Why doesn't US/China want to lower their emmissions???!!!!

Originally posted by NoEXcUseS
Indeed they have. So they go about it by hijacking the environment-conscious movement

They never had to hijack any environmental movement. They always had the denialist rightwing doing the bidding for them. The ones that would happily turn the other cheek away from environmental issues and worry more about flag pins and religion. They didnt have to hijack anything, they have the denialists doing the bidding for them.

This notion that cap and trade is something they are behind is the very thing they'd want you to believe, and the rightwing are doing a good job covering for them, as they always do.

Originally posted by gdeed
Third world countries don't have corporations,

Third world countries dont have corporations of their own? Your right to an extent, most third world countries dont have corporations of their own, they have the multinational corporations doing the bidding on their environment. Bribing a third world country to bypass environmental concerns aint too hard as opposed to first world countries.

"Third world countries dont have corporations"

Wow, just wow. I supposed we'll ignore the anglo-timber corporations that did their bidding in south america, or the anglo-dutch corporations that did their bidding over valuable resources in africa. Oh yes and we'll just ignore the multi-corporate giants that are responsible for giving Peruvian childrean lung diseases. And all you have to come up with is that "they dont have corporations of their own". I mean where are you getting your talking points from I ask?

reply to post by Redneck from Hell


Because the goal here has nothing to do with saving the world and everything to do with transfering the wealth of the planet.
Or should I say resources.

I just read an article in reuters US edition saying that China and US are not going to cut emmissions as much as previously planned and in the Africa Reuters it gave the same story , only it stated that the Us and China would not be investing into the African Continent as much.

Theyre playing all of us here.

Originally posted by neo5842
People who still believe global warming is a fact,

The transcripts just involve some scientists have their differences over data, which is not unusual in that field. This is supposedly evidence that the entire theory is a hoax. This entire theory that global warming is a sham based on afew emails is getting the rightwing "heated up" and yet this is some how to conclude it to be fake? There was always anti-global warming sentiment on the right, and these reactions over these emails are no different.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


SG, still plying the emails are no big thing.

C'mon, not one person has said they are in anyway fake, so they are real number one.

Number two, if anyone wants to look at the emails, just google them.

Instead of taking someones word for it that they do not indicate the lie.

Hiding the Decline. YouTube has a funny vid about that, check out M4GW. A little music to sooth the savage beast.

Also look who is behind the GW movement and you may find your answers to the whole debacle.

Tax and Control. Pollution is bad. CO2 is a scam-period!

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

SG, still plying the emails are no big thing.

Would you have me to act in shock over the "outrage" coming from conservatives? The anti global warming sentiment from conservatives is old news buddy, this is just another hype fest. this is why this entire fiasco is recieving minimal attention outside the rightwing sphere. Trust the folks directly or indirectly working for the corporate shills to tell me a couple of emails prove a global disaster is a hoax.

Some scientists are arguing over some piece of data, and this is proof its all a sham?

C'mon, not one person has said they are in anyway fake,

Never said they were fake. I said they were a bunch of scientists struddin their egos, and thats that. A bunch of scientists debating over data and this concludes the entire thing is a hoax? Globally? And I'd take it that the majority of scientists who have agreed with this were all in on it?

I mean I'd figure the corporations would try a little harder eh? Far right are running around crying wolf, as they always have. Only this time they are running around with a bunch of emails. You expect me to change?

Number two, if anyone wants to look at the emails, just google them.

The emails show a bunch of scientists arguing differences in data. Iv read them and see nothing more.

Instead of taking someones word for it that they do not indicate the lie.

Whose taking somebody elses word? None of those emails mention any denial of global warming. Its just a bunch scientists arguing over data. You would have me just assume its all a hoax based on this? Why dont you stop getting your information from corporate hacks eh?

Its mostly an ego fest, but theres this quick assumption that the differences in findings over global warming data points to a hoax, which is idiotic. It doesnt point to any such thing, in fact there isnt even one email where the scientists deny the existence of global warming. I had a look at it to see this fuss and its some 1000 emails, to which they all roughly show egos being thrown around by scientists. I mean seriously? This is the proof?

I'd bet my bottom dollar the majority of the rightwing contrarians here didnt even bother to read the emails, they just jumped on the hateful hating bandwagon and assumed..... typical. So, why dont you google the emails and show me where exactly the scientists deny the existence of global warming or where theres this indication the entire things a hoax.

[edit on 13-12-2009 by Southern Guardian]

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Here you go SG. Just a couple of the Emails. I knew I would find it.

Thanks to IgnoranceisntBliss for putting them together.

IgnoranceisntBliss comment on emails.

And the quote so you will not have to go to the link.

1256747199 Keith succeeding in being very restrained in his response. McIntyre knew what he was doing when he replaced some of the trees with those from another site.

