle of wine a day reduces chances of heart disease by around 1/3 - short-term benefits, although later on a good chance of liver failure. Personally, I do not want the Earth to have liver failure so we can grow a few more crops today!!!

You also seem to confuse natural climate change with man-made climate change, or rather just ignore the latter.

I used to think the theory of the sun cycles as being the major cause due to decreases in solar wind causing an increase in cosmic ray impacts, and therefore an increase in cloud formation. But this theory has never being proven, yet it has been tested rigorously.

The Earth BENEFITS from having CO2, and throughout the entire lifetime of Earth the Earth has experienced 7-16 times as much CO2 in it's atmosphere. Animal life, and plant life, as well as life in the oceans THRIVED with more atmospheric CO2, but people like you have been brainwashed to believe the lie that CO2 is bad.

You do know you are living in a CARBON based world right?... You do know that ALL plant life thrives with higher concentrations of CO2 right?...

I didn't say CO2 was only good or only bad! - I understand both the positives and negatives of CO2. Thanks for the reminder that we are carbon based, as you never know when someone might forget that!

You do realise that life thrived in an ecosystem with higher CO2 in the past, with levels that increased slower and so life adapted slower and so were suited for that environment. In the modern day CO2 levels are increasing at an unnatural rate, and so this has unnatural consequences to life that cannot adapt quickly enough to survive over a few decades.

Never mind if the polar bears and most animal life dies out, as the plants will thrive in Europe! WOW!!! You really are dense!!!

You know what is most interesting out of all of this - even if the human race became extinct, along with 99% plant life and animals in a mass extinction. In millions or so years in the future, this may even lead to a different species to evolve and take it's place on Earth as the most dominant species - but that isn't guaranteed if a runaway greenhouse effect takes hold. I doubt any new species could treat the Earth any worse than humans are currently, so maybe the human race does deserve to go into the rubbish bin of history if we cannot treat planet earth and its occupants with more respect.

[edit on 19-11-2009 by john124]

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Here's some real science to debunk your pseudo:

Water vapour is not the dominant greenhouse gas

Water vapour is a "reactive" GHG with a short atmospheric lifetime of about 1 week. If you pump out a whole load of extra water vapour it won't stay in the atmosphere; it would condense as rain/snow and we'd be back to where we started. If you sucked the atmosphere dry of moisture, more would evaporate from the oceans. The balance is dynamic of course: humidity of the air varies by place and time, but its a stable balance.

In contrast, CO2 has a long lifetime (actually calculating a single "lifetime" for it doesn't work; but a given CO2 pulse such as we're supplying now will hang around for.. ohh... a century or more). It doesn't rain out (amusing factoid: the surface temperature of the deep interior Antarctica in winter can be colder than the freezing point of CO2; but this doesn't lead to CO2 snow (sadly, it would be fun) because the freezing point is lower because of the lower pressure because its higher up). So if you put in extra CO2 the climate warms a bit; because of this move WV evaporates (it doesn't have to, but just about all models show that the relative humidity tends to be about constant; so if you heat the atmos that means that the absolute humidity will increase). This in turn warms the atmosphere warms up a bit more; so more water gets evaporates. This is a positive feedback but a limited one: the increments (if you think of it that way) get smaller not larger so there is no runaway GH effect.

So: adding CO2 to the atmosphere warms it a bit and ends up with more WV. Adding WV does nothing much and the atmos returns to equilibrium. This is why WV is not the *dominant* GHG; its more like a submissive GHG :-)

[edit on 19-11-2009 by john124]

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


www.newscientist.com...

Here's an even simpler way of putting it:

Water is a major greenhouse gas too, but its level in the atmosphere depends on temperature. Excess water vapour rains out in days. Excess CO2 accumulates, warming the atmosphere, which raises water vapour levels and causes further warming.

The causes and effects of both water vapour and CO2 are extremely intertwined with each other.

Partially related, but has anybody read this thread in the Breaking News section?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Shirakawa


Interesting, but you do realise the examiner is claiming alien disclosure as being imminent during November. Of course they could be right about both stories, or neither, but we don't have long to wait until we find out about the disclosure story, and if it doesn't happen the Examiner loses credibility as a source.

Double post.

[edit on 20/11/2009 by budski]