If the Climate Talks fails will you give a hoot?

mike65

Looks like Obama wasted his time flying in, he had nothing much to offer. The Third World are unhappy at the first and China/India. Its all been a damp squib so far and could be wound up this evening. Any last min deal will be so compromised by trying to please everyone it'll be worthless in terms of its main aims.

Does it matter and do you even care?

Dont be at yourself

Couldn't care less. Man-made climate change is a load of cobblers.

The_Minister

I think we won't do anything, and instead we should just limit ourselves to damage-limitation.

Cookie_Monster

I'm more worried about the level of deforestation than greenhouses gasses. I think its a bigger issue.

But to think we can continue to pump increasing levels of emmissions into the atmosphere without any effect is stupid.

I'm sure they thought CFC's did no harm when first invented and used.

the iceman come

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

Couldn't care less. Man-made climate change is a load of cobblers.

+ 1 , what we really should be concerned about is sun spot activity,which we can do sod all about anyway:) a mini ice age is a comin! cant wait to be able to skate on the liffey in August:P

mooman

No. The End.

CrazyRabbit

Doesn't matter what they agree too, they won't implement it fully. There's always loopholes, and the economy comes before the environment for most countries.

Caoimhín

Couldn't care less.

Xavi6

I need a poll to vote no in.

bladespin

As said already, there are bigger issues being ignored IMO.

VinnyTGM

Government's love making up crap about human's destroying the enviroment. It give's them a valid reason to tax the **** out of us.

Overheal

mike65 wrote: »

Looks like Obama wasted his time flying in, he had nothing much to offer. The Third World are unhappy at the first and China/India. Its all been a damp squib so far and could be wound up this evening. Any last min deal will be so compromised by trying to please everyone it'll be worthless in terms of its main aims.

Does it matter and do you even care?

THAT IS NOT TRUE

He didnt waste his time going out there: he was already in the neighborhood, receiving a Peace Prize he probably didnt earn.

So not a complete waste :pac:

NothingMan

Sure we'll be fine, it's the future that's fecked and the future fcuked your mother, so do you really wanna help the future?

Cookie_Monster

bladespin wrote: »

As said already, there are bigger issues being ignored IMO.

such as?

the only bigger issue IMO is over population but no country other than China is even doing anything about this

Mike Hock

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

Couldn't care less. Man-made climate change is a load of cobblers.

CO2 is a greehouse gas- fact.
CO2 levels are rising due to the burning of fossil fuels-fact.

Put 2 and 2 together you fucking retard.

Who cares what the end result is, to continue our path of changing the very composition of our atmosphere would be idiotic.

Wertz

Not really. If man made climate change is really happening and at the rates claimed, (which I believe it is) then no matter what a bunch of politicos decide in Denmark isn't going to make a jot of difference to teh outcome.
Personally I feel we are probably about 10-15 yrs past the tipping point and probably about 30-40 yrs past where any sort of positive impact could be made to industrial and domestic output of CO2 and related greenhouse gases.

The aside is that no matter what we as a species have done and will do re: atmospheric pollution, there is absolutely no doubt that the planet could dump all that CO2 and multiple times more into the troposphere in the morning and undo any piddling little change we could (but won't) make as a species. No-one that has gotten used to living with cheap energy, readily available food and clean water is going to make the changes necessary to make any difference, and noone watching them from afar in poorer countries is going to belay their desire to have those same utilities, no matter what you tell them might happen.

Seas will rise, food growing regions will have to be moved or changed to different staples, a lot of people will die or be forced to migrate to already over inhabited ares and lead to more problems (especially on coasts).

The climate chnage thing is only a small part of a wider problem: ocean pollution and the waste of resources is probably a much wider problem than a warmer planet (and they're all interconnected) but human over population is the big one that no-one wants to mention.
I'll be dead long before the sea is lapping at my front door, but I have no doubt that I'll suffer the consequences of food price increases and resource/fuel shortages in my lifetime. But on the positive side, my generation and the few either side of it have lived through some of the most fabulous times and seen things that toher humans in the past would have wondered at, so it's pointless complaining.
The earth and the animals/plants we haven't managed ot kill off will survive, perhaps 10% opf our current numbers will too. It's not really the end of the world is it?

Cookie_Monster

Wertz wrote: »

snip

Well said

ejmaztec

Mike Hock wrote: »

CO2 is a greehouse gas- fact.
CO2 levels are rising due to the burning of fossil fuels-fact.

