The climate meeting in Copenhagen, COP15, the United Nations' Conference, December 2009.
The Copenhagen Meeting ended without any legal binding agreement. It was only agreed upon that actions should be taken in order to avoid that the average world temperature increases more than 2 degrees Celsius. Huh?! As if the politicians can make laws about how the weather is going to be! Environmentalists all over the world had hoped that the result would have been a worthy replacement of the Kyoto Protocol, which in 2012 will cease to be the set of rules between those countries that believe in a regulation of pollution such as the CO2 emissions. Skeptics who doesn't believe in those scientist who inform about the ongoing global warming could maybe be more content with the missing result of the Copenhagen Meeting (see more about this meeting at www.copenhagenmeeting.com). However, the skeptics are not happy either, because they know very well that the environmentalists do not stop, and they fear that the politicians in many countries will use the global warming theory as an excuse for increased taxes etc.
During the week the Copenhagen Meeting took place several dramatic events happened. Copenhagen was full of demonstrators, the vast majority of them were environmentalists who wanted to put some pressure on the politicians. Some of the demands were to give more aid to the developing countries, in order to make these countries develop in a more environmental friendly way; other demands were directed to the USA and China who have not yet signed the Kyoto Protocol; and it is obvious that that those two countries are reluctant to sign a Copenhagen Agreement that most likely would have been even more strict than the agreement of Kyoto. The demonstrations were peaceful, but even so, hundreds of demonstrators were arrested (it was also later revealed that the police had made illegal 'tapping' of some green NGO organizations' phones). It has to be emphasized that such police activities are highly unusual in Denmark. Another dramatic event was the revealed news that several governments and some UN organizations had deliberately hidden the works of those scientists that do not agree with the Global Warming Theory. It was even claimed that some of the photos showing pollution and melting of the Polar ice had been manipulated. The obvious name for such activities is of course ClimateGate!
So what is the truth? Do we have a 'Global Warming' or a Global Scam, i.e. a 'ClimateGate? The problem is that we do not know the answer to that question before year 2050, and in my opinion it is then too late. We must stop now to pollute and invest in green energy etc. (See more at www.global-climate.com). I (for my part) do not need scientific proof today, when I know that the ice of Greenland and the Poles are melting. The eternal snow on Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa is melting. And in the Himalayans what used to be glaciers are now lakes. And I do not believe that NASA and many other photographers are member of a giant conspiracy plot! There will always be experts, who will postulate the opposite theory. And I can understand if those scientists who can see the danger of the global warming don't have time for irrelevant disputes.
Good article, but don't forget about the sun. Just because ice is melting in certain parts of the world doesn't mean its a bad thing. How do you think the ice all melted when the last Ice Age ended? Ice melts and re-freezes all the time, its just that nowadays we have ways of recording it and spreading the word. If you're interested I also have a global warming article that exposes all of the lies and exaggerations that you often hear, including about ice caps and glaciers melting.
anyways, hope to see more from you on infobarrel in the future!
Hello my new friend,
I don't believe in the MMGW religion. (mad made global warming) It is the perfect scam to trick post religious people into a new believe system, to shame them into guilt. We judeo-christians are so open to accept guilt. The fraud gives socialist politicians the power to take away our freedoms, to tax us into the poorhouse, to tell us what to do and what not to do.
Disclosures over the last couple of months have made it clear for everybody that the whole MMGW-theory is a lie. Last week, the UN had even to admit that their passionate claims about melting glaciers was not true.
Listen, it took us over 200 years to add 1 CO2 molecule per 10,000 molecules of air. And now we have not even 4 CO2 molecules (3.85) per 10,000 molecules of air. Come on, be realistic. Even worse (or better) there are now studies that even dispute the raise of CO2 in the air: December 2009, Cardiff university UK.
The temperature on the earth, even in recent history, has been warmer than now: Roman period (-200, +200, Viking period 800-1200). There are far better explanations for the change in temperatures. To name two: the sun-spots, and our position in the milky way. Our sun and its planets travels during a 270 million year journey around in the milky way. During that journey it encounters star-configurations that produce more or less radiation, which affects the cloud formation on the Earth.
What the MMGW believers want to do is make us all poor. To really have any meaning or effect we would have to shut down our industries, we would have to live back as in the 17th century or even earlier. Millions of people would die. To look it from the opposite side: only rich free nations take care of their environment. Look for example what the USSR did with their environment: a poisonous disaster. The only solution to sustain or environment is to make sure a maximum of people and nations become rich. The best way to create rich nations, to create rich people is Capitalism, free market enterprise.
I'm just saying.
Well, I get your point, and there are many correct issues in your comment. But in my opinion there are also several unclear issues; let me first of all ask you this:
What is a rich country? If you asked the same question about a man, then you would most likely answer: The one who has the most money in the bank, and no debts!