843161829 I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. ...I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have

1252164302 We cherry-picked the tree-ring series in Eurasia.

938018124 everyone in the room at IPCC was in agreement that this (cooling trend) was a problem and a potential distraction / detraction from the reasonably concensus viewpoint we’d like to show

938018124 I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago.

1255523796 The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not!

1120593115 I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences.

1051190249 I use the word ‘perceived’ here, since whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about — it is how the journal is seen by the community that counts.

1089318616 I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!

1177890796 I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not always the same.

1256735067 As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations,

[edit on 12/13/2009 by endisnighe]

reply to post by endisnighe


The particular data wasnt clear, always mixed, and as this is a discussion between afew scientists over confusing data, I doubt this is the overall consensus that global warming is a hoax.

I'd get afew priest discussing their doubts over christianity due to some world events, and this automatically adds to prove that christianity itself is a sham? Am I so bold as to make such a large assumption on behalf of 1 billion or so christians?

Its also interesting to note that all of the record hottest days in history were recorded in the 20th and 21st centuries, following and during the industrial revolutions and record population growth. But yes, the contrarians think this entire thing is restricted to the climate and heat? I mean theres this ignorance that this is a climatic event. It doesnt have to be any of the sort. Over the last 50 years the northern ice caps shrank to half its size and for the first time in human memory, the northern passage was cleared in recent times.

So what explanation do contrarians have for this fact? A bunch of emails from afew scientists squabbling over data, and this assumption that this has been a regular occurence. Oh yes, indeed an assumption, as human memory had not recorded such record changes. Ironically the same thing rightwing contrarians accuse global warmests of, they do on a daily bases with their assumptions.

Its no wonder we continue to find ourselves in this mess. We have the contrarians knowingling or unknowingly working for the corporate hacks.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


If the scientists that are behind the Global Warming theory are having misgivings about the legitimacy of their data, and squabbling amongst themselves about it, I find it hard to trust their conclusions. Especially when the funding they get for their research comes from...the government! This has become such a highly politicized ordeal that its hard to sort the fact from the fiction anymore.

Any climate models that attempt to predict the climate with any reasonable degree of accuracy are false. I don't care if they show warming or cooling, or spontaneous combustion of our atmosphere, there are too many unaccountable variables that we have no means of measuring, and the more assumptions you make in an model, the larger the degree of inaccuracy. We simply do not understand the climate enough to try and point in the direction it is going.

I mean, how often does the local weatherman get things right? Sometimes I can't even believe those guys get paid for what they are doing. Maybe it's just because the weather where I live is very unpredictable (Northern Pacific California) but when they say 30% chance of rain we get dumped on, and when they say 70% chance of rain the skies clear up and the birds start singing .

NEXUS

reply to post by Southern Guardian


And yet...I'm starting to wonder a little more now, because the MSM spun the *bleep* out of those emails, saying that "the Global Warming movement has been dealt a serious blow" and the like, that it's just more eye/brain candy for the masses to confuse them even further in the matter. I have to admit, they are pretty good at being confusing, thats for sure.

I am by no means staunch in my opinion on Global Warming/AGW, and you certainly bring up some very good points from your perspective, SG.

Maybe we could do a little U2U, because I would love to hear more on your educated opinion, I need to hear from every possible angle.

Regards, NEXUS

It isn't really the state that is the problem, it's the corporations. No corporation wants to invest their own time and money into green production methods to solve a problem that we may or may not even be the cause of and if one corporation steps up to the plate and changes things up, there is no guarantee that any other corporation will actually follow suit, meaning that the first company to make a move will have to raise prices and won't be able to compete. That's why Obama is trying to get cap and trade going, although I doubt that is the right solution, or even a good one for that matter. A carbon tax might be more fair to small business.

Originally posted by NoEXcUseS
If the scientists that are behind the Global Warming theory are having misgivings about the legitimacy of their data,

If the scientists? You mean if some of the scientists are having misgivings? This is the nature of science, the data never comes our perfect on all instances, but the concensus of scientists globally is that global warming exists. A couple of scientists arguing over data and this concludes the entire thing is a hoax? This means all scientists now automatically doubt climate change? I mean seriously now, I am suppose follow this line of thinking?

Especially when the funding they get for their research comes from...the government!

So your saying the 1000's of scientists are in on the global warming hoax with the government?? Damn this conspiracy goes right down to santa's play house you'd have me assume.

I don't care if they show warming or cooling

Exactly, you dont care about the facts. I'd show you the top 10 hottest days, all in the 20th/21st century, I'd show you the decrease in the northern polar ice caps by more that 50% over the last two decades, and you still would ignore it. You'd assume its some cycle, and turn the other way. No your right, you dont care about the facts. To you this is a liberal subject, damn the facts. Its like the Republicans ya know? Vote against anything Democrat. Its pathetic.