Put 2 and 2 together you fucking retard.

Who cares what the end result is, to continue our path of changing the very composition of our atmosphere would be idiotic.

Not very well said

Mike 1972

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

Couldn't care less. Man-made climate change is a load of cobblers.

How are we on round earth theory ?

the iceman come wrote: »

+ 1 , what we really should be concerned about is sun spot activity,which we can do sod all about anyway:)

Does it go around the earth and why should we be concerned about something we can do sod all about

ejmaztec wrote: »

Not very well said

Yes putting "fact" at the end of sentances is kinda irritating

TheZohanS

Mike Hock wrote: »

CO2 is a greehouse gas- fact.
CO2 levels are rising due to the burning of fossil fuels-fact.

Put 2 and 2 together you fucking retard.

Who cares what the end result is, to continue our path of changing the very composition of our atmosphere would be idiotic.

Take a little break.

Kradock

I am not an owl

sink

I see the green movements slogans all over the place proclaiming save the Earth, save the environment, save the biosphere, etc. I believe they've got it all wrong. The earth will survive, the environment will change but survive, the biosphere will adapt to the changing environment given enough time. It is us humans the apex predators who are balanced at the very top of the food pyramid, reliant upon the biosphere and the environment to supply us with the essential requirements for our survival who will suffer the greatest downfall.

We depend so much on nature yet it depends so little on us. The true slogan of the environmental movement should read "save ourselves".

Cookie_Monster

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

such as?

the only bigger issue IMO is over population but no country other than China is even doing anything about this

and the West pretty much has that under control

syklops

I have to say its rather ironic that the UN summit on climate change(read global warming) is taking place during a cold spell. Snow has been forecast for Ireland, and where I am its -9 at the moment. Current temperature in Copenhagen is -2.

I am waiting for the first person to say that this cold spell is undeniable proof of the effects of climate change.

force eleven

Nope. All this man made climate change stuff has been politically and economically engineered for the last 30 years or more. The earth has had a changing climate for 4.5 billion years, and will continue to change.

All these buzzwords 'Climate Change' and before that it was 'Greenhouse effect','Global Warming' and then 'Ozone Depletion', are kept fed to the populace to make you feel guilty about causing problems in sub Saharan Africa or Asia, many of which are caused by the local political situations - i.e there aren't any political situations, just wars and feudal states which are entirly corrupt and unable to give their population anything like the basic levels of living that we have.

I don't doubt that putting large smoke belching industrial plants near big cities without any regulations are pretty sure not to have a good 'local' effect, i.e acid rain etc, which is a man made problem for sure.

Really, we need to conserve our oil and gas,coal supplies and look for alternatives because that is really the number one problem we are going to run into in the next 50 years, not a hypothetical 6 degree celcius rise in temperatures, which you will find as many scientists now disagreeing with as agree with.

SEPT 23 1989

It seems like this is the birth of a new religion

the iceman come

force eleven wrote: »

Nope. All this man made climate change stuff has been politically and economically engineered for the last 30 years or more. The earth has had a changing climate for 4.5 billion years, and will continue to change.

All these buzzwords 'Climate Change' and before that it was 'Greenhouse effect','Global Warming' and then 'Ozone Depletion', are kept fed to the populace to make you feel guilty about causing problems in sub Saharan Africa or Asia, many of which are caused by the local political situations - i.e there aren't any political situations, just wars and feudal states which are entirly corrupt and unable to give their population anything like the basic levels of living that we have.

I don't doubt that putting large smoke belching industrial plants near big cities without any regulations are pretty sure not to have a good 'local' effect, i.e acid rain etc, which is a man made problem for sure.

Really, we need to conserve our oil and gas,coal supplies and look for alternatives because that is really the number one problem we are going to run into in the next 50 years, not a hypothetical 6 degree celcius rise in temperatures, which you will find as many scientists now disagreeing with as agree with.

well put couldnt agree more.

Dont be at yourself

I have to say its rather ironic that the UN summit on climate change(read global warming) is taking place during a cold spell. Snow has been forecast for Ireland, and where I am its -9 at the moment. Current temperature in Copenhagen is -2.

I am waiting for the first person to say that this cold spell is undeniable proof of the effects of climate change.