So the rich countries should be the countries with no national debt!
Well the USA's economy is right now not the most healthy one, and I understand very well those Americans who ask themselves:
Can we afford expensive investments in antipollution technique? (And even at the same as someone wants a new way of financing health care)
I agree totally with you that the answer to this is not to reduce the industrial production.
I also agree with you that it is very wrong (and unfair) to put the guilt on private individuals (or the ordinary industrial company).
However, I assume that most people agree upon that unnecessary pollution should be avoided, irregardless of whether this has any impact on the weather or not.
I have traveled a lot, and I have lived in many different countries of the world.
I have personally seen how there today is less ice (snow) on top of Mount Kilimanjaro, Africa than there was when I lived there almost 40 years ago.
I have seen that there is less ice in Greenland now than 3 decades ago.
In Scandinavia, where I now live, the average yearly temperature has clearly increased, measured on ten years periods (even though we right now have an extremely cold January).
I do not have MMGW as a religion, but I am convinced that we all have to change the way we consume polluting energy. And it does not have to cost money (in fact it can even be done in a way that improves the economy).
Finally, I agree with you 100% that the burden should not be put on the underdeveloped (Third World) countries. There are many other reasons than climate issues why these countries should become more industrialized in a capitalistic way.
Absolutely, if we can do it without pollution, the better. But it is only when you are rich enough to feed, shelter and cover yourself and your family that you will pay attention to conserve the beauty of the land, the air, the water.
Rich: countries with a living standard well above the average. You are right that the USA is in deep debt. The current administration, if not stopped, will double the debt in 4 years, and triple it in 8 years! There is hope for change in November 2010, and November 2012.
A remark on Kilimandjaro. I have been there too as a tourist. The surface of snow is evaporating (not melting, it freezes up there) because no new snow is added. Why? Agriculture and poverty have changed the environment (cut forests) at the bottom of the mountain. Less humidity is raising up to become snow and fall on top of the mountain. If the locals would have been able to have cheap access to coal to burn, they wouldn't had the need to cut the forests. If the locals would have had cheap access to fertilizers (made from oil) they would have been able to raise more food on the existing land, and not have to cut the forest.
The undeniable fact is that renewable energy (Wind, Sun, Bio) costs a lot more to produce than energy made from coal and oil. These new energies are unsustainable without a lot of subsidies, thus a lot of extra taxes.
Finally I dismiss your most important premise. I'm not sure you can name CO2 a pollutant. I exhale that stuff. Plants live from CO2. Thus, more CO2 in the air is probable not bad. Plants and food grow faster and bigger with more CO2. The amount of CO2 we make by driving cars, or making energy is a small portion of the CO2 in the air.
I became somewhat surprised when I read your comment, (so I had to close-read my own article and comments) because I have personally NOT called CO2 a pollutant, nor do I believe that the climate changes that we face right now are caused primarily by CO2 emissions from cars and industries etc.
I only mentioned CO2 once, and all I did was referring that the Kyoto Protocol and the aim of the Copenhagen Meeting was a regulation of CO2 emissions.
My private opinion is merely that pollution of any kind does not stop at the man made borders, and thus International Protocols are needed.
I also believe that the aid to poor people in Asia and Africa who suffer because of the shortage of rain should be helped by means of international aid.
And in particular (as you so precisely explain) they should be helped in such a way that they are not forced to cut down the trees in their CO2 consuming forests.
Well we pretty much agree then. It is very nice.
The best thing for the poor fellows is to have a representative government that limits itself to creating a stable judicial system and to protect them from foreign enemies. let them free. But, that is valid for us too. I have serious doubts about giving people something for nothing for an extended period. They become dependent, and the money stream is hijacked by the 'regime' in charge, and by the NGO's making a living out of 'helping'. I have no problem to help people back on their feet after a big disaster, as now in Haiti, or after the tsunami a few years back.
Mr. Lombard, the director of the Copenhagen Concensus center wrote today a piece in the Wall Street Journal that will interest you.
As you most likely know already Lomborg and I are both Danish. I read some of his first publications years ago (before he entered the international arena). I have never been impressed by his so called scientific methods, and I do not take his writing serious. It is however a coup that he calls his center for "consensus"; - I can assure you that very few in Denmark are in consensus with Lomborg.
I watched some great TED talks about this. I think that even lacking scientific proof, we should be taking as much initiative to protect the environment we're a part of. Even if the temperatures don't end up rising that much (which I find unlikely), current practices could very well create toxic environments unfit for human life, regardless of the temperature.
I am still very disappointed over the poor results of the UN's COP15 climate meeting in Copenhagen, Denmark.
Well, 'poor results' is even an understatement. To be precise (in my opinion) the result was ZERO!