It's okay, they cleverly re-branded global warming to climate change so they can cry doom hail, rain or shine.

seamus

This is pretty much an image tactic by various government who really don't care, really don't understand, but have to run with this "climate change" ball because their populations seem to care.

The fact that they are trying to agree on a "limit" to the amount of change (it was 2 degrees this morning) shows just how much they're pulling this crap out of their arse. Only a couple of years ago they were claiming that a 1 degree rise in the earth's temperature would be catastropic, now they're trying to agree on a "limit" to the amount of change - if it was even possible for them to enforce or control such a thing.

The wheels are coming off this whole "climate change" wagon. There's indisputable evidence that the climate of the earth is different to how it was 50 years ago, but the figures in relation to man-made activity are being rubbished right, left and centre, and there's a growing body of evidence and dissenting scientists to suggest that there's little to nothing we can do about this.

The climate changes all the time. It's uniquely human to assume that you have a bigger impact than you actually do. For all we know, a similar shift in climate took place between 2000BC and 1950BC.

oppenheimer1

Mike Hock wrote: »

CO2 is a greehouse gas- fact.
CO2 levels are rising due to the burning of fossil fuels-fact.

Put 2 and 2 together you fucking retard.

Who cares what the end result is, to continue our path of changing the very composition of our atmosphere would be idiotic.

Its not quite as simple as that. CO2 concentration is one of a multitude of factors that affect climate. Climate models are very complicated beasts with unbelieveable amounts of variables of which small perturbations can have dramatic effects. For example albido of earth and insolation are both major drivers of climate.


Climate change has always been happening and will continue to happen with or without human influence. The question is how much, not if human activity is driving the change. 35 years ago scientists were predicting global cooling, which incidentally would be far more destructive than global warming.

monkeypants

Nothings going to change anytime soon. Everyone loves the idea of being green until it becomes inconvenient.

DigiGal

Its all the retarded selfish opinions like the ones in this thread that caused the problem in the first place

syklops

DigiGal wrote: »

Its all the retarded selfish opinions like the ones in this thread that caused the problem in the first place

What?

mikom

DigiGal wrote: »

Its all the retarded selfish opinions like the ones in this thread that caused the problem in the first place

You make my pee-pee maker t-t-tingle

monkeypants

mikom wrote: »

You make my pee-pee maker t-t-tingle

Mike 1972

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Its not quite as simple as that. CO2 concentration is one of a multitude of factors that affect climate. Climate models are very complicated beasts with unbelieveable amounts of variables of which small perturbations can have dramatic effects. For example albido of earth and insolation are both major drivers of climate.
Climate change has always been happening and will continue to happen with or without human influence. .

Nobody has ever disputed any of that

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The question is how much, not if human activity is driving the change.

Exactly and the overwhelming majority of qualified scientists would agree the answer is "a hell of a lot"

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

35 years ago (some) scientists were predicting global cooling, which incidentally would be far more destructive than global warming.

500 years ago some scientists were predicting that producing Gold from Lead by chemical means was a feasable technology.

syklops

Exactly and the overwhelming majority of qualified scientists would agree the answer is "a hell of a lot"

Is it the majority though?

hooradiation

syklops wrote: »

Is it the majority though?

Yes.

I actually really am thankful that this thread exists. It's a handy shortlist of people who's opinions i now consider to be be totally worthless.

People will believe absolutely anything for the flimsiest of reasons EXCEPT for the rigorous and peer reviewed science. The arrogance is fucking astounding.

utick

with a little luck hopefully the climate talks will succesfully fail.
how can anyone take these guys seriously preaching to us about carbon emmissions when thousands of limos had to be ordered into copenhagan to take care of these hypocrytes, if they dont even believe their own bs why should i believe it

terenc

VinnyTGM wrote: »

Government's love making up crap about human's destroying the enviroment. It give's them a valid reason to tax the **** out of us.

Yep and this government is going to tax us a lot more using the green issue and then when the next election comes along the greens are going down the tube. Fianne Fail must be overjoyed to have the greens in government with them.This government has done immense damage to the creditability of the greens.
SUCKERS

syklops

hooradiation wrote: »

Yes.

I actually really am thankful that this thread exists. It's a handy shortlist of people who's opinions i now consider to be be totally worthless.

People will believe absolutely anything for the flimsiest of reasons EXCEPT for the rigorous and peer reviewed science. The arrogance is fucking astounding.

Arrogance?

I asked a simple question in the name of debate.

This is the second time I have been at the end of hostility on this thread and its getting annoying.

Bob_Harris

I am actively hoping for a failure.

When will we get the news of an outcome?

hooradiation

syklops wrote: »

Arrogance?

yes. I can't think of another word that best describes the actions a McExpert, armed with some youtube videos and a scant skimming of wikipedia who thinks they can contradict the hard evidence that has been collected over the many years.

I don't know if you count as one of these, but there are enough of them on this thread already.

They wouldn't know the scientific method if it jumped up and poured acid in their eyes.

utick

hooradiation wrote: »

They wouldn't know the scientific method if it jumped up and poured acid in their eyes.

sounds like you are talking about al gore

Wertz

utick wrote: »

with a little luck hopefully the climate talks will succesfully fail.
how can anyone take these guys seriously preaching to us about carbon emmissions when thousands of limos had to be ordered into copenhagan to take care of these hypocrytes, if they dont even believe their own bs why should i believe it

I agree with this viewpoint; far more good would have been served to the planet (in terms of CO2 output) had these thousands of important people and the rent-a-mob climate protestors all stayed the f*ck at home and had a big video conferencing session or a private web forum to discuss the issues.

It's not that they don't believe the "BS", they see themselves the way all of the rest of us do; small drops in a large ocean WRT to our combined affect on the world around us.
Governments and political organisations using climate change to determine new streams of revenue as deterrents to carbon output can only be seen in a cynical light, no matter how much you believe or don't believe the "BS". Where does any of these new taxes get spent (including our own new carbon tax)?
If all this money was being salted away to use for coastal protection schemes, resettlement of at-risk populations, realistic development of alternative energy and resource strategy then great; it's something we should all be paying...but I think what most people perceive is that it's just another way to feather political nests and line the pockets of green businesses.


BTW someone mentioned ozone depletion in relation to climate change/global warming. Try to be relevant, k thnx. The two problems are mutually exclusive and if anything the continuing success of anti-CFC policy should serve as a reminder that we do have a tangible effect on certain planetary systems and that we can have a positive influence....however as I stated in my other post, as reagrds carboin dioxide influenced warming we're already past the point of no return (despite what your local thermometer might say) and all the cuts in emmissions being sought are mere stable doors being bolted long after the glue is almost set.

syklops

hooradiation wrote: »

yes. I can't think of another word that best describes the actions a McExpert, armed with some youtube videos and a scant skimming of wikipedia who thinks they can contradict the hard evidence that has been collected over the many years.

I don't know if you count as one of these, but there are enough of them on this thread already.

They wouldn't know the scientific method if it jumped up and poured acid in their eyes.

I would not call myself a McExpert as you put it. I have read data from both sides of the climate change debate and would be the first to admit I do not know everything, I just like to ask questions. Surely that is the very basis of the scientific method and peer review. Admitting you dont have all the answers.

Now I am sorry if my questions offend you in some way, but I really do not think I come across as arrogant.

As for whose opinion you now think is worthless well thats your own business.

hooradiation

utick wrote: »

sounds like you are talking about al gore

Wow, good thing Al Gore isn't an actual scientist, otherwise you might have said something salient.

A swing and a miss. Typical.

utick

hooradiation wrote: »

Wow, good thing Al Gore isn't an actual scientist, otherwise you might have said something salient.

A swing and a miss. Typical.

uuh, thats exactly my point, he preaches like he knows everything about the science of global warming when hes not even a scientist.

so not 'a swing and a miss' as you say

Mike 1972

Wertz wrote: »

BTW someone mentioned ozone depletion in relation to climate change/global warming. Try to be relevant, k thnx. The two problems are mutually exclusive

Not completly

CFC's (and HCFC's) are pretty potent greenhouse gasses.

Wertz

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Not completly

CFC's (and HCFC's) are pretty potent greenhouse gasses.

Yes, but the tonnage output pales in significance alongside the better known ones. Anyway the point was that ozone depletion has little relevance to rising temperatures and that the initial ban on CFCs was primarily down to ozone damage not the greenhouse effect...to bring up the CFC ban as "evidence" of past conspiratorial political agendas regarding environmental issues is a cheap, and not very accurate, shot, IMO.

Bob_Harris

Albert Einstein wrote:

No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.

There are plenty of statistics, trends and data which go against the theory of man made climate